He's behind you!
Oh no he isn't!
Oh yes he is!
Oh no he isn't!
Ooh I love pantomime!
Just because you are sure doesn't mean you are right BBT.
Good suggestion Torbyne and agreed Bradley Mickle, nothing is for free. Part of the joys of role playing are the trade-offs you have to make to get a character you want to play. Otherwise it's too much like entering "God Mode!" in the console.
At this point it's moving away from "FAQ" and into "errata". To be honest, the whole "Hands of Effort unwritten rule" should be revisited.Perhaps a better FAQ question for this instance would be:
"When using the TWF rules to gain additional attacks does that require a character to forgo their shield AC bonus regardless of what limbs are used in the TWF attacks?"
It doesnt clear up the whole issue but seems to be more in line with the original post.
I disagree. A clarification of intent is what is needed here.
i suppose their intent of late can be summarized as "martials can't have nice things", the current team is very different from when the hands thing was made.
I disagree. A clarification of intent is what is needed here.
Intent does not affect how the rules are written. The combo is allowed, cut and dry. They may have not wanted this result but they need to change the rules text (errata) instead of how to interpret the english language (FAQ)
Otherwise it's too much like entering "God Mode!" in the console.
Haha, I fail to see how this is "god mode."
So, this is a giant cluster of f's, huh. Read through the whole thread. There seems to be two lines of thought, and while I can see both sides, I believe only one to be correct.
Side 1 essentially says:
The FAQ states you can't armor spikes and two hand at the same time, because you're already using two hands for the two handed weapon. Therefore since you're using one hand to hold a shield, and the other to attack, you have no more "hands" left and thus cannot two weapon fight.
Side 2 essentially says:
The FAQ talks about wielding, not holding. It is meant to apply to attacking only, anything else you use your hands for is irrelevant.
I'll just start by saying the FAQ is super poorly written, and leaves room fir a lot of stupid ambiguity for cases like this. It should just state "you get two hands worth of effort when attacking" and be done with it.
That being said, interpretation 2 is the only one that's consistent with the rules. If I'm holding something in both my hands, thus using two "hands" worth of effort, can I still attack? Yes, just look at the monk
At 1st level, a monk gains Improved Unarmed Strike as a bonus feat. A monk's attacks may be with fist, elbows, knees, and feet. This means that a monk may make unarmed strikes with his hands full. There is no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed.
Note the bold. It's not a new rule. It means, meaning a logical extension of the current rules. This clearly indicates simply using a hand for something does not preclude attacking. A monk holding a scroll in each hand can still kick you. Since interpretation one depends on a reading of a hand being in use excluding an attack, this does not mesh with the current rules, and thus must be wrong.
Now, you might say you get no in combat benefit from holding a scroll, and thus the hand isn't being used. At that point, however, you're making up text that isn't there. You're using the hand to hold something, period. Nowhere does it say on the FAQ a benefit has to be had for a hand to be used. You're assuming it. Not to mention having an item at hand ready to be used at a moments notice, this precluding the action to take it out on a later turn, is a benefit.
That being said, hit the stupid FAQ button. Maybe they'll update the FAQ on armor spikes so it doesn't suck.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe they'll update the FAQ on armor spikes so it doesn't suck.
How naive
I disagree. A clarification of intent is what is needed here.Intent does not affect how the rules are written. The combo is allowed, cut and dry. They may have not wanted this result but they need to change the rules text (errata) instead of how to interpret the english language (FAQ)
Intent does matter.
Reliance on strict RAW is an inherently flawed approach.
According to strict reading of RAW a dead character can still move and fight.
Pathfinder Forums: The only place on earth where people can read "you lose your AC bonus when you attack with a shield" and assume that involves anything but attacking with the shield.
Right, because those same people on the forums read that since armor spikes don't use hands, they can TWF with Armor Spikes and a Greatsword. Yet somehow, the FAQ says that their hands that they are not using are in fact used up.
The official rules have broken their own logic so many times that it is impossible to know for sure if you are right about any given rules interpretation anymore.
Intent does matter.
Reliance on strict RAW is an inherently flawed approach.
According to strict reading of RAW a dead character can still move and fight.
