And actually, the Viking Archetype allows exactly what you describe (Beast Totem + Fighter). For reference.
So as I thought another comparison of class features with feats. Viking archetype, loses weapon training, armor training, and gains rage. Basically it's cross-breed between barbarian and fighter, and this is distinctive ARCHETYPE, not some feat that every fighter can have.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The feat is more powerful compared to the baseline, yes. That baseline is flawed though and frankly, I hope we see more options for martials of a similar power level to this feat in future Player Companions. It's a good feat but I would never go as far as to say it would break the game. Certainly not something to be an alarmist over at any rate.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
For clarification, as this keeps coming up.
It keeps coming up because you (plural) keep getting it wrong.
People you used a sword and a shield before this feat are "sword and shield style" people. These are the people that are getting no benefit. It's not helping them do what they were already doing.
As I showed in my post immediately above yours... that simply is not true.
The "sword and shield style" varies slightly based on type of shield used, but they ALL receive benefits from Unhindering Shield;
Before: Sword & Buckler; loses buckler bonus to AC if they attack (at -1), cast a spell, retrieve a potion, or otherwise use the arm the buckler is on.
After: Sword & Buckler + Unhindering Shield; does not lose buckler bonus to AC or take -1 to attacks when using the arm the buckler is on.
Before: Sword & Light/Heavy Shield; loses shield bonus to AC when bashing.
After: Sword/Buckler & Light/Heavy Shield = Unhindering Shield; loses light/heavy shield bonus to AC when bashing, but retains buckler bonus to AC and any defensive enchantments on buckler.
Before: Sword & Tower Shield; loses shield bonus to AC to attacks from other directions when using shield to provide total cover.
After: Sword/Buckler & Tower Shield + Unhindering Shield; loses shield bonus to AC to attacks from other directions when using shield to provide total cover, but retains buckler bonus to AC and any defensive enchantments on buckler.
Before: Sword & Light/Heavy Shield; loses shield bonus to AC when bashing.
After: Sword/Buckler & Light/Heavy Shield = Unhindering Shield; loses light/heavy shield bonus to AC when bashing, but retains buckler bonus to AC and any defensive enchantments on buckler.Before: Sword & Tower Shield; loses shield bonus to AC to attacks from other directions when using shield to provide total cover.
After: Sword/Buckler & Tower Shield + Unhindering Shield; loses shield bonus to AC to attacks from other directions when using shield to provide total cover, but retains buckler bonus to AC and any defensive enchantments on buckler.
Oh come on. Are you kidding? Or you really don't understand what multiple people try to tell you?
The feat is more powerful compared to the baseline, yes. That baseline is flawed though and frankly, I hope we see more options for martials of a similar power level to this feat in future Player Companions. It's a good feat but I would never go as far as to say it would break the game. Certainly not something to be an alarmist over at any rate.
More powerful feat compared to baseline (in my book) is something like +3 to Will saves, when previously feat granted +2 (50% increase is HUGE, but still).
Potential +6 AC and item slot for enchantment vs +1 AC you previously got for one feat?... If this is not broken, then I don't know what should be considered broken at all.
This feat not only gives huge bonus, it actually breaks the game, as it breaks monster math (that previously wasn't created to accomodate this, consider checking CR of monsters, their stats and now compare it with AC/damage output of fighter both with shield and two-handed weapon), also it breaks sword and shield combat niche, it completely erases it.
It is like someday we will have a feat that will grant complete immunity to... let's say evocation school of magic, so evokers will be no longer viable choice to play.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hah! If this feat breaks the game, then just using a shield already did it.
The only reason this is "broken" compared to Dodge is because Dodge is a crappy feat. Investing 2 feats and a bunch of gold to eventually have +6 AC seems fair.
A whole feat for non-scaling +1 to AC is overpriced and underpowered.
Besides, it's already possible (and more effective) to simply use a heavy shield as a 2-handed weapon.
|
The feat is more powerful compared to the baseline, yes. That baseline is flawed though and frankly, I hope we see more options for martials of a similar power level to this feat in future Player Companions. It's a good feat but I would never go as far as to say it would break the game. Certainly not something to be an alarmist over at any rate.
It's blatant power creep, which Pathfinder are hereto avoided outside of a few feats which have been errata'd.
