Gallant Armor wrote: I think the core issue is that the "as if" wording leaves the question open as to the type of bonus this feat is giving.
Here are two interpretations (brackets added).
Add [an untyped bonus equal to] your shield’s enhancement bonus to attack and damage rolls made with the shield as if it were a weapon enhancement bonus.
Add your shield’s enhancement bonus to attack and damage rolls made with the shield as if it were a weapon enhancement bonus [, this bonus doesn't stack with a weapon's existing enhancement bonus].
In either case, would the bonus granted by shield master overcome DR?
Or maybe....add means add. Sorry, even if the rules are asking you to add the enhancement to another enhancement, I have to laugh at the repeated refusal to recognize that specific trumps general.
Gallant Armor wrote: In either case, would the bonus granted by shield master overcome DR? I would say no. Shield master doesn't give you a weapon enhancement bonus. You get to add your shield enhancement bonus "to attack and damage" as if it were, which is another way of pointing out that it is not an actual weapon enhancement.
|
1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.
|
N N 959 wrote: Gallant Armor wrote: I think the core issue is that the "as if" wording leaves the question open as to the type of bonus this feat is giving.
Here are two interpretations (brackets added).
Add [an untyped bonus equal to] your shield’s enhancement bonus to attack and damage rolls made with the shield as if it were a weapon enhancement bonus.
Add your shield’s enhancement bonus to attack and damage rolls made with the shield as if it were a weapon enhancement bonus [, this bonus doesn't stack with a weapon's existing enhancement bonus].
In either case, would the bonus granted by shield master overcome DR?
Or maybe....add means add. Sorry, even if the rules are asking you to add the enhancement to another enhancement, I have to laugh at the repeated refusal to recognize that specific trumps general.
Gallant Armor wrote: In either case, would the bonus granted by shield master overcome DR? I would say no. Shield master doesn't give you a weapon enhancement bonus. You get to add your shield enhancement bonus "to attack and damage" as if it were, which is another way of pointing out that it is not an actual weapon enhancement. While I agree that this specific ability could trump the general rule, the wording is not specific enough to know for sure. Take the Magus arcane pool ability:
"At 1st level, a magus can expend 1 point from his arcane pool as a swift action to grant any weapon he is holding a +1 enhancement bonus for 1 minute ... These bonuses can be added to the weapon, stacking with existing weapon enhancement to a maximum of +5. Multiple uses of this ability do not stack with themselves."
In order for a specific ability to trump a general rule it has to explicitly say it trumps the rule.
The wording "Add your shield’s enhancement bonus to attack and damage rolls" is just telling you that it is a bonus, it does not explicitly what type of bonus it is or how it should be applied.
Okay. Let's disassemble this. First, let's figure out how magic weapons work.
Magic Weapons wrote: A magic weapon is enhanced to strike more truly and deliver more damage. Magic weapons have enhancement bonuses ranging from +1 to +5. They apply these bonuses to both attack and damage rolls when used in combat. All magic weapons are also masterwork weapons, but their masterwork bonuses on attack rolls do not stack with their enhancement bonuses on attack rolls. Judging from this, we ascertain that a +1 magic weapon is adding a +1 [enhancement bonus] to attack rolls, in addition to your Strength bonus, your Base Attack bonus, and any similar effects. It also adds a +1 [enhancement bonus] to damage rolls, in addition to your Strength bonus, your Power Attack bonus, and so on.
So far, our attack roll looks like:
+11 [Base Attack]
+5 [Strength]
+1 [Enhancement]
For a total bonus of +17 to your attack roll.
Though technically, there's also still the +1 enhancement bonus from Masterwork in there, but I am omitting it because it explicitly doesn't stack.
Okay. Let's bring in Shield Master.