But this has no bearing to a FAQ. A FAQ clarifies how the rules ARE in case of ambiguity in the language, not how the developers wished it to be despite the actual end result.
Example: an alchemist with a third arm can use a greatsword and keep the shield bonus. It was not intended, but the definitive interpretation of the rules is that is allowed.
If they want to change this result they have to change how the rules are written and thus becomes an Errata instead of a FAQ.
A FAQ clarifies what is RAW in case of ambiguous text. But to make a thing work RAI when RAW is different you have to change what is written thus Errata as future printings of the document will reflect the change in rules.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Pathfinder Forums: The only place on earth where people can read "you lose your AC bonus when you attack with a shield" and assume that involves anything but attacking with the shield.
Although you and I are likely in agreement about keeping the Shield Bonus to AC, I think the unwritten rules about "handedness", "hands of effort", or "hands of utility" need to finally be written down somewhere (and preferably in a Blog-style FAQ).
|
Obviously they need to turn the unwritten rule into a written one. I don't think anyone disagrees with that.
But it's pretty cut and dry in this case: when you are trying to duct tape one argument (2H + Armor Spikes TWF) to another (losing shield AC when you didn't attack with your shield), when they have almost nothing in common you're just throwing stuff at the wall and hoping it sticks.
Intent has no bearing on an FAQ???
RAI has NO bearing on an FAQ???
Riiiiiiight. And I have some ocean front property in the Gobi for sale cheap.
Look, I have neither the patience nor the time to engage in debate about the difference between your opinion and mine.
Lets just agree to disagree.
Any who would like this clarified, please hit the FAQ button.
Intent has no bearing on an FAQ???
RAI has NO bearing on an FAQ???
Riiiiiiight. And I have some ocean front property in the Gobi for sale cheap.
Look, I have neither the patience nor the time to engage in debate about the difference between your opinion and mine.
Lets just agree to disagree.
Any who would like this clarified, please hit the FAQ button.
Yes, because if they intended for weapon focus to give a +2 or power attack to be -2 they can't just FAQ that, as the rule is clear, they'd need to errata it, which they sometimes do when they answer a FAQ.
Example: Mithral could be interpreted differently based on what counted as a limitation. Courageous had no ambiguity and needed a text change to make it work as "intended" which is why it also is an errata. So Intent isn't a factor in an answer if the meaning is clear in the text even if not intended unless they are going to change the text.
Intent has no bearing on an FAQ???
RAI has NO bearing on an FAQ???
Riiiiiiight. And I have some ocean front property in the Gobi for sale cheap.
Look, I have neither the patience nor the time to engage in debate about the difference between your opinion and mine.
Lets just agree to disagree.
Yes we disagree because I'm right and you're wrong as you don't seem to understand the difference between a FAQ and an Errata.
Don't bring opinions into this as we're speaking of what a term means, and these are facts.
Intent has no bearing on an FAQ???
RAI has NO bearing on an FAQ???
Riiiiiiight. And I have some ocean front property in the Gobi for sale cheap.
Look, I have neither the patience nor the time to engage in debate about the difference between your opinion and mine.
Lets just agree to disagree.
Any who would like this clarified, please hit the FAQ button.
Arguing RAI is the worst of all possible ways to argue a rule, as it assumes some sort of magical insight into the minds of the developers. That's why you'll find so many people so dismissive of it. It is literally impossible to argue the correctness of a RAI interpretation without a direct developer source.
That's why I don't like those splat book weapons and don't use them or allow them in games I run.
You know we're talking about the advanced race guide? The one with several non-hand weapons. A hard cover. You count that as a 'splat book'? You are playing a MUCH different game than I then.
Intent has no bearing on an FAQ???
RAI has NO bearing on an FAQ???
None. Not even a little. Rules questions are about the actual rules. You're looking for a blog post is you want to know about intent.
It is literally impossible to argue the correctness of a RAI interpretation without a direct developer source.
Add to that the fact that even with quotes, it may be an off the cuff remark, may not align with the team as a whole or may not be the CURRENT thinking (several FAQ have been reversed/altered/added to). It's a fools errand to guess the thinking of another person let alone a group.