Maybe you like this new level of power. Fine. I totally disagree - but okay. But it's still OP relative to other feats such that it makes them irrelevant.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The feat is more powerful compared to the baseline, yes. That baseline is flawed though and frankly, I hope we see more options for martials of a similar power level to this feat in future Player Companions. It's a good feat but I would never go as far as to say it would break the game. Certainly not something to be an alarmist over at any rate.More powerful feat compared to baseline (in my book) is something like +3 to Will saves, when previously feat granted +2 (50% increase is HUGE, but still).
Potential +6 AC and item slot for enchantment vs +1 AC you previously got for one feat?... If this is not broken, then I don't know what should be considered broken at all.
This feat not only gives huge bonus, it actually breaks the game, as it breaks monster math (that previously wasn't created to accomodate this, consider checking CR of monsters, their stats and now compare it with AC/damage output of fighter both with shield and two-handed weapon), also it breaks sword and shield combat niche, it completely erases it.
It is like someday we will have a feat that will grant complete immunity to... let's say evocation school of magic, so evokers will be no longer viable choice to play.
Want some monster math? Here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1E2-s8weiulPoBQjdI05LBzOUToyoZIdSsLK xHAvf8F8/edit#gid=3
The attack bonus of what more than likely is the melee dedicated enemy leaps from +31 to +34 at CR 15-16, and from 36 to 41 at CR 18-19. At the highest levels, it becomes increasingly hard to keep up with the Attack bonus of enemy monsters in terms of AC, you keep putting cash onto it so that some of the secondary/iteratives get a chance of missing. And heck, it's not melee or ranged attacks that make high CR enemies dangerous. Their dangerous stuff goes against saving throws or touch AC. What makes the Pit Fiend truly dangerous is not his full attack, but his trap the soul and mass hold monster.| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Powercreep isn't a bad thing when the original power levell is too low.
|
|
Besides, it's already possible (and more effective) to simply use a heavy shield as a 2-handed weapon.
While possible - it also costs a feat. (Improved Shield Bash.) And it's a rather weak weapon at d6 piercing damage & x2 crit.
Plus you'll get some people who argue that it's impossible to 2h because of the wording about how it needs to be strapped to your arm.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Powercreep isn't a bad thing when the original power levell is too low.
This as well. Regardless of how much of a help WMH has been to Fighters, them alongside all the other noncasters and 4/9 casters are still below the 6/9 casters and even further behind fullcasters in terms of capabilities. It's pointless to balance a feat around what another martial class can do because then you stagnate them in the point they are in. A good point of balance is the Inquisitor or the Warpriest, which while partial progression casters, are pretty weapon combat oriented.
Hah! If this feat breaks the game, then just using a shield already did it.
The only reason this is "broken" compared to Dodge is because Dodge is a crappy feat. Investing 2 feats and a bunch of gold to eventually have +6 AC seems fair.
A whole feat for non-scaling +1 to AC is overpriced and underpowered.
Besides, it's already possible (and more effective) to simply use a heavy shield as a 2-handed weapon.
It is 1 feat. One. Feat. One. Feat. And you can skip gold entirely, you just need Magic Vestment from your cleric, if you worry about money.
Besides, it's already possible (and more effective) to simply use a heavy shield as a crappy 2-handed weapon.
It seems that you forgot one word. I added it to your statement.
|
|
Powercreep isn't a bad thing when the original power levell is too low.This as well. Regardless of how much of a help WMH has been to Fighters, them alongside all the other noncasters and 4/9 casters are still below the 6/9 casters and even further behind fullcasters in terms of capabilities. It's pointless to balance a feat around what another martial class can do because then you stagnate them in the point they are in. A good point of balance is the Inquisitor or the Warpriest, which while partial progression casters, are pretty weapon combat oriented.
This does nothing to help martial/caster. It just invalidates a lot of other martial builds.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hah! If this feat breaks the game, then just using a shield already did it.
The only reason this is "broken" compared to Dodge is because Dodge is a crappy feat. Investing 2 feats and a bunch of gold to eventually have +6 AC seems fair.
A whole feat for non-scaling +1 to AC is overpriced and underpowered.
Besides, it's already possible (and more effective) to simply use a heavy shield as a 2-handed weapon.