Shield Master wrote: 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 attacks and damage rolls made with the shield as if it was a weapon enhancement bonus. Alright. We add the enhancement bonuses from the shield to the attack and damage rolls, just like we would with a magic weapon, so our attack now looks like this:
+11 [Base Attack]
+5 [Strength]
+1 [Enhancement]
+1 [Enhancement]
For a total bonus of +18 to your attack roll.
But wait! There's two enhancement bonuses there to your attack roll. So we need to see how that works out.
Enhancement Bonus wrote: An enhancement bonus represents an increase in the sturdiness and/or effectiveness of armor or natural armor, or the effectiveness of a weapon, or a general bonus to an ability score. Multiple enhancement bonuses on the same object (in the case of armor and weapons), creature (in the case of natural armor), or ability score do not stack. Only the highest enhancement bonus applies. Since enhancement bonuses to armor or natural armor effectively increase the armor or natural armor's bonus to AC, they don't apply against touch attacks. Okay, so we're told that multiple enhancement bonuses don't stack, and we don't have any exception specifying they do (as the Magus does). So instead, we simply use whichever is highest. Since they're both +1, it doesn't actually matter which one we use, and therefore we have a total attack bonus of +17.
This is also why the +1 Enhancement from Masterwork doesn't apply; the mention of it not stacking with the magic weapon bonus is a reference to this very rule.
We clearly followed the rules for Magic Weapons, adding the magic weapon enhancement bonus to the attack roll. And then we followed the rules for Shield Master, adding the magic shield enhancement bonus to the attack roll. Finally, we followed the rules for enhancement bonuses to see if they stacked or not.
All the appropriate rules have been followed, and any exceptions in place have been observed. So, by the rules, this is our result.
Saethori wrote: All the appropriate rules have been followed, and any exceptions in place have been observed. So, by the rules, this is our result. Yeah, most of the 'shennanigans' in this thread have seemingly clear rulings on how they are supposed to work.
As opposed to the really crazy stuff like... what happens with Shield Master when you give a shield a +5 armor enhancement bonus, a +1 weapon enhancement bonus, and the 'bane' special ability? Does the +2 from bane add to the +5 bonus (+7 total) or the +1 bonus (+5 still highest) against appropriate foes?
Or... can a +5 armor / +1 weapon / Defending shield apply it's full +5 effective weapon enhancement to AC via the Defending ability... stacking that with the +5 shield enhancement... and still getting +1 to attack and damage?
CBDunkerson wrote: Saethori wrote: All the appropriate rules have been followed, and any exceptions in place have been observed. So, by the rules, this is our result. Yeah, most of the 'shennanigans' in this thread have seemingly clear rulings on how they are supposed to work.
As opposed to the really crazy stuff like... what happens with Shield Master when you give a shield a +5 armor enhancement bonus, a +1 weapon enhancement bonus, and the 'bane' special ability? Does the +2 from bane add to the +5 bonus (+7 total) or the +1 bonus (+5 still highest) against appropriate foes?
Or... can a +5 armor / +1 weapon / Defending shield apply it's full +5 effective weapon enhancement to AC via the Defending ability... stacking that with the +5 shield enhancement... and still getting +1 to attack and damage? Since Shield Master specifies "as if it were a weapon enhancement bonus", and Bane increases your effective weapon enhancement bonus, the benefit of Bane would translate to affecting the bonus applied via Shield Master. However, there's a counter-point that hasn't really been addressed by Paizo as of yet. Are special ability enhancements (eg. Bane, Flaming, Defending, etc.) "joined at the hip" with their respective weapon enhancement bonus or are they considered separate entities? Is it a (+1 Flaming Bane) Heavy Shield or is it a (+1) (Flaming) (Bane) Heavy Shield? If the Flaming and Bane are "attached" to the +1 enhancement bonus, then overriding that bonus with a higher one would effectively shut off the Flaming and Bane effects. But if they aren't, then you get shennanigans like having a Bodywrap of Mighty Strikes with several enhancement features like Bane, Flaming, etc. and also an AoMF to provide a raw attack/damage boost. Or, you pointed out, a +5 Shield with +1 Bane, Flaming, Holy, Vorpal, etc. weapon enhancements and using Shield Master to get an effective +5 weapon enhancement while still keeping all the abilities; thus gaining the best of both worlds.
