| 22 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Answered in the FAQ. |
As written, Shield Master is perhaps the most overpowered feat in the game.
Prerequisites: Improved Shield Bash, Shield Proficiency, Shield Slam, Two-Weapon Fighting, base attack bonus +11.
Benefit: You do not suffer any penalties on attack rolls made with a shield while you are wielding another weapon. Add your shield’s enhancement bonus to attack and damage rolls made with the shield as if it were a weapon enhancement bonus.
Emphasis mine.
Now sure, it seems totally reasonable to say "Well, ok, it doesn't remove ALL penalties, just the ones associated with TWF," and that's how I would rule in a home game, and how I would expect it to be ruled if I played it pretty much anywhere.
But the fact remains, per RAW, you do not suffer from penalties to hit with your shield if you have another weapon. Not entangled, not bane, not power attack, not nothing.
C'mon PDT, new easiest fix ever.
BTW, if there already is a fix, please link it, I couldn't find one.
There is no RAW fix currently. I think this one can be errata'd without pushing the text over to the next page so I am for it, but even without it the "all penalties" idea is not flying at my table.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
RAW is an interpreted thing.
There is no one true RAW.
This is an example. You can interpret this to only remove TWF penalties, and that will match RAI. If a player at your table uses the "all is everything under the sun" you can simply say "no not at this table."
I fundamentally disagree with you, as I have before. RAW, to me, and to I believe the overwhelming majority of posters here, means "Rules as written," IE what the book actually says. What the GM says are the rules have absolutely zero bearing on RAW, those are the rules at play. I recognize that neither of us is likely to change our minds, so let's leave it at that.
The words in the book are always open to interpretation and should be read in context. Them being open to interpretation is why two people can read the same thing and have different opinions on the literal, and the intended meaning. If read in a vacumn the entire system falls apart.
Personally, rulings where the intent is clear, even if the words are not perfect don't matter as much to me as when the intent is hard to figure out. This particular wording is something that would be nice to have reworded, but it is low on the totem pole in my opinion. Other rules which a higher percentage of people are likely to misread are more important.
PS: I did press the FAQ button.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
RAW, to me, and to I believe the overwhelming majority of posters here, means "Rules as written," IE what the book actually says.
We are 100% in agreement.
What the words say.
Which, like always, requires interpretation. Something only the GM can provide.
I also agree with Wraithstrike, that pretty much no one is confused by this. Even you the OP understand the meaning. This isn't something that should be wasted on a FAQ when we have so many other actual debated issues.
But the fact remains, per RAW, you do not suffer from penalties to hit with your shield if you have another weapon. Not entangled, not bane, not power attack, not nothing.
It's even cooler when you're dual wielding shields.
Which, like always, requires interpretation. Something only the GM can provide.
This is where we disagree. If the text requires interpretation, it's not RAW. It's RAW that a natural 20 on an attack roll is an automatic hit (barring miss chance and assuming they aren't ethereal or something). It's RAW that you can't take a second five foot step in a round (barring feats/class features/spells that say otherwise). It's RAW that Wizards need 10+spell level Int to cast. These things are fundamentally, unarguably true, and don't require any interpretation from anyone. These are rules that function exactly as they say they do, and are RAW.
This feat actually illustrates my point very well. The GM is enforcing an interpretation that brings a feat from game-breaking to reasonable (probably underpowered). But the words on the page don't actually explicitly support that idea. The words say "You do not suffer any penalties on attack rolls made with a shield while you are wielding another weapon." Even viewing the feat as a whole, the only reason anyone assumes "Oh, it must mean TWF penalties" is because TWF is a prereq. Based purely on the actual wording of the feat, the idea that the first clause really only applies to TWF penalties isn't any more correct than the idea that the feat as a whole only applies to a shield bash, not throwing a shield.
We can pretty much all agree that we think the intention of the first clause is to remove the penalties associated with TWF. We can even agree that's how we'll play it. But as soon as we deviate from the text, no matter how pure the intention or how reasonable the inference, we're no longer discussing RAW.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As written, Shield Master is perhaps the most overpowered feat in the game.
*Cough*Sacred Geometry*Cough* ;)
Nowhere near the most OP but it is very poorly worded and its likely RAI doesn't match up with the RAW at all. FAQ'd.
RAW, to me, and to I believe the overwhelming majority of posters here, means "Rules as written," IE what the book actually says.We are 100% in agreement.
What the words say.
Which, like always, requires interpretation. Something only the GM can provide.
The problem with that is Pathfinder Society. There a consistent ruling is needed.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
This is where we disagree. If the text requires interpretation, it's not RAW.
The GM is enforcing an interpretation that brings a feat from game-breaking to reasonable
You are welcome to disagree, but I promise you there are a lot of people you will meet who will have a different opinion on a rule you feel is only readable one way.
I can also promise you that Paizo won't agree with your interpretation, and that is what it is, and interpretation of Shield Master.
If you think it is RAW, click FAQ and find as many friends as possible to click FAQ.
The problem with that is Pathfinder Society. There a consistent ruling is needed.
Don't take my comment to mean that I don't want an answer. I just don't think it's likely until we find 30+ friends to click FAQ.
