Shield Brace and Strength modifiers: What do you get?


Rules Questions

1 to 50 of 64 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

So there was an argument about the feat Shield Brace in THIS THREAD that got out of hand ...

(Combat, Shield Mastery)

Source Armor Master's Handbook pg. 19
You’ve mastered the art of balancing a polearm’s weight against a shield’s stability.

Prerequisites: Shield Focus; base attack bonus +3 or fighter level 1st; proficiency with light shields, heavy shields, or tower shields.

Benefit: You can use a two-handed weapon sized appropriately for you from the polearm or spears weapon group while also using a light, heavy, or tower shield with which you are proficient. The shield’s armor check penalty (if any) applies to attacks made with the weapon.

THE ARGUMENT: When using Shield Brace, do you apply 1.5 x your Strength modifier to damage or only 1 x your Strength modifier?

I'll make the two opposing arguments the first two posts, so you can just "+1" the post you agree with. Feel free to discuss this here, so that we can move on with the other thread.

EDIT: Or you can "+1" Lelomenia's post - with the option: "it's ambiguous"


4 people marked this as a favorite.

You get 1.5 x your Strength modifier because you're wielding a two-handed weapon.


You only get 1 x your Strength modifier since your wielding shield in one hand and a weapon in the other.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

option 3: “it’s ambiguous”


1 person marked this as a favorite.

1.5x your Strength modifier.

Why?

Because the feat does not say that you are holding the spear in one hand, therefore you are not holding the spear in one hand.

There is no argument to be had unless you are adding words to the feat that are not originally there.


It says you can wield a two handed weapon while also wielding a shield. It calls out a two handed weapon and says nothing about using it one hand.

There is already a built in penalty for using a shield which is the ACP to attack rolls.


Where does it say you're wielding a weapon in one hand and a shield in the other?

It doesn't because that's not what's being modeled. You're wielding the weapon in two hands and wearing a shield on one arm. It's unwieldy, hence the penalty.

1.5x, fight me.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
blahpers wrote:
1.5x, fight me.

I'll fight you, but first I have to work out my damage modifiers ...


2 people marked this as a favorite.
MrCharisma wrote:
blahpers wrote:
1.5x, fight me.
I'll fight you, but first I have to work out my damage modifiers ...

This made me laugh until I stopped.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

RAW it is x1.5, it never says that you use the polearm or spear with one hand.

RAI, I see a way to do that only when you are stationary and bracing your shield against the terrain. In a home game, I would apply more stringent requirements to use the feat than those in its description.


While it's not anything official PFS ruled that it's 1x. You can find it somewhere, but even in that ruling they said it's not RAW.


1.5x, you're wielding it two-handed.


Diego Rossi wrote:

RAW it is x1.5, it never says that you use the polearm or spear with one hand.

RAI, I see a way to do that only when you are stationary and bracing your shield against the terrain. In a home game, I would apply more stringent requirements to use the feat than those in its description.

Interesting, I always pictured it as meaning you brace your spear with your shield, which made me wonder how you'd do this with a swung polearm, didn't think of the shield being the item being braced.

And that's the kind of dispute you can get when we start trying to picture how something would actually be done to make rulings. Not saying not to do that, but observing a tendecy.

Grand Lodge

baggageboy wrote:
While it's not anything official PFS ruled that it's 1x. You can find it somewhere, but even in that ruling they said it's not RAW.

They errataed specifically for PFS, the GM is to choose whether going PFS style or any other reading of choice. The RAW/official could only be decided by whoever wrote that part of the Armor master handbook


I've always considered it to be more of a way to brace your shield against the polearm you are holding in both hands...

Any shield other than a buckler requires a hand holding some sort of handle on the back of the shield to stabilize its weight. This normally prevents the use of polearms or other two-handed weapons.

The feat is the adaptation of strapping the shield on, but not holding onto its handle. Instead, you are pressing the edge of the shield into the shaft of your polearm so it doesn't slide off your forearm or move around. You can thrust or swing with the polearm of your choice due to studious training.

Grand Lodge

VoodistMonk wrote:

I've always considered it to be more of a way to brace your shield against the polearm you are holding in both hands...

Any shield other than a buckler requires a hand holding some sort of handle on the back of the shield to stabilize its weight. This normally prevents the use of polearms or other two-handed weapons.

The feat is the adaptation of strapping the shield on, but not holding onto its handle. Instead, you are pressing the edge of the shield into the shaft of your polearm so it doesn't slide off your forearm or move around. You can thrust or swing with the polearm of your choice due to studious training.

This isn't a matter of being realistic, but more like what would be plausible in ingame aspects by 50 percent +1 of the players/GMs (bar a PF1 Designer opinion)


As the crowd above, x1,5.
As a x1 is typically the kind of departure from the general case that would otherwise be clearly indicated. As the pig has said, the drawback is on the attack roll.