Personally, I think it's more reasonable to consider both the numeric bonuses as well as equivalent enhancements as a unified set and you'd need to use either the +5 enhancement bonus to attack and damage, foregoing the +1 Bane, Flaming, Vorpal, etc. or you use the +1 yadda yadda, foregoing the +5, but not mixing and matching the +5 bonus and the yadda yadda.
Grumbaki wrote: Aye aye I admit that it is ridiculous.
I admit that this is a huge slap in the face of RAI.
But RAW it seems valid.
And who knows? Maybe this will even eventually lead to an faq which gets rid of the obvious breach.
But until then, it's fun to find loopholes like this
This is not new. The community and the rules team have known about this ever since the game was published. It just hasn't made it high enough on the totem pole to get errata yet, most likely because they know that 99% of use know that is not the intent. If it was more ambiguous they might have already fixed it.
N N 959 wrote: Okay, found the posts after 30 seconds of searching:
Quote: Shield Mastery
Q: Does the magical shield bonus apply to Shield Mastery?
A: (Jason Bulmahn) I am going to try and clarify this in a future errata. The intent here was to add the shields base bonus as an enhancement bonus (that is, +1 for light shields, +2 for heavy). Shield Focus does NOT increase the value. [Source]
Q: Does Shield Mastery remove the penalties for all attacks if you are using a non-shield weapon and a shield and two-weapon fighting? Or does it only remove the penalties for the shield attack?
A: Shield Mastery only removes the penalty for Two Weapon Fighting on the Shield Bash itself, it does not remove it for a non-Shield weapon in your other hand.
Emphasis mine. Obviously something got lost in translation when the item went to print.
The feat is not even worth building up to if that is all it does, and it really needs to be rewritten. Native shield bonus is far different from enhancement bonus, and the word "add" does not change the enchancement rules. In a feat section there is a benefit section which is what where rules exceptions tend to be layed out.
Gallant Armor wrote: While I agree that this specific ability could trump the general rule, the wording is not specific enough to know for sure. Take the Magus arcane pool ability:
"At 1st level, a magus can expend 1 point from his arcane pool as a swift action to grant any weapon he is holding a +1 enhancement bonus for 1 minute ... These bonuses can be added to the weapon, stacking with existing weapon enhancement to a maximum of +5. Multiple uses of this ability do not stack with themselves."
In order for a specific ability to trump a general rule it has to explicitly say it trumps the rule.
The wording "Add your shield’s enhancement bonus to attack and damage rolls" is just telling you that it is a bonus, it does not explicitly what type of bonus it is or how it should be applied.
First off, thanks for engaging in good faith discussion. Can't always count on that when it comes to rules debates.
I'm glad you posted the text on the Magus because it actually works in favor of my argument. There are two key things to note. The first, unlike Shield Master, the benefit conveyed by the Magus ability actually is an enhancement effect. Its states that unequivocally. That's important because we know that enhancement bonuses don't stack. Shield Master is not giving us an enhancement bonus. We are simply applying the benefit to attack and damage "as if" it were. Once again, if the the authors meant for it to be an enhancement bonus, they would call it an enhancement bonus. Just as they did with the Magus ability. The only time the rules use "as if" language is when the thing being conveyed is not the thing it is mimicking.
The second thing is that the text you quoted does not use the term "add" anywhere. If it did, and then it went on to also state that these things stack, it might be applicable.
Quote: The wording "Add your shield’s enhancement bonus to attack and damage rolls" is just telling you that it is a bonus, it does not explicitly what type of bonus it is or how it should be applied. Uh what? It does both of those things. it tells us to add the the damage "as if" it were weapon enhancement damage. That's important because then we know to multiply it on a critical hit. And, it tells us that we apply it to attack and damage. It can't be any more specific than that.