It is 1 feat. One. Feat. One. Feat. And you can skip gold entirely, you just need Magic Vestment from your cleric, if you worry about money.
Besides, it's already possible (and more effective) to simply use a heavy shield as a crappy 2-handed weapon.It seems that you forgot one word. I added it to your statement.
Magic Vestment? Oh, which at level 12 is a +3 bonus to the shield? (Take into account that pearls of power replenish a third level slot for 9k gp, which means that it's the exact same value)
You only get to save 7k gp on the shield at level 16, and 16k at level 20.
This does nothing to help martial/caster. It just invalidates a lot of other martial builds.Powercreep isn't a bad thing when the original power levell is too low.This as well. Regardless of how much of a help WMH has been to Fighters, them alongside all the other noncasters and 4/9 casters are still below the 6/9 casters and even further behind fullcasters in terms of capabilities. It's pointless to balance a feat around what another martial class can do because then you stagnate them in the point they are in. A good point of balance is the Inquisitor or the Warpriest, which while partial progression casters, are pretty weapon combat oriented.
Eh, sword and shield was never good because PF works around playing offensively rather than defensively far better. Now sword and shield gets better treatment since they can two-hand a weapon alongside their shield, even if the weapon choice is limited.
OTOH, I'd need to check how dual-shielder of Gorum remains after these changes.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Besides, it's already possible (and more effective) to simply use a heavy shield as a 2-handed weapon.While possible - it also costs a feat. (Improved Shield Bash.) And it's a rather weak weapon at d6 piercing damage & x2 crit.
Plus you'll get some people who argue that it's impossible to 2h because of the wording about how it needs to be strapped to your arm.
The only weak thing about shields is their critical threat range...They have plenty of advantages to make up for that. So this new feat is basically another Improved Critical.
And those people arguing it's impossible to use are simply wrong, as no rule says an weapon strapped to your arm can't be used two-handed. A heavy shield is a one-handed weapon... One-handed weapons can be used two-handed... Therefore, heavy shields can be used two-handed.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It is 1 feat. One. Feat. One. Feat. And you can skip gold entirely, you just need Magic Vestment from your cleric, if you worry about money.Hah! If this feat breaks the game, then just using a shield already did it.
The only reason this is "broken" compared to Dodge is because Dodge is a crappy feat. Investing 2 feats and a bunch of gold to eventually have +6 AC seems fair.
A whole feat for non-scaling +1 to AC is overpriced and underpowered.
Besides, it's already possible (and more effective) to simply use a heavy shield as a 2-handed weapon.
By this logic, this feat is useless. You only need Shield from your Wizard (or wand) and... Boom! Shield bonus without any feat or gold required!
Besides, it's already possible (and more effective) to simply use a heavy shield as a crappy 2-handed weapon.It seems that you forgot one word. I added it to your statement.
Shields really aren't crappy. They can be used with other shield bash-related feats and are considerably cheaper to enhance once you have the right feat.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh come on. Are you kidding? Or you really don't understand what multiple people try to tell you?
Despite the broken sentence structure, I understand what you (plural) are saying just fine. I also understand that it is not true.
For example;
This feat do nothing for shield wielders. ... Sword and shield style = gets nothing.
People you used a sword and a shield before this feat are "sword and shield style" people. These are the people that are getting no benefit. It's not helping them do what they were already doing.
Repeating a false statement over and over again does not make it true. The Unhindering Shield feat does provide benefits to 'sword and shield' builds. I have listed them.
Maybe try addressing that reality rather than continuing to argue from a foundation of fiction.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This does nothing to help martial/caster. It just invalidates a lot of other martial builds.Powercreep isn't a bad thing when the original power levell is too low.This as well. Regardless of how much of a help WMH has been to Fighters, them alongside all the other noncasters and 4/9 casters are still below the 6/9 casters and even further behind fullcasters in terms of capabilities. It's pointless to balance a feat around what another martial class can do because then you stagnate them in the point they are in. A good point of balance is the Inquisitor or the Warpriest, which while partial progression casters, are pretty weapon combat oriented.
How? How does this invalidate anything? No build is made worse by the existence of this feat!
If by "Invalidate" you mean "made not as good as the alternative", then S&B has always been "invalid".