Intent DOES matter. The designers, such as SRK's post that was linked in the very opening question, discusses the intent of a rule. It is very difficult sometimes to discern it, and often open to interpretation of opinion. I personally will deny shield bonus to anyone using this at any PFS tables I run.
Intent does matter but not for a FAQ if it is incompatible with the wording of the actual written rule. In that case the written rule needs to be changed with an Errata.
Also reading PFS DMs that explicitly show intent of going against rules is saddening.
SKR left, can we still attribute his intent with that of the team's, I wonder?
You're going to have to find the FAQ that specifically states that an alchemist that has a Vestigial Arm gets shield AC, because the only thing I could find was a comment by SKR that that's an interpretation on it.
And you know what? if they specifically call it out as an EXCEPTION to the standard rules, I'm perfectly fine with that. It's a vestigial arm, a class feature, it's fairly strong, so, yeah.
What it also could be seen as is a variant Quick Draw, allowing you to switch between things held in the 3rd arm and the real arm in combat. Which, since it doesn't let you generate additional attacks with it, is probably closer to the actual interpretation.
So, there's nothing I could find in the FAQ that states you get Shield AC with a 3rd arm. Someone link to that FAQ ruling for me, please! Perhaps my Search-Fu is not good enough.
===============
The one side is ruling this:
You always get your Shield AC as soon as a shield is donned/held. The rules on Shield Bashing and Bucklers are EXCEPTIONS to this rule.
My side is ruling:
Your Shield is an off-hand weapon and item, and if you are using an off-hand for any other purpose other then getting Shield AC, you don't get the Shield AC. If you are holding onto a shield, but unable to wield it properly (i.e. unlike a weapon), you are simply carrying the shield, not using it.
The rules on Shield Bashes and Bucklers are VERIFICATIONS of this standard rule. Improved Shield Bash is a clearly delineated EXCEPTION to this rule (and tightly controlled, too). It clearly shows that if you want to use an off-hand attack, it must be specifically called out.)
=======================================
First example completely subverts the game as it stands.
I'll 'Don' my shield on my back! Shield AC!
I'll don a shield on my legs! Shield AC!
I'll strap my shield on my BP! It's donned! Shield AC!
Why? Because there's no difference called out between carrying, donning and wielding, so all you basically have to do is have your shield on you, because the rules don't say otherwise.
Indeed, the idea you have to have a shield equipped and ready is meaningless, because you can simply be carrying one.
It adds a phantom line to UA and armor Spikes, "YOu get to keep your Shield AC when using these weapons, because they don't need to use your Shield ARm when attacking."
It's three-hand munchkinism.
It means getting a Quick Draw shield is stupid. I'll just don my shield on my back or some other unconventional method.
It completely subverts the idea of needing to get Shield AC OR making an off-hand attack, which is transparently obvious in the rules.
This argument is over 10 years old, and goes against RAW and RAI.
The whole "I can carry a shield and kick instead" just makes me roll my eyes. UA is using the whole body to attack with whatever is best at the moment. You're basically saying you're going to use ROLE PLAY exclamations to subvert the rules, and in the process say "All my UA attacks are kick attacks, just so I can keep Shield AC", which means abruptly your UA attacks are now not using all parts of your body...so where's your penalty?
Likewise, proper armor spikes include the arms and limbs. "Oh, I'm going to use Armor spikes that aren't on my arms and attack with all the rest." Which now redefines armor spikes for your benefit to a partial-armor attack, with no penalty.
"I can use UA with my hands full" is not the same thing as saying "I can use my UA to kick with both my hands carrying +5 Defender knives for AC and getting the full benefit of both!", yet that's what you're trying to claim while using that argument to get Shield AC.
The Vestigial Arm as written in the class guide has no specific instruction that lets you get Shield AC by equipping one there, but it DOES have instructions not letting you get additional attacks out of it. It's treated like any other appendage, not an additional source of activity.
I'm sorry, but unless you are wielding a shield actively for defense, you don't get the benefit. It's very clearly a prime or off-hand item, a weapon, and the only way you get around making the choice for Shield AC or shield (or weapon) damage is to have a feat or special ability that says otherwise.
Total munchkinism and rules lawyery language interpretation to even think otherwise. And 100% not RAI.
The leaps of logic in Aelryinth's posts are more egregious every time.