If the PDT doesn't want a +1 / +1 shield to hit and do damage as a +2 weapon, then they need to errata the feat as such:
PRD wrote: Add You may use your shield's enhancement bonus to on attack and damage rolls made with the shield as if it was a the weapon enhancement bonus.
It's that simple to say what others erroneously believe the rules are stating.
Heck, it could even be simpler than that,
PRD wrote: Add your shield's enhancement bonus to attack and damage rolls made with the shield as if it was a the weapon enhancement bonus. There. One word and we achieve the meaning that others are espousing, yet the authors didn't go that route.
wraithstrike wrote: The feat is not even worth building up to if that is all it does.... Debatable, as the "base" bonus would obviously stack with any weapon enhancements, even in your interpretation. And let's be honest. A +2 bonus for a feat, even with a build-up at BAB +11 is not unprecedented. I imagine others could point to equally costly feats that provide arguably less benefit.
Quote: Native shield bonus is far different from enhancement bonus, and the word "add" does not change the enchancement rules. Except that it would if the feat actually gave you a weapon enhancement. It does not. You simply get the benefit to attack and damage rolls.
Quote: In a feat section there is a benefit section which is what where rules exceptions tend to be layed out. You're thinking of the "normal" section. The problem with your theory is that it fails to consider that if the feat does not give you an enhancement bonus, there is no exception to be discussed. The rules leave it as ambiguous as to whether a +3 shield with Shield Master, overcomes silver/cold iron.
The item needs to be FAQ'd, but i fear that if they do, they are going to change it to "base" bonus.
EDIT:
In good faith, I can concede that some of the positions put forth could be correct readings. What is intended by "add" and "as if" is ambiguous and could rationally be interpreted several ways.
It occurs to me that one of the reasons for why we see the phrase, "as if it were a weapon enhancement" is because it was suppose to be "base" damage. Consider what I posted above:
PRD wrote: Add your shield's enhancementbase bonus to attacks and damage rolls made with the shield as if it was a weapon enhancement bonus. Now we can see why that "as if" statement is needed. The concept of a shield's "base bonus" isn't introduced anywhere else in the rules.
So the question is if it said, "base bonus 'as if' it were weapon enhancement" would you still be arguing that it doesn't stack?
Well, if even after all those rules citations, you are still inclined to use your own interpretation instead... all I can say at this point is that I wish you the best of luck at finding a GM that will let you run with it.
Saethori wrote: Well, if even after all those rules citations, you are still inclined to use your own interpretation instead... all I can say at this point is that I wish you the best of luck at finding a GM that will let you run with it. Specific trumps general. What's written in the rule itself supersedes other general rules. The feat says "add", so that's what you do. Your adding your shield enhancement to attack and damage rolls. The feat does not say to substitute or replace. Nor does it say to use "whichever is the greater" nor does it say "it doesn't stack with the actual weapon enhancement."
So yeah, I'm not worried about other GMs being able to understand what is written in the feat itself.
N N 959 do you really think that if they rule to keep the enhancement bonus that they will let you add the weapon and shield enhancement together or are you saying that is the RAW reading, no matter what the current intent is?
wraithstrike wrote: N N 959 do you really think that if they rule to keep the enhancement bonus that they will let you add the weapon and shield enhancement together or are you saying that is the RAW reading, no matter what the current intent is? If you're asking me what I think the PDT will do versus what the rule intends vs RAW. IME, one may have little or nothing to do with the other.