Magic Vestment? Oh, which at level 12 is a +3 bonus to the shield? (Take into account that pearls of power replenish a third level slot for 9k gp, which means that it's the exact same value)
You only get to save 7k gp on the shield at level 16, and 16k at level 20.
Yes, +3 to shield with no cost attached.
At 12th level 3rd level slots have already lost their usage. No problem spend one for whopping +3 AC.
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Magic Vestment? Oh, which at level 12 is a +3 bonus to the shield? (Take into account that pearls of power replenish a third level slot for 9k gp, which means that it's the exact same value)
You only get to save 7k gp on the shield at level 16, and 16k at level 20.Yes, +3 to shield with no cost attached.
At 12th level 3rd level slots have already lost their usage. No problem spend one for whopping +3 AC.
haste and fly would like to have words with you.
Repeating a false statement over and over again does not make it true. The Unhindering Shield feat does provide benefits to 'sword and shield' builds. I have listed them.
No it does not provide any considerable benefit for a o'good fighter with longsword and heavy steel shield.
But it provide huge benefit to those that previously fought withou a shield. Now they can take it and start getting huge sweet bonuses to AC.Sorry for 'broken sentense structure', not all of us are native English speakers.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
People worried about +6 AC in a point Of the game where AC is irrelevant.
I wonder if some people ACTUALLY play the game, or is only theory craffing at all.
At 12th level 3rd level slots have already lost their usage. No problem spend one for whopping +3 AC.haste and fly would like to have words with you.
I really doubt, cause these are arcane spells.
And after all, haste is not that good, after we get our boots of speed :)| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Before: Sword & Light/Heavy Shield; loses shield bonus to AC when bashing.
After: Sword/Buckler & Light/Heavy Shield = Unhindering Shield; loses light/heavy shield bonus to AC when bashing, but retains buckler bonus to AC and any defensive enchantments on buckler.Before: Sword & Tower Shield; loses shield bonus to AC to attacks from other directions when using shield to provide total cover.
After: Sword/Buckler & Tower Shield + Unhindering Shield; loses shield bonus to AC to attacks from other directions when using shield to provide total cover, but retains buckler bonus to AC and any defensive enchantments on buckler.
Oh come on. Are you kidding? Or you really don't understand what multiple people try to tell you?
Be does make a valid point. Sword and Board users could use this feat to add a contingency buckler to their weapon arm, and retain it's benefits should they ever be deprived of their main shield (sword bashing w/out improved shield bash, sundering, ect). A somewhat niche case, but valid.
Or they could simply use a buckler and keep a free hand for holding potions, wands, an alternative weapon, ect. Or lance and Board users who no longer have to choose between using valuable actions to switch weapons or losing their shield bonus every time they dismount.
People worried about +6 AC in a point Of the game where AC is irrelevant.
I wonder if some people ACTUALLY play the game, or is only theory craffing at all.
Irrelevant? I'm not sure of your level of optimization, I'm currently playing (GMing) ROTRL campaign at 14-15th level. I ACTUALLY play it right now. And AC matters.
Maybe we play different games.
A somewhat niche case, but valid.
I wouldn't call it niche case. I would call it - 'situation that will arise AT BEST 1 time per whole campaign', cause if you really build your character around shield and sword style and you want to bash, you make sure that you bash without losing shield bonus to AC.
As for sunder - previously in this thread it was already discussed.Take a feat just to use 2 shields per hand just in case? It's like taking Skill Focus (Craft [basketweaving]).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Repeating a false statement over and over again does not make it true. The Unhindering Shield feat does provide benefits to 'sword and shield' builds. I have listed them.
No it does not provide any considerable benefit for a o'good fighter with longsword and heavy steel shield.
But it provide huge benefit to those that previously fought withou a shield. Now they can take it and start getting huge sweet bonuses to AC.Sorry for 'broken sentense structure', not all of us are native English speakers.
Actually, it does now. You get to add half your strength and 50% bonus to power attack since you can 2-hand that longsword. At levels 14-15 that can easily amount for an extra 4 damage from STR, and an extra +4 damage from power attack. +8 damage per swing isn't bad at all.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
At 12th level 3rd level slots have already lost their usage. No problem spend one for whopping +3 AC.haste and fly would like to have words with you.I really doubt, cause these are arcane spells.