There are 3rd Party feats that don't have the penalty, but clearly indicate that the weapon is wielded one-handed and gets only 1x Str.

So, the player can take the ACP penalty to attack and keep the 1.5x Str OR take no penalty and reduce the bonus to 1x Str. I think that's a good balance.


It seems that it takes more effort to nerf the feat, than to just let the feat do exactly as it says... no more, no less.

It doesn't say that you no longer get the benefits of using the polearm in both hands. It doesn't even imply that this is the case.

It says that you can simultaneously wield a polearm and a shield, taking any applicable ACP from the shield to your attack roll with the polearm.

Let it do exactly that...


KahnyaGnorc wrote:

There are 3rd Party feats that don't have the penalty, but clearly indicate that the weapon is wielded one-handed and gets only 1x Str.

So, the player can take the ACP penalty to attack and keep the 1.5x Str OR take no penalty and reduce the bonus to 1x Str. I think that's a good balance.

You're using the existence of third-party feats to decide how to interpret a first-party feat?

BRB, gonna go make some sweet feats and post them on Twitter.

Grand Lodge

KahnyaGnorc wrote:

There are 3rd Party feats that don't have the penalty, but clearly indicate that the weapon is wielded one-handed and gets only 1x Str.

So, the player can take the ACP penalty to attack and keep the 1.5x Str OR take no penalty and reduce the bonus to 1x Str. I think that's a good balance.

That kind of post is precisely part of why I ban almost every 3rd party source from my home games ...


I would compare it to a similar feat, Unhindered Shield which allows buckler ac with any weapon attacks vs Shield Brace for more 1 ac and a little lower level but restricts what type of weapons it can be used with.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Excuse me while I oneshot this.

Paizo FAQ wrote:

Power Attack: If I am using a two-handed weapon with one hand (such as a lance while mounted), do still I get the +50% damage for using a two-handed weapon?

Yes.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Artificial 20 wrote:

Excuse me while I oneshot this.

Paizo FAQ wrote:

Power Attack: If I am using a two-handed weapon with one hand (such as a lance while mounted), do still I get the +50% damage for using a two-handed weapon?

Yes.

Your one shot fail as it meet adamantine armor. ;-)

Paizo FAQ wrote:

Weapons, Two-Handed in One Hand: When a feat or other special ability says to treat a weapon that is normally wielded in two hands as a one handed weapon, does it get treated as one or two handed weapon for the purposes of how to apply the Strength modifier or the Power Attack feat?

If you're wielding it in one hand (even if it is normally a two-handed weapon), treat it as a one-handed weapon for the purpose of how much Strength to apply, the Power Attack damage bonus, and so on.
posted July 2013 | back to top

Your quote was posted in May 2013, so teoretically the July 2013 quote supersede it.

When actually applying those FAQs to the game I think that most gaming tables choose one and forget the other.

The possible difference is the older FAQ considers the use of a weapon that still it is used as a 2 handed weapon, even if with one hand, while the second fac consider the two-handed weapons that can be treated as one-handed weapons trough a feat or ability.

Headhache inducing.


None of those FAQ's pertain to this discussion, though.

See, you are not using a two-handed weapon in one hand. It doesn't say that you are, so you aren't.

You are not treating a two-handed weapon as a one-handed weapon. It doesn't say that you are, so you aren't.

You are simply wielding a shield while you wield a polearm... no mechanical change has been made to how you wield the shield or the polearm... you are simply allowed to use them together when you otherwise would not be.


VoodistMonk wrote:

None of those FAQ's pertain to this discussion, though.

See, you are not using a two-handed weapon in one hand. It doesn't say that you are, so you aren't.

You are not treating a two-handed weapon as a one-handed weapon. It doesn't say that you are, so you aren't.

You are simply wielding a shield while you wield a polearm... no mechanical change has been made to how you wield the shield or the polearm... you are simply allowed to use them together when you otherwise would not be.

it either makes an exception to the general rule of “you can’t use a hand wielding a shield for anything else” or an exception to the general rule of “you can’t wield a two handed weapon with one hand.” It doesn’t say which.


It is clearly a Shield Mastery feat, so it's PROBABLY adjusting what is otherwise considered normal shield use.

But it doesn't spell it out, other than being labeled as a Shield Mastery feat... having other shield-related feats as prerequisites, and all...

It's actually much easier to just change the dynamics of operating the shield...

The normal rule being that you cannot use the hand holding the shield for anything else.

This feat's entire point of existence is to allow a workaround to the normal rule, and now you CAN use the hand holding the shield to also be used with polearms.

It doesn't have to change or mention the functions or rules that govern polearms... it is a shield feat, it changes shield things.


I believe the flavor is that your "second hand" is being provided from you bracing the polearm against the shield. Almost like the shield is a hand.