RULE: You lose you shield bonus to AC if you shield bash.
"Oh you lose your AC bonus because you have a shield but I'm applying maybe the Buckler rules or because I'm really feeling it to screw you over for using you feet lulz"
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've still have yet to see any rule or FAQ that even implies you lose your shield bonus because you made an attack that doesn't involve your shield hand.
Considering you can TWF with your shield and not lose your shield bonus (at the cost of a feat), I don't see how this can be considered overpowered.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've still have yet to see any rule or FAQ that even implies you lose your shield bonus because you made an attack that doesn't involve your shield hand.
Considering you can TWF with your shield and not lose your shield bonus (at the cost of a feat), I don't see how this can be considered overpowered.
Didn't you get the memo? Anything that deviates from the norm is rotten cheese by default.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm sooo going to equip the new leg shield! That way I can avoid ending my adventuring career from pesky arrows in the knees.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Intent DOES matter. The designers, such as SRK's post that was linked in the very opening question, discusses the intent of a rule. It is very difficult sometimes to discern it, and often open to interpretation of opinion. I personally will deny shield bonus to anyone using this at any PFS tables I run.
On what grounds? PFS encourages GMs to hew closely to RAW, and you are saying you will do the opposite.
I have to wonder if Aelryinth really believes in his position or if this is just his way of attacking the armor spikes FAQ.
I don't think above in this thread (*other* than Aelrynth) has said anything about getting shield AC without it occupying a (literal, non-metaphorical) hand. The first line of the shield entries in the armor section of the CRB is "you strap a shield to your forearm and grip it with your hand." No one arguing from the RAW is contradicting this.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Intent DOES matter. The designers, such as SRK's post that was linked in the very opening question, discusses the intent of a rule. It is very difficult sometimes to discern it, and often open to interpretation of opinion. I personally will deny shield bonus to anyone using this at any PFS tables I run.On what grounds? PFS encourages GMs to hew closely to RAW, and you are saying you will do the opposite.
On the grounds of imaginary rules as anyone with basic understanding of logic can see.
The rules clearly state in what instance the shield bonus does not apply: when shield bashing. And it ends here.
Intent DOES matter. The designers, such as SRK's post that was linked in the very opening question, discusses the intent of a rule. It is very difficult sometimes to discern it, and often open to interpretation of opinion. I personally will deny shield bonus to anyone using this at any PFS tables I run.
At that point you will be DMing based on your perceived intent rather than actual RAW. Your perception of intent is irrelevent. Save that junk for your home games, that's not what PFS is for.
|
Pathfinder Forums: The only place on earth where people can read "you lose your AC bonus when you attack with a shield" and assume that involves anything but attacking with the shield.Although you and I are likely in agreement about keeping the Shield Bonus to AC, I think the unwritten rules about "handedness", "hands of effort", or "hands of utility" need to finally be written down somewhere (and preferably in a Blog-style FAQ).
+1
This is why everyone needs to click the FAQ button on this thread.
|
|
Intent DOES matter. The designers, such as SRK's post that was linked in the very opening question, discusses the intent of a rule. It is very difficult sometimes to discern it, and often open to interpretation of opinion. I personally will deny shield bonus to anyone using this at any PFS tables I run.At that point you will be DMing based on your perceived intent rather than actual RAW. Your perception of intent is irrelevent. Save that junk for your home games, that's not what PFS is for.
Umm... Actually you are typically allowed to use Intent in PFS rulings. Mike Brock has made it clear that he expects PFS GMs to use their judgement. In fact, on past occasions where people proved unable to accept Intent, and insisted on using RAW because it was more beneficial, even though it clearly violated intent, Mike Brock has removed the problem by removing the rule entirely. (See Pagent of the Pheonix.)
In general, if there are two interpretations, and the GM has a firm belief that one is correct, and they apply it consistently, to both the players and the npcs, they have generally been supported.
So the best way to get a ruling saying that shields do not work with two weapon fighting in PFS, is probably to continue taking the attitude you are taking up above.