And after all, haste is not that good, after we get our boots of speed :)
*blink*
*blink*
Boots of Speed cost 12K, take up the feet slot, affect only you, and only last 10 rounds a day.
haste affects the whole party, scales with the caster level (at 12th level you would have 12 rounds), can be memorized multiple times per day, and lets you wear other stuff.
Actually, it does now. You get to add half your strength and 50% bonus to power attack since you can 2-hand that longsword. At levels 14-15 that can easily amount for an extra 4 damage from STR, and an extra +4 damage from power attack. +8 damage per swing isn't bad at all.
Or you should just go and take greatsword/falchion. And suddenly you are no longer this guy:
http://www.darkswordminiatures.com/shop/media/catalog/product/cache/1/image /330x/040ec09b1e35df139433887a97daa66f/g/r/grrm_5014_f_p.jpgYou are now this guy:
http://images.dakkadakka.com/gallery/2011/7/8/244510_md-Empire,%20Greatswor d,%20Eavy%20Metal%20Masterclass%20miniature.png
Wonderful.
Boots of Speed cost 12K, take up the feet slot, affect only you, and only last 10 rounds a day.
haste affects the whole party, scales with the caster level (at 12th level you would have 12 rounds), can be memorized multiple times per day, and lets you wear other stuff.
Haste requires an action to cast, 95% combats in PF on these levels last 3-4 rounds (no need in those 12-15 rounds of haste). Boots of Speed are free action, can be split round-by-round.
My experience tell me that on average Boots of Speed are enough to provide haste to fighter for 3-4 combats a day.But back to the topic. Haste/Fly are arcane spells, they can't compete with cleric's Magic Vestment in usability by 12+ level cleric.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Magic Vestment? Oh, which at level 12 is a +3 bonus to the shield? (Take into account that pearls of power replenish a third level slot for 9k gp, which means that it's the exact same value)
You only get to save 7k gp on the shield at level 16, and 16k at level 20.Yes, +3 to shield with no cost attached.
At 12th level 3rd level slots have already lost their usage. No problem spend one for whopping +3 AC.
And they could buy a wand of Shield before... Whoopie-dee-doo... I guess shields are useless if they dont give you at least a +5 to AC.
And if there are plenty of 1st, 2nd and 3rd level spells more useful Magic Vestment.
You're not debating the value of a feat.... But the value of a feat + Cleric ally. That's like saying weapon enhancements are unnecessary because someone can cast "Magic Weapon" for you.
And they could buy a wand of Shield before... Whoopie-dee-doo...
Sure, they can. Then they would need to invest in UMD skill. Then they would need to spend standard action in the beginning of every combat to try to activate it. And then they would need to cry in frustraion every time they roll low enough to not activate it. And even if they activate they will have to cry again as every burst greater dispel will auto-dispel their Caster Level 1st Shield spell.
You're not debating the value of a feat.... But the value of a feat + Cleric ally. That's like saying weapon enhancements are unnecessary because someone can cast "Magic Weapon" for you.
There was an argument that magic shields ARE VERY EXPENSIVE, bla-bla-bla, you could never afford it, oh so many gold pieces need to be spent... So I've just said - if you are so poor that you can't affort magic buckler at 12+ levels, then just ask your cleric for 3rd level spell.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A somewhat niche case, but valid.
I wouldn't call it niche case. I would call it - 'situation that will arise AT BEST 1 time per whole campaign', cause if you really build your character around shield and sword style and you want to bash, you make sure that you bash without losing shield bonus to AC.
As for sunder - previously in this thread it was already discussed.Take a feat just to use 2 shields per hand just in case? It's like taking Skill Focus (Craft [basketweaving]).
Like I said, niche case, but it is a consideration. And there are still my other points.
Honestly, you're only looking at this from an "add shield to a build that wouldn't have one" and ignoring what it can do for someone who was already planning on a shield. Yes, it does nothing for a shield bash build, but that's it's own beast. For someone going srait sword and board, you lose out 1 AC compared to a heavy shield and gain the ability to use your hand for things. Holding a short duration potion for use in a surprise round, or even the first round, wands, alchemical substances (even at higher levels I like to carry a few vials of alchemist's fire or vials of acid for use against swarms/regen), Clerics can hold their divine focus without losing their shield bonus, and once again dismounted lancers get good use out of this.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Again... If you want to argue that your ally's spells remove the necessity for enhancing your gear, then this feat is maxe useless by Shield. A 1st level spell that pretty much every arcane caster can use.
