|
So, as the title says i've had a few disagreements with my local VC about rules. I don't want to be a jerk, but i'm pretty sure he's quoting a couple rules that don't exist (or were removed from earlier printings/editions). I know he has veto on things that are foggy, which i'm fine with (our ideas of common sense are at odds too, but i can live with that) but i'm more interested in him being straight up wrong and then dropping the "VC's word" hammer so i can't debate it anymore.
all i can think of doing is asking him to show me the exact passages he's quoting (which we rarely have time for) or setting an offering to convene a coven of other VC's or Paizo employees (which i've heard is rather hard to do).
what's the most tactful way to approach this?
Out of interest, what are the rules you think he is using incorrectly? I don't think you are doing him a disservice by telling us.
As for your problem, it's a difficult one. Some people just do not react well to confrontation when they are in a position of power. I would first start by deciding whether these rules matter enough to you that you are willing to risk ruining your relationship with this VC. After that I would probably:
A) tell him calmly that these rules are causing you grief and you would very much like a clarification using the book after the session. Remind him (gently) he has a duty to uphold the RAW as a PFS GM and you are just trying to help him keep on top of things, not challenging him in any way.
B) If this doesn't work, you'll have to escalate. If there are other VC's/VO's in the area you may be able to convince him to actually confront the issue via peer pressure -- assuming you are right, of course. If he is willfully failing to apply the rules after your best efforts, you should lodge an official complaint. Be very sure it is serious enough to elicit this response before you do it, or YOU will be the one getting reprimanded.
If this doesn't work (and it likely won't), you may have to just stop playing with him. If he gets a bad enough reputation due to poor rules interpretations there may be enough force for change --- otherwise, you're out of luck. Sadly, PFS suffers from some cult of personality issues in some areas, where one specific VC's rule is law. Tabletop games often suffer from this so it isn't a PFS specific thing... but there's no real solution other than to just not play with that group anymore.
|
|
by veto i mean "that's the ruling and all the GM's here are going to have to play it that way here" if these weren't build-vital i'd let it go.
the rules specifically are two cases regarding shields and the warpriest's AC bonus stacking with the Monk's.
The AC bonus thing i can wait for an errata/FAQ as i haven't made this character yet, but he say's that you can't add a stat to anything twice (but i can't find that rule anywhere).
he also stated that shield bash is a combat maneuver, and that to use it as a regular attack incurs a -2 penalty (which is what he says shield master negates, and nothing else). but i can't find that anywhere. This matters a little more because myself and a friend think shield-bash rangers are hilarious (but they don't come online until level 6, which we just hit).
Venture-Agent, Minnesota—Minneapolis
|
what's the most tactful way to approach this?
Ask to be shown where in the books the rule is, so that when it comes up in play you know where to find it.
Don't argue with them about interpretations. If it is a grey area in the rules, just take their interpretation. If there is a specific FAQ that you think applies, ask them if they had seen that FAQ.
Try your best not to be confrontational -- just look for clarification not justification.
|
|
AH, that's nice. my FAQ-fu is weak, and that's totally ok (i just wanted to know where that was stated). the shield thing was what's really had me scratching my head, both where the -2 to attacks (not counting TWF) is coming from, and how "You do not suffer any penalties on attack rolls made with a shield" doesn't get rid of penalties for being prone, TWF, power attack, or anything that's specifically called a penalty.
|
Shield Master is obviously intended to work with TWF and to mitigate TWF penalties. It would not negate Power Attack, prone condition, etc. If you want to argue that RAW means it negates ALL penalties, you have a long and lonely road and would need to consult the rules forum or ask for a FAQ.
I have a L11 Dimensional Assault Horizon Walker Shield Basher and I never interpreted Shield Master to exempt me from to hit penalties. As it is, double dipping on the shield enchantments is OP as it is.
|
|
The Shield Master feat, which L6 rangers can get early: "Add your shield’s enhancement bonus to attack and damage rolls made with the shield as if it were a weapon enhancement bonus."
Weapon Bonus / Base Price
+1 / 2,000
+2 / 8,000
+3 / 18,000
+4 / 32,000
+5 / 50,000
Armor / Base Price
+1 1,000
+2 4,000
+3 9,000
+4 16,000
+5 25,000
For 25K, you have a +5 Defensive Item and a +5 Offensive item, which would normally set you back 75K for both. You're double dipping on the much cheaper armor cost.
The GP you save goes into pumping your character in other ways--stat boosters, save boosters, etc.
|
The VC may be thinking that you have a non-proficiency penalty to attack with the shield.
I think there is something funky with one of the brawler archetypes that gives you either the shield proficiency or the melee proficiency with shield but not both. Threw a lot of folks for a loop.