Pathfinder Forums: The only place on earth where people can read "you lose your AC bonus when you attack with a shield" and assume that involves anything but attacking with the shield.Although you and I are likely in agreement about keeping the Shield Bonus to AC, I think the unwritten rules about "handedness", "hands of effort", or "hands of utility" need to finally be written down somewhere (and preferably in a Blog-style FAQ).+1
This is why everyone needs to click the FAQ button on this thread.
While I'd love to see that "Blog-style FAQ", I don't see how hitting THIS FAQ button would do that. This is one of those "no response needed" FAQ requests. I see NOTHING ambiguous in this. it's more about some people's 'cheese' radar going off than actual rules.
Now is someone makes a FAQ request that actually addresses "the unwritten rules about "handedness", "hands of effort", or "hands of utility"", I'll be in the front of the line to hit the button.
PS: What the heck is an "off-hand item" that Aelryinth mentions in his 'rules'. I'll need someone to tell me where this 'rule' is.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Alright so the Rules as Written for ALL SHIELDS (bold = emphasis mine):
Strapping a shield to your arm to gain its shield bonus to your AC, or unstrapping and dropping a shield so you can use your shield hand for another purpose, requires a move action.
Conclusion as Written:
As long as a shield is strapped to your shield arm, you gain the shield's bonus to AC.Shield, Heavy or Light: You can bash with a shield instead of using it for defense.
Refined Conclusion as Written:
As long as a shield is strapped to your shield arm, and you are using the SHIELD for defense, you gain the shield's bonus to AC.-----
Rules as Written for LIGHT/HEAVY SHIELDS (bold = emphasis mine):
Shield, Heavy or Light: You can bash with a shield instead of using it for defense.
Conclusion as Written:
You can use a shield beyond just defending. You can also bash with it.You can bash an opponent with a light shield. See “shield, light” on Table: Weapons for the damage dealt by a shield bash. Used this way, a light shield is a martial bludgeoning weapon. For the purpose of penalties on attack rolls, treat a light shield as a light weapon. If you use your shield as a weapon, you lose its AC bonus until your next turn. An enhancement bonus on a shield does not improve the effectiveness of a shield bash made with it, but the shield can be made into a magic weapon in its own right.
Refined Conclusion as Written:
Using your shield as a weapon (read "for offense"), causes you to lose its AC bonus until your next turn.So far, the only other thing that prevents you from adding a shield's bonus to AC, aside from not having it strapped to your arm and not using the strapped shield for defense, is using the shield as a weapon.
----
THE EXCEPTION TO THIS RULE:
When you perform a shield bash (read "using a shield as a weapon"), you may still apply the shield's shield bonus to your AC.
----
No other written rule in the entire Pathfinder series of core rulebooks states another condition for when you lose your shield bonus to AC from a light/heavy shield (aside from being the target of a touch attack).
----
Bucklers and Tower Shields are really no different. If you aren't using the SHIELD for defense, then you don't gain its shield bonus to AC, even if it is strapped to your shield arm. And it is specifically stated that neither a buckler nor a tower shield can be used to shield bash, aka "as a weapon".
----
Nowhere in the Two-Weapon Fighting rules does it say anything about losing your shield bonus to AC, as long as you continue to use it for defense and not as a weapon (at which point it is treated as a one-handed weapon).
----
In conclusion, the Rules As Written for when your shield bonus DOES NOT apply to AC:
When the shield IS NOT strapped to your arm.
When the strapped shield IS NOT being used for defense.
When the strapped shield IS being used as a weapon WITHOUT the Improved Shield Bash feat.
----
It really is pretty straight forward, by RAW.
So what I can rule from RAW is that you can attack with your longsword and then your armor spike (assuming proficiency and that you are Two-Weapon Fighting), with a -4 penalty to your primary attack, and a -8 to your off-hand attack (because an armor spike is treated as a light weapon; -2/-2 if you have TWF feat; and assuming you aren't making iterative attacks with either), AND retain your light/heavy shield's bonus to your AC, because you are still using the shield for defense, and not as a weapon, in this scenario.
I believe many people share this same ruling.
Shield NOT being used for DEFENSE = No Shield Bonus to AC
Shield IS being used for DEFENSE = Shield Bonus to AC
Also people crying for munchkinism like to pretend that those "three" arms are equipped with magical gear for free
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is why everyone needs to click the FAQ button on this thread.While I'd love to see that "Blog-style FAQ", I don't see how hitting THIS FAQ button would do that. This is one of those "no response needed" FAQ requests. I see NOTHING ambiguous in this. it's more about some people's 'cheese' radar going off than actual rules.