By your logic, this feat changes nothing, sibce 2-handers always had access to friends with Shield spell.
Again... If you want to argue that your ally's spells remove the necessity for enhancing your gear, then this feat is maxe useless by Shield. A 1st level spell that pretty much every arcane caster can use.
Shield is personal.
|
|
Again... If you want to argue that your ally's spells remove the necessity for enhancing your gear, then this feat is maxe useless by Shield. A 1st level spell that pretty much every arcane caster can use.Shield is personal.
Wand of Shield is not.
Buy and gift to Arcane buddy to cast on you before fight.
Just reread the wand rules, so either UMD... or play a Bloodrager or Magus and not worry about it.
Honestly, you're only looking at this from an "add shield to a build that wouldn't have one" and ignoring what it can do for someone who was already planning on a shield. Yes, it does nothing for a shield bash build, but that's it's own beast. For someone going srait sword and board, you lose out 1 AC compared to a heavy shield and gain the ability to use your hand for things. Holding a short duration potion for use in a surprise round, or even the first round, wands, alchemical substances (even at higher levels I like to carry a few vials of alchemist's fire or vials of acid for use against swarms/regen), Clerics can hold their divine focus without losing their shield bonus, and once again dismounted lancers get good use out of this.
Why bother with classic sword and shield, when you can do all of this now with greatsword and shield? :)
If you want to be able to use hold some item for 1st round activation - what prevents you to hold it in one hand, greatsword in other hand and then if needed drop item as free action, switch hands as free action and then attack with greatsword with sweet oh sweet shield bonus that you couldn't have so easily before?|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This feat do nothing for shield wielders. ... Sword and shield style = gets nothing.
<proof to the contrary provided>
No it does not provide any considerable benefit for a o'good fighter with longsword and heavy steel shield.
I'll take your addition of the "considerable" and "heavy steel" qualifiers as admission that the original statements were incorrect.
Further, as "considerable" is entirely subjective, your new statement is a matter of opinion rather than fact and thus not in dispute... I accept that you find the benefits for that type of shield not worthy of consideration. However, I expect that many players will disagree... especially for builds that used a buckler even before this feat was available.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Again... If you want to argue that your ally's spells remove the necessity for enhancing your gear, then this feat is maxe useless by Shield. A 1st level spell that pretty much every arcane caster can use.Shield is personal.
Buy a wand, then.
EDIT: Ninja'd by Rysky.
Wand of Shield is not.
I beg your pardon?
Can you please explain why do you think that your arcane buddy can cast personal only spell from wand on other creatures, therefore violating spell text?|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, it does nothing for a shield bash build, but that's it's own beast.
Well... in addition to the 'buckler on non-shield arm' option, someone could also take Unhindering Shield along with Upsetting Shield Style to make their shield bash build a buckler bash build. Put bucklers on each arm and you can have a TWF shield bash build, with both hands being completely free for any other use at the same time. Oh... and make it a Monk, who retains all of their 'no shield allowed' abilities, just for good measure. :]
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
There was an argument that magic shields ARE VERY EXPENSIVE, bla-bla-bla, you could never afford it, oh so many gold pieces need to be spent... So I've just said - if you are so poor that you can't affort magic buckler at 12+ levels, then just ask your cleric for 3rd level spell.
I think simply what is being argued is that there is no guarantee that there will be someone that can cast Magic Vestment for you available, because
#1 There is no guarantee that every group will have a Cleric#2 There is no guarantee that this potential Cleric will prepare Magic Vestment
#3 There is no guarantee that this potential Cleric that has prepared Magic Vestment would actually cast it on your equipment
#4 If, and this is IF, you convince your Cleric to cast Magic Vestment on your shield because you were too cheap to spend the gold on upgrading it yourself, it would arguably be good form to compensate the Cleric by buying him a pearl of power, so he can still use his class features without too much concern about what you would want him to do. And, as noted upthread, you don't save a lot of money on so doing until the very late levels.
I'm not making an argument for, or against Unhindered Shield. I'm just saying that relying on other characters is a dangerous position to be in, especially if you are not giving anything back. If you, on the other hand, cast Magic Vestment yourself on your own shield - then, by all means, keep talking. :)
- Not a bandaid-cleric out.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wand of Shield is not.I beg your pardon?