RAW, it's ambiguous. I don't recall anything else that's written in this manner i.e. you're asked to "add" something that acts "as if" it were something that doesn't stack. One thing people love to do on these forums is pretend that certain words are used informally or that the rules are written in an familiar/informal manner and that allows them to reinterpret plain english. Functionally, none of us knows what " as if" means in this context. My take is that they clearly could have told us that this is an enhancement and they didn't. The reason for that, I discuss below. Nevertheless, the RAW tells me I'm adding something to "attack and damage" and I am not adding together weapon enhancements. A rationale mind might read it differently, specifically that you are getting a "weapon enhancement," but you'd still have the hurdle of getting around the word "add" which isn't possible without arguing RAI.
When trying to decipher what is intended, we have to give the Q&A I posted, full credit. After all, we all agree that the penalties are only with regards to TWF, so we can't accept that correction and reject the "base" bonus correction which was part of the same response. Reading Jason's Q&A gives me insight as to why this is so problematic in RAW. This reads as if it was written with the intent of adding a "base bonus," not an "enhancement bonus."
I believe Paizo intended for the shield's "base" bonus to stack with the weapon enhancement. This is why there is no talk of stacking and they use the word "add". At most you'd get a +7 to attack and damage after spending 50k. I do not believe that the base bonus is intended to count towards the actual enhancement value because they would have said that. The feat simply increases your attack and damage modifiers.
Regarding the PDT, I've seen two instances where the alleged author of a feat/item posted that they specifically wrote the description with the intent that it would do X and the PDT said not X. That means the PDT isn't concerned with parsing rules language, they are telling us what they want the game to do regardless of how something is written. In other words, a PDT ruling doesn't tell us who is right or wrong with respect to RAW. It just tell us what happens moving forward.
Based on past PDT rulings and since this is something that is almost uniquely beneficial to full on martial types, I would expect that if they leave it as an actual enhancement bonus, they will definitely not let it stack. The PDT is much more consistent and inclined to curtail mechanical martial combat benefits as opposed to caster spell benefits. The only question I have is whether they will then allow it to act as sufficient for overcoming DR. I would not hold my breath on that one, but then failing to do so would be contradictory.
Based on what Jason wrote and my aforementioned observation that this is an item for martial types, I think it is highly probable that the PDT will drop it back to base bonus, it will not count towards DR, and it will stack with all other bonuses. After all, you're only getting a +2 benefit with a heavy shield.
EDIT
I will say that in the improbability that the PDT were to stay with enhancement and allow it to stack, it's not the parade of horrible that people are trying to portray. How many campaigns involve +5 / +5 shields? Of those that do how significant is someone getting an extra +5 on attack and damage on a 1d6 weapon that you have to employ in melee? I ran PFS scenario in the last special and a bard was giving the entire party +5 / +5 at level 8. Even at best this is hardly a game breaking feat. You're talking about a very small subset of PCs that are going to have this, and most of them are going to Rangers who aren't even the best at Melee.
Holistically, stacking is, imo, inconsequential at the levels someone is truly able to afford a +5 / +5 shield, so you'd have to convince me that Ranger getting +3 enhancement at level 7 or 8 i some huge problem. I am not seeing it.
N N 959 wrote: Specific trumps general. What's written in the rule itself supersedes other general rules. The feat says "add", so that's what you do. Your adding your shield enhancement to attack and damage rolls. The feat does not say to substitute or replace. Nor does it say to use "whichever is the greater" nor does it say "it doesn't stack with the actual weapon enhancement." You are correct, the feat says add. And you are adding. You very much are adding. You are adding your shield enhancement bonus to your attack and damage rolls.
And that is what the feat asks you to do, so once you have done it, the feat's effect is over.
It doesn't need to say "whichever is greater" or "doesn't stack with other enhancement bonuses" because other rules already say that.
The specific "you add your shield enhancement to your weapon attack rolls and weapon damage rolls" trumps the general "you add your shield enhancement bonus only to that shield's AC Bonus".
You add it to your weapon attack rolls and damage rolls, and that is it. It is specific, and that is specifically what it told you to do. It didn't tell you that this stacked with other enhancement bonuses, so it doesn't.