But because Shields show up on the weapon chart under martial weapons, if you have martial weapon proficiencies, you know how to use shields as weapons. But if you do not have a shield proficiency, you may only know how to use a shield as a weapon, and not as a shield.
|
|
the brawler thing would matter if it was a brawler, but we're using rangers. he also said you can't make more than one attack with a shield a turn without taking a -2 because it isn't a weapon, but i have no idea where that is written, if at all
It isn't written anywhere. Again, he may be thinking they aren't a weapon. And the -2 would be for an improvised weapon. But they are listed on the chart for Martial Weapons and thus are considered weapons in every sense of the word. You can enchant your shield as both a weapon and a shield.
The bit about not being able to attack more than once without taking a -2 isn't even part of the 3.0/3.5/PF game system unless you are two-weapon fighting.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
AH, that's nice. my FAQ-fu is weak, and that's totally ok (i just wanted to know where that was stated). the shield thing was what's really had me scratching my head, both where the -2 to attacks (not counting TWF) is coming from, and how "You do not suffer any penalties on attack rolls made with a shield" doesn't get rid of penalties for being prone, TWF, power attack, or anything that's specifically called a penalty.
I don't know how it works if a VC and a DM disagree on an obscure rule. We're an autonomous collective down here.
But your VC is right. Your VC is very, very right on both accounts. One was explicitly spelled out as an FAQ , the other is closing an obvious loophole in a badly worded ability according to the clear intent of the rules. If you try to ride the bleeding edge of rules interpretation expect to get nicked on occasion.
The feat does not do nothing. If your shield is LIGHT With two weapon fighting you would have a -2 -2 on your attacks. Or -2 with your weapon and -0 with your shield. If your shield is not light it would be -4 -4 without the feat and -4 -0 with it. That's the penalty its talking about.
So step 1: Get thee to the rules forum and get your ducks in a row.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Step 1: Know how the rule works.
Step 2: Find and bookmark rule citations.
Step 3: Before next game say to GM "my shield bash works this way, do you agree?"
Step 4: If "Yes" End. If "No" then "here are my rules citations, can you show me the rules that contradict this?"
Step 5: If the GM refuses to allow it, politely tell GM you are going to approach the VC. Repeat steps 3 and 4 with VC.
Step 6: If VC gives relatively clean rules argument, post in Paizo.com rules forum. You won't get a developer response but hopefully someone will give you a clean and clear step-by-step rules answer. If the VC says "because I said so" send an e-mail to Mike Brock.
There is no "I need an official clarification" process other than the FAQ on Paizo.com. The volume would simply be too high.
Remember that VCs are good organizers, not necessarily rules experts. One of the funnest VCs I have played with is terrible at rules but is more than willing to listen to your explanations.
|
|
What is this?I would rule that while poorly worded, Shield master is designed to remove the off-hand attack penalty for shield bashing. It does not negate the two-weapon fighting penalty of -2, nor does it negate the power attack, prone, etc. penalties. It's a good enough feat as it is.
The context is "while two-weapon-fighting with a shield in the off-hand". That is, -2 for a light shield and -4 for a heavy shield (and much worse if you managed to skip the two-weapon-fighting prerequisite).
|
|
Yeah, uh, note that the question was about a post that said it removes the off-hand penalty but not the TWF penalty.The context is "while two-weapon-fighting with a shield in the off-hand". That is, -2 for a light shield and -4 for a heavy shield.What is this?I would rule that while poorly worded, Shield master is designed to remove the off-hand attack penalty for shield bashing. It does not negate the two-weapon fighting penalty of -2, nor does it negate the power attack, prone, etc. penalties. It's a good enough feat as it is.
^^This...the only penalty I know of for an off-hand attack is when TWF, so am honestly curious what he means.
|
|
Yeah, uh, note that the question was about a post that said it removes the off-hand penalty but not the TWF penalty.The context is "while two-weapon-fighting with a shield in the off-hand". That is, -2 for a light shield and -4 for a heavy shield.What is this?I would rule that while poorly worded, Shield master is designed to remove the off-hand attack penalty for shield bashing. It does not negate the two-weapon fighting penalty of -2, nor does it negate the power attack, prone, etc. penalties. It's a good enough feat as it is.
Oh dear. Yeah, there's no such thing as an off-hand penalty that isn't a TWF penalty.
|
|
Oh dear. Yeah, there's no such thing as an off-hand penalty that isn't a TWF penalty.Yeah, uh, note that the question was about a post that said it removes the off-hand penalty but not the TWF penalty.The context is "while two-weapon-fighting with a shield in the off-hand". That is, -2 for a light shield and -4 for a heavy shield.What is this?I would rule that while poorly worded, Shield master is designed to remove the off-hand attack penalty for shield bashing. It does not negate the two-weapon fighting penalty of -2, nor does it negate the power attack, prone, etc. penalties. It's a good enough feat as it is.
That was my understanding as well...