Quote:
You’ve mastered the art of balancing a polearm’s weight against a shield’s stability.

So, you are still using the weapon "two-handed", but one of the hands isn't a normal hand.


Think of it as a small semicircular notch in your shield that you rest the shaft of your polearm in.

This feat represents you being among those who ask the blacksmith for this unique feature, that your average Joe has yet to discover.

It's not rocket surgery, guys... the only way to possibly make this feat difficult to understand is if you want it to say something that it doesn't.

Read the words provided in the feat. Don't do anything else other than what those words say.

The end.


It's like using a Greek Dipylon Shield with a Long Spear... normally the long spear is too unwieldy to wield in one hand, however, the simicircle notches in the side of a Dipylon Shield allowed greek warriors to brace their longspears on their shield to attack from a defensive phalanx. This style of fighting sacrifices a little bit of control over the spears movement, in exchange for the defense provided by the shield, but the use of the shield to support the spear allowed them to still put their full force behind each thrust as though they were using two-hands.

Since the feat doesn't specify how it alters the rules, and the only real clue we have is in it's flavor text, which draws a parallel to greek warriors with Dipylon Shields and Long Spears... the most logical conclusion is that you do in fact still get 1.5x str on the damage. You're simply sacrificing accuracy for defense.

Grand Lodge

Since this is a fantasy setting forget what is realistic and just follow the writting of the feat.
It gives an attack penalty - thats it.
There are enough urealistic feats out there already, so this should not be the argument.


Diego Rossi wrote:
Artificial 20 wrote:
Excuse me while I oneshot this.
Paizo FAQ wrote:

Power Attack: If I am using a two-handed weapon with one hand (such as a lance while mounted), do still I get the +50% damage for using a two-handed weapon?

Yes.
Your one shot fail as it meet adamantine armor. ;-)
Paizo FAQ wrote:

Weapons, Two-Handed in One Hand: When a feat or other special ability says to treat a weapon that is normally wielded in two hands as a one handed weapon, does it get treated as one or two handed weapon for the purposes of how to apply the Strength modifier or the Power Attack feat?

If you're wielding it in one hand (even if it is normally a two-handed weapon), treat it as a one-handed weapon for the purpose of how much Strength to apply, the Power Attack damage bonus, and so on. (July 2013)

Your quote was posted in May 2013, so theoretically the July 2013 quote supersedes it.

I am mentally envisioning a cartoon-load of ACME anvils dropping on the head of the unfortunate writer of the May 2013 FAQ, who was unceremoniously overruled within two months.

Otherwise, if the May FAQ stood, it would have implied that a lance had always conferred 1.5x while wielded in one hand astride a mount which was not charging -- a feature you'd expect the CRB to have alluded to, if not 3e's PHB before it.

"Why am I not using a shield if I'm not getting any more damage on this stubborn dragon? I feel like such a chump!" (St. George)

Quote:
When actually applying those FAQs to the game I think that most gaming tables choose one and forget the other. The possible difference is the older FAQ considers the use of a weapon that still it is used as a 2 handed weapon, even if with one hand, while the second faq consider the two-handed weapons that can be treated as one-handed weapons through a feat or ability. Headhache inducing.

Indeed. In all my years of d20 gaming since 3.0 debuted, Paizo's forum is the only place I've encountered the argument (let alone argued with visceral passion, in the case of that other thread) that a PC using a two-handed weapon in one hand is entitled to 1.5 damage when the ability granting such ability does not explicitly confer it.

(Disclosure: I have not attended every d20 gaming venue in the world.)

Chell Raighn wrote:

It's like using a Greek Dipylon Shield with a Long Spear... normally the long spear is too unwieldy to wield in one hand, however, the simicircle notches in the side of a Dipylon Shield allowed greek warriors to brace their longspears on their shield to attack from a defensive phalanx. This style of fighting sacrifices a little bit of control over the spears movement, in exchange for the defense provided by the shield, but the use of the shield to support the spear allowed them to still put their full force behind each thrust as though they were using two-hands.

Since the feat doesn't specify how it alters the rules, and the only real clue we have is in it's flavor text, which draws a parallel to greek warriors with Dipylon Shields and Long Spears... the most logical conclusion is that you do in fact still get 1.5x str on the damage. You're simply sacrificing accuracy for defense.

Actually, you're gaining both accuracy and defense from the Shield Brace feat (since retention of the shield's AC as well as the ability to make attacks with a two-handed weapon held in one hand are both unlocked by it) -- but this (at least realistically) comes at the expense of the power you'd otherwise tap from having both hands on the weapon.


So for me both interpretations are essentially seeing the same benefit, but in a different place (which means they come to a different result).

Shield Brace lets you wield a two-handed weapon (polearm) and a shield at the same time, effectively giving you 3 "hands" worth. Specifically, it reduces the "hands" cost of one of your items.