You can't use just one instruction that has already been followed to extrapolate other meanings.
Saethori wrote: stuff Show me one single other example of the rules using "add" when conveying a bonus when it is crystal clear that the two things are not to be added. Do that one time and I'll concede your point. Otherwise, you're arguing RAI in a RAW discussion.
N N 959 wrote: wraithstrike wrote: N N 959 do you really think that if they rule to keep the enhancement bonus that they will let you add the weapon and shield enhancement together or are you saying that is the RAW reading, no matter what the current intent is? If you're asking me what I think the PDT will do versus what the rule intends vs RAW. IME, one may have little or nothing to do with the other.
RAW, it's ambiguous. I don't recall anything else that's written in this manner i.e. you're asked to "add" something that acts "as if" it were something that doesn't stack. One thing people love to do on these forums is pretend that certain words are used informally or that the rules are written in an familiar/informal manner and that allows them to reinterpret plain english. Functionally, none of us knows what " as if" means in this context. My take is that they clearly could have told us that this is an enhancement and they didn't. The reason for that, I discuss below. Nevertheless, the RAW tells me I'm adding something to "attack and damage" and I am not adding together weapon enhancements. A rationale mind might read it differently, specifically that you are getting a "weapon enhancement," but you'd still have the hurdle of getting around the word "add" which isn't possible without arguing RAI.
When trying to decipher what is intended, we have to give the Q&A I posted, full credit. After all, we all agree that the penalties are only with regards to TWF, so we can't accept that correction and reject the "base" bonus correction which was part of the same response. Reading Jason's Q&A gives me insight as to why this is so problematic in RAW. This reads as if it was written with the intent of adding a "base bonus," not an "enhancement bonus."
I believe Paizo intended for the shield's "base" bonus to stack with the weapon enhancement. This is why there is no talk of stacking and they use the word "add". At most you'd get a +7 to attack and damage after spending 50k. I... I was asking because people tend to argue based on "this is what the book says literally" or "this is how it is intended to play out". Sometimes a person can agree that the book literally says one thing while also agreeing that it means something else.
Sometimes two people will be coming from different stances(what the book says vs how it would play out in an actual game), and then realize they actually agree on both accounts. So I think it is important to differentiate which one you(not you specifically) are coming from since it may end a disagreement that does not really exist.
Bonuses wrote: Bonuses are numerical values that are added to checks and statistical scores. Most bonuses have a type, and as a general rule, bonuses of the same type are not cumulative (do not “stack”)—only the greater bonus granted applies.
The important aspect of bonus types is that two bonuses of the same type don't generally stack. With the exception of dodge bonuses, most circumstance bonuses, and racial bonuses, only the better bonus of a given type works. Bonuses without a type always stack, unless they are from the same source.
Stacking wrote: Stacking refers to the act of adding together bonuses or penalties that apply to one particular check or statistic. Generally speaking, most bonuses of the same type do not stack. Instead, only the highest bonus applies. Most penalties do stack, meaning that their values are added together. Penalties and bonuses generally stack with one another, meaning that the penalties might negate or exceed part or all of the bonuses, and vice versa.
N N 959 wrote: Saethori wrote: stuff Show me one single other example of the rules using "add" when conveying a bonus when it is crystal clear that the two things are not to be added. Do that one time and I'll concede your point. Otherwise, you're arguing RAI in a RAW discussion. Even RAW is subject to interpretation, but I do see that is what you are arguing now.
As to you conceding
Quote:
Fury's Fall (Combat)
You can use strength and agility to send foes crashing to the ground.
Prerequisites: Improved Trip.
Benefit: When making a trip attack, add your Dexterity bonus to your CMB.
This ability says that you "add" your dex. It doesn't say add your dex instead of your strength.
Quote:
Agile Maneuvers (Combat)
You've learned to use your quickness in place of brute force when performing combat maneuvers.