Now is someone makes a FAQ request that actually addresses "the unwritten rules about "handedness", "hands of effort", or "hands of utility"", I'll be in the front of the line to hit the button.
PS: What the heck is an "off-hand item" that Aelryinth mentions in his 'rules'. I'll need someone to tell me where this 'rule' is.
The problem is that there are no rules one way or another in the book. There is a collection of items that specifically say that they specifically allow you to two weapon fight with a shield. This leaves open whether these items are special, or whether all other similar items share the same characteristic.
There is a handful of forum posts that never actually manage to clarify anything beyond specific answers to specific situations, and which every one reads differently.
And there is an echo chamber effect that each group on each side keeps feeding back on itself such that they are unable to consider the other sides position or compromise.
I don't know if Paizo is tracking any sort of aggregate beyond the each threads specific FAQ count, but the recent blog faqs seem to indicate that questions that come up over and over again in different ways, and get faqqed each time get broader clarifications.
So my hope is that if we consistently FAQ these threads and the grapple threads, we will finally get clarification blogs on both of those.
Alright so the Rules as Written for ALL SHIELDS (bold = emphasis mine):
Strapping a shield to your arm to gain its shield bonus to your AC, or unstrapping and dropping a shield so you can use your shield hand for another purpose, requires a move action.Conclusion as Written:
As long as a shield is strapped to your shield arm, you gain the shield's bonus to AC.Shield, Heavy or Light: You can bash with a shield instead of using it for defense.Refined Conclusion as Written:
As long as a shield is strapped to your shield arm, and you are using the SHIELD for defense, you gain the shield's bonus to AC.-----
Rules as Written for LIGHT/HEAVY SHIELDS (bold = emphasis mine):
Shield, Heavy or Light: You can bash with a shield instead of using it for defense.Conclusion as Written:
You can use a shield beyond just defending. You can also bash with it.You can bash an opponent with a light shield. See “shield, light” on Table: Weapons for the damage dealt by a shield bash. Used this way, a light shield is a martial bludgeoning weapon. For the purpose of penalties on attack rolls, treat a light shield as a light weapon. If you use your shield as a weapon, you lose its AC bonus until your next turn. An enhancement bonus on a shield does not improve the effectiveness of a shield bash made with it, but the shield can be made into a magic weapon in its own right.Refined Conclusion as Written:
Using your shield as a weapon (read "for offense"), causes you to lose its AC bonus until your next turn.So far, the only other thing that prevents you from adding a shield's bonus to AC, aside from not having it strapped to your arm and not using the strapped shield for defense, is using the shield as a weapon.
----
THE EXCEPTION TO THIS RULE:...
Outstanding post overall. I guess Aelryinth's CRB has 2-3 more pages compare to standard prints
|
|
Outstanding post overall. I guess Aelryinth's CRB has 2-3 more pages compare to standard prints
Yes, namely the 2 or 3 hundred* pages of "clarifictions" Paizo has posted that have created a host of "unwritten" rules that have never been codified.
*intentional hyperbole.
Can we please stick to civilly discussing the subject and leave the snide ad hominims out of it?
Outstanding post overall. I guess Aelryinth's CRB has 2-3 more pages compare to standard printsYes, namely the 2 or 3 hundred* pages of "clarifictions" Paizo has posted that have created a host of "unwritten" rules that have never been codified.
*intentional hyperbole.
Can we please stick to civilly discussing the subject and leave the snide ad hominims out of it?
He kept making up rules and nonexistent connections with unrelated precedents for the entire thread, I tried with all my best to contain my contempt for such behaviours.
|
@ Sellsword : nice post, but the same reasoning would end up saying that RAW you can off-hand attack with your armor spikes after attacking with your 2H weapon.
Which the FAQ countered.
The weak point in the reasoning is considering the "using the shield for defense" AFTER dealing with the attacks (normal and off-hand spikes).
If you are using the shield for defense, then your off-hand is not free and thus you cannot make an off-hand attack with your armor spikes according to the FAQ ;-)
So where are the undoubtedly dozens of paizo published NPC builds supporting this "cut & dry" cornercase?