Can you please explain why do you think that your arcane buddy can cast personal only spell from wand on other creatures, therefore violating spell text?
Well it's not like Wizards don't violate plenty of other rules of reality.
Sure! And I already did, in the edit to my previous post :3
|
So what is the difference between a sword a board TWF Figher with a heavy shield and a TWF fighter using weapons and unhindering shield?
Well the two weapon Fighter using a shield has +1 Ac and has to take improved shield bash, meanwhile guy number two takes unhindering shield, has -1 ac and possibly a better crit rate
In general, this feat is pretty unimpressive.
Of course unless you are a wizard or other caster class, because now you have more ac, oh wait actually no , because mithral bucklers
I dont really see the point of this feat besides beign superniche and expanding the fluff, or maybe is that people is sooo afraid of a high AC monks? jeez
So in general im gonna call Bs on all of this coments, if you regard unhindering shield as overpowered you might was well regard shield bash as overpowered BECAUSE BOTH ENABLE +6 AC WHILE TWF.
note: two handed tactics interactions dont matter at all, you can already twohand a weapon and use a buckler as it was stated before
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why bother with TWF when 2-handed is clearly better? Because that's the character you had in mind.
This feat doesn't steal anything from S&B users... It gives them the ability to 2-hand their weapons and gives 2- handers the ability to use shields...
All it does is give each combat style access to the other's tricks.
You can still use a longsword and benefit from all advantages 1-handed weapons have over 2-handed weapons.
|
|
There was an argument that magic shields ARE VERY EXPENSIVE, bla-bla-bla, you could never afford it, oh so many gold pieces need to be spent... So I've just said - if you are so poor that you can't affort magic buckler at 12+ levels, then just ask your cleric for 3rd level spell.I think simply what is being argued is that there is no guarantee that there will be someone that can cast Magic Vestment for you available, because
#1 There is no guarantee that every group will have a Cleric
#2 There is no guarantee that this potential Cleric will prepare Magic Vestment
#3 There is no guarantee that this potential Cleric that has prepared Magic Vestment would actually cast it on your equipment
#4 If, and this is IF, you convince your Cleric to cast Magic Vestment on your shield because you were too cheap to spend the gold on upgrading it yourself, it would arguably be good form to compensate the Cleric by buying him a pearl of power, so he can still use his class features without too much concern about what you would want him to do. And, as noted upthread, you don't save a lot of money on so doing until the very late levels.I'm not making an argument for, or against Unhindered Shield. I'm just saying that relying on other characters is a dangerous position to be in, especially if you are not giving anything back. If you, on the other hand, cast Magic Vestment yourself on your own shield - then, by all means, keep talking. :)
- Not a bandaid-cleric out.
#5 There is no guarantee you'll have 25K just lying around in order to buff your shield up.
Honestly, you're only looking at this from an "add shield to a build that wouldn't have one" and ignoring what it can do for someone who was already planning on a shield. Yes, it does nothing for a shield bash build, but that's it's own beast. For someone going srait sword and board, you lose out 1 AC compared to a heavy shield and gain the ability to use your hand for things. Holding a short duration potion for use in a surprise round, or even the first round, wands, alchemical substances (even at higher levels I like to carry a few vials of alchemist's fire or vials of acid for use against swarms/regen), Clerics can hold their divine focus without losing their shield bonus, and once again dismounted lancers get good use out of this.Why bother with classic sword and shield, when you can do all of this now with greatsword and shield? :)
If you want to be able to use hold some item for 1st round activation - what prevents you to hold it in one hand, greatsword in other hand and then if needed drop item as free action, switch hands as free action and then attack with greatsword with sweet oh sweet shield bonus that you couldn't have so easily before?
Because I don't want to use a greatsword? Because We're the ones getting ambushed, there's a monster in my face that needs a sword ingredients more than I need a buffing and I'd like to full attack without dropping my potionm Because someone else also getting a benefit doesn't change the fact that sword and board fighters do get a benefit? Because traditional sword and board is already basically dead from a purely optimization standpoint*, so a choice to do it is almost entirely down to character concept?
*Shield bashing is, once again, a different beast.