Benefit: You add your Dexterity bonus to your base attack bonus and size bonus when determining your Combat Maneuver Bonus instead of your Strength bonus.
Normal: You add your Strength bonus to your base attack bonus and size bonus when determining your Combat Maneuver Bonus.
This ability replaces strength with dex.
So you should be able to add the dex, but there was an FAQ that came out saying that you can't add the same ability score to the same roll twice.
They claimed this was always the rule even though ability scores are not a bonus type so the book does not support it.
wraithstrike wrote: N N 959 wrote: Saethori wrote: stuff Show me one single other example of the rules using "add" when conveying a bonus when it is crystal clear that the two things are not to be added. Do that one time and I'll concede your point. Otherwise, you're arguing RAI in a RAW discussion. Even RAW is subject to interpretation, but I do see that is what you are arguing now.
As to you conceding
Quote:
Fury's Fall (Combat)....
This doesn't get you there. You run into a number of problems:
1. In the example you've given, you have two separate feats trying to add the same modifier to the same act. That's not what Shield Master is doing. We are not debating whether I can "add" my shield's enhancement bonus twice.
2. It isn't "crystal clear" from either feat description that it won't work. The PDT had to come out and tell us that this was the case, it doesn't matter that they said this was "always the rule." It had to be pointed out.
3. The contradictory argument being put forth is that we are being told to "add" something and it is clear from the same description that the thing being added won't stack with what is already there. Neither of these feats satisfy that requirement.
@Saethori - You have to show me an item or ability that says to "add" a benefit for something we know can't be added. Quoting rules that are applied on general terms doesn't get you past the the specific exception that Shield Master creates ...if it were actually adding enhancements.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
wraithstrike wrote: So I think it is important to differentiate which one you(not you specifically) are coming from since it may end a disagreement that does not really exist. Yes, I took it as a question asked in good faith, which is why I answered it.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Actually both feats do not add. One replaces strength. It says "instead of your Strength bonus". The other just adds dex to the final roll.
Are you saying that adding to the final number which is what one does is the same as replacing one of the contributing number which is what "instead of your Strength bonus" does?
One of them is saying replace X(strength) with y(dexterity).
Example A+X=CMB is now A+Y=CMB
The other is saying add y(dexterity) to the final number not in place of.
This one is A+x+y=CMB
With both feats it should be A+y+y=CMB.
So yeah it does fit. You just don't want to concede the point.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
N N 959 wrote: @Saethori - You have to show me an item or ability that says to "add" a benefit for something we know can't be added. Quoting rules that are applied on general terms doesn't get you past the the specific exception that Shield Master creates ...if it were actually adding enhancements. N N 959 wrote: Show me one single other example of the rules using "add" when conveying a bonus when it is crystal clear that the two things are not to be added. Do that one time and I'll concede your point. Otherwise, you're arguing RAI in a RAW discussion. I have shown what you requested. I have shown you instances where "add" does not mean "always add, at the detriment to other rules", as has Wraithstrike. And now, rather than hold up to your agreement of conceding your point, you moved the goalposts.
You have been shown the rules. In excruciating detail. And are still saying "nope, because it says add, I get to ignore rules about stacking".
If you cannot be held in good faith to so much as acknowledge rules, there is little reason to argue this further.
N N 959 wrote: A whole lotta words. Say it with me.
"Enhancement bonuses don't stack with other enhancement bonuses."
This really is not complicated. The rules of the game do what they say they do and they don't do what they don't say they do.
Enhancement bonuses don't stack. This is an enhancement bonus. The bonus this is trying to stack with is an enhancement bonus. Do the math.
You can cast bull's strength on a guy wearing a belt of strength +4. Bull's Strength says it "adds" a +4 bonus to the guy's strength! Doesn't that mean that the rules of the game just stop functioning, and the strength bonus gets doubled?
No. Doesn't work there, doesn't work here.