Do not tell me that in 8,000+ printed pages of material that paizo has not published one NPC that uses this.
Because if so that says a lot.
Intent DOES matter. The designers, such as SRK's post that was linked in the very opening question, discusses the intent of a rule. It is very difficult sometimes to discern it, and often open to interpretation of opinion. I personally will deny shield bonus to anyone using this at any PFS tables I run.At that point you will be DMing based on your perceived intent rather than actual RAW. Your perception of intent is irrelevent. Save that junk for your home games, that's not what PFS is for.Umm... Actually you are typically allowed to use Intent in PFS rulings. Mike Brock has made it clear that he expects PFS GMs to use their judgement. In fact, on past occasions where people proved unable to accept Intent, and insisted on using RAW because it was more beneficial, even though it clearly violated intent, Mike Brock has removed the problem by removing the rule entirely. (See Pagent of the Pheonix.)
In general, if there are two interpretations, and the GM has a firm belief that one is correct, and they apply it consistently, to both the players and the npcs, they have generally been supported.
So the best way to get a ruling saying that shields do not work with two weapon fighting in PFS, is probably to continue taking the attitude you are taking up above.
Except intent here is nowhere close to clear. RAW has a logical conclusion though, leaving your only argument a RAI one. Any intent you perceive is your own projection. That's really the case with almost every RAI argument ever. That's why they're so dumb.
By your logic, if a DM argues power attack can't be applied to improvised weapons because they view the rules as intended that way, they can, as long as they are consistent in doing so. RAW don't say that at all, but it's their prerogative, right?
PFS is no place for house rules.
And I play spellcasters, I couldn't care less. Not to mention a GM that would rule against you because you believe the rules supercede him in PFS is quite a jerk, and has 0 business being a DM in the first place.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@ Sellsword : nice post, but the same reasoning would end up saying that RAW you can off-hand attack with your armor spikes after attacking with your 2H weapon.
Which the FAQ countered.
The weak point in the reasoning is considering the "using the shield for defense" AFTER dealing with the attacks (normal and off-hand spikes).
If you are using the shield for defense, then your off-hand is not free and thus you cannot make an off-hand attack with your armor spikes according to the FAQ ;-)
If you're holding a scroll, your off hand is not free, and thus you cannot make an off hand attack with your armor spikes according to the FAQ.
Right?
Your adding of "using for defense", as opposed to used just to hold, is your own. Nothing in that FAQ indicates that whatsoever. By your logic any use of off hand for anything would preclude an off hand attack. Something the rules explicitly counter.
So where are the undoubtedly dozens of paizo published NPC builds supporting this "cut & dry" cornercase?
Do not tell me that in 8,000+ printed pages of material that paizo has not published one NPC that uses this.
Because if so that says a lot.
probably somewhere alongside the small sized cavalier using undersized mount to ride a dog that wields and lance and a cutlass. This is a pretty specific build that doesn't fall into any real theme your asking for. that and i don't think there's many alchemists.
but well i don't have access to much NPC material.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
NPCs haven't much bearing as modules often feature "illegal" builds.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Except intent here is nowhere close to clear. RAW has a logical conclusion though, leaving your only argument a RAI one. Any intent you perceive is your own projection. That's really the case with almost every RAI argument ever. That's why they're so dumb.
And I play spellcasters, I couldn't care less. Not to mention a GM that would rule against you because you believe the rules supercede him in PFS is quite a jerk, and has 0 business being a DM in the first place.
It may not be clear to you. It seems to be clear to other people.
Not agreeing with you does not make someone a jerk.
I have a gnome barbarian who uses the RAW to have his small air familiar whirlwind him 90 feet into combat and then ready a move action to move him 90 feet back out of combat, leaving him free to full attack every turn, and never get flanked. All without provoking.
RAW it all works. I have spent a fair bit of his wealth on covering corner cases so that it all works. I also check with each GM before game. If they tell me they disagree and that that is not RAI, I use a different character or I just don't use my air elemental. Same with aspects of my other builds.
That doesn't make them jerks, that makes them people who have a different take on a large and complex rule set with many ambiguities.