If it reduces the "hands" cost of the weapon (from two hands to one hand) then you'd only get 1x damage, since you're attacking with a 1-handed weapon.

If it reduces the "hands" cost of the shield (from one hand to zero hands) then you'd get 1.5x damage, since you're attacking with a 2-handed weapon.

Both of these interpretations make sense in the context of their own "truth".

I hope this helps people see the other side of the argument, and have a more informed debate.


There are no "hands' worth" of anything... that is gibberish, arbitrary nonsense that literally just adds to the confusion.

It turns a shield into a buckler. The end.

You are still holding your polearm in two hands, as normal, because the feat does not say otherwise.

You are also holding a shield. Sure, in no hands, if it has to be quantified. It's on your forearm, like a buckler... does the feat say so? Nope, but it's sure way easier to envision just sliding that shield onto the forearm than it is to get into "hands' worth" BS garbage talk.


Slim Jim wrote:
In all my years of d20 gaming since 3.0 debuted, Paizo's forum is the only place I've encountered the argument (let alone argued with visceral passion, in the case of that other thread) that a PC using a two-handed weapon in one hand is entitled to 1.5 damage when the ability granting such ability does not explicitly confer it.

Is your lying pathological, or do you do it just to annoy us?

No one is arguing that "a PC using a two-handed weapon in one hand is entitled to 1.5 damage" thanks to Shield Brace. No one. Stop using a strawman (coupled with an appeal to ridicule) just because you can't beat our actual arguments.


The Polearm Master Fighter's ability, Bladed Brush, and Spear Dancing Style all still have you holding on to your polearm with two hands... why would this feat be any different without specifically saying so?

Moral of the story: you are still holding your polearm in both hands...

Grand Lodge

Derklord wrote:
Slim Jim wrote:
In all my years of d20 gaming since 3.0 debuted, Paizo's forum is the only place I've encountered the argument (let alone argued with visceral passion, in the case of that other thread) that a PC using a two-handed weapon in one hand is entitled to 1.5 damage when the ability granting such ability does not explicitly confer it.

Is your lying pathological, or do you do it just to annoy us?

No one is arguing that "a PC using a two-handed weapon in one hand is entitled to 1.5 damage" thanks to Shield Brace. No one. Stop using a strawman (coupled with an appeal to ridicule) just because you can't beat our actual arguments.

Still personal POVs vs personal POVs, so being judgmental is double-edged. Seems the rare users to try bring more reason into this, and it falls into deaf ears. So name-calling ?


Quote:
An unusual case of the handedness rule is an ability that allows you to treat a two-handed weapon as a one-handed weapon. For example, the titan mauler's jotungrip (which allows you to wield a two-handed weapon with one hand) allows you to wield a bastard sword in one hand even without the Exotic Weapon Proficiency, and (as the ability states) treats it as a one-handed weapon, therefore it is treated as a one-handed weapon for other effects.
Quote:
Jotungrip (Ex): At 2nd level, a titan mauler may choose to wield a two-handed melee weapon in one hand with a –2 penalty on attack rolls while doing so. The weapon must be appropriately sized for her, and it is treated as one-handed when determining the effect of Power Attack, Strength bonus to damage, and the like. This ability replaces uncanny dodge.

The point is that two handed weapons merely wielded in one hand may still count as two handed. But abilities that cause the weapon to work as “one-handed weapons” count as “one-handed weapons” for all purposes. It’s a minor distinction, but important and the cause of this confusion.


We have two FAQs linked in this thread, with some people claiming that they are contradicting each other. They aren't, and only one of them is relevant to the discussion.

Paizo FAQ wrote:

Power Attack: If I am using a two-handed weapon with one hand (such as a lance while mounted), do still I get the +50% damage for using a two-handed weapon?

Yes.

If I'm using a two-handed weapon in one hand, it is still treated as a two-handed weapon for Power Attack (and presumably Strength).

Paizo FAQ wrote:

Weapons, Two-Handed in One Hand: When a feat or other special ability says to treat a weapon that is normally wielded in two hands as a one handed weapon, does it get treated as one or two handed weapon for the purposes of how to apply the Strength modifier or the Power Attack feat?

If you're wielding it in one hand (even if it is normally a two-handed weapon), treat it as a one-handed weapon for the purpose of how much Strength to apply, the Power Attack damage bonus, and so on.

When a feat or other special ability says to treat a two-handed weapon as a one-handed weapon, it is treated as a one-handed weapon for Power Attack and Strength.

====

Now since Shield Brace doesn't state that you treat the polearm as one-handed, the second FAQ is completely irrelevant. So again, 1.5x damage.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Shield Brace doesn't say that you treat your polearm as a one-handed weapon.

It doesn't even