Sorry man. Enhancement bonuses don't stack with other enhancement bonuses. This feat doesn't contradict that, so the rules stand.
The Morphling wrote: Sorry man. Enhancement bonuses don't stack with other enhancement bonuses. This feat doesn't contradict that, so the rules stand. The point he is trying to make is that the wording doesn't specify that it is an Enhancement bonus.
Here is something I posted earlier in this thread:
I wrote: Here are two interpretations (brackets added).
Add [an untyped bonus equal to] your shield’s enhancement bonus to attack and damage rolls made with the shield as if it were a weapon enhancement bonus.
Add your shield’s enhancement bonus to attack and damage rolls made with the shield as if it were a weapon enhancement bonus [, this bonus doesn't stack with a weapon's existing enhancement bonus].
I think the second is a more reasonable interpretation, but the wording is unclear which is why I think the feat should be rewritten or FAQ'd.
Just got to say I did play a Shield Master build as Raw (not having seen the Designer Comments on it at the time) but not stacking Weapon enhancement with Shield enhancement.
Got to admit it was funny that mu shield attacks, both primary and secondary were better than my primary weapon attack. I even used my Haste bonus attack for an additional Shield Bash.
It was Shield Bash, Shield bash, Shield bash and then I'd roll the crappy weapon attacks. :P
Stephen Ede wrote: Just got to say I did play a Shield Master build as Raw (not having seen the Designer Comments on it at the time) but not stacking Weapon enhancement with Shield enhancement.
Got to admit it was funny that mu shield attacks, both primary and secondary were better than my primary weapon attack. I even used my Haste bonus attack for an additional Shield Bash.
It was Shield Bash, Shield bash, Shield bash and then I'd roll the crappy weapon attacks. :P
What is the weapon enhancement on your Shield. What is the weapon enhancement on your "crappy" weapon and what type of weapon is it?
Enhancement bonuses don't stack with other enhancement bonuses. Disprove that, and you'll have a case. Fail to do so, and you're making up your own rules.
Stephen Ede wrote: Just got to say I did play a Shield Master build as Raw (not having seen the Designer Comments on it at the time) but not stacking Weapon enhancement with Shield enhancement.
Got to admit it was funny that mu shield attacks, both primary and secondary were better than my primary weapon attack. I even used my Haste bonus attack for an additional Shield Bash.
It was Shield Bash, Shield bash, Shield bash and then I'd roll the crappy weapon attacks. :P
should duel wield shields then make all your attacks useful
The Morphling wrote: Enhancement bonuses don't stack with other enhancement bonuses. Disprove that, and you'll have a case. Fail to do so, and you're making up your own rules. 1) Shield Master doesn't convey a weapon enhancement bonus. "as if" is tantamount to saying something is not the thing it works "as if" it is. Otherwise, you don't say "as if" you simply say it is an enhancement bonus.
2) If it is an enhancement bonus, specific trumps general. The feat creates a specific exception because it says you "add" the benefit there's nothing specifically saying it doesn't stack with an existing weapon bonus. As I've yet to see any other feat say "add" a bonus when it specifically doesn't stack, the language must be taken at face value.
Trying to argue that the designers want to us to "add" something they know we won't be adding is a self-defeating argument.
Gallant Armor wrote: Here are two interpretations (brackets added).
Quote: Add [an untyped bonus equal to] your shield’s enhancement bonus to attack and damage rolls made with the shield as if it were a weapon enhancement bonus.
Add your shield’s enhancement bonus to attack and damage rolls made with the shield as if it were a weapon enhancement bonus [, this bonus doesn't stack with a weapon's existing enhancement bonus].
I think the second is a more reasonable interpretation, but the wording is unclear which is why I think the feat should be rewritten or FAQ'd.
Gallant, how many feats in the Core rulebook actually give you an enhancement bonus to your weapon or armor, "as if" or actual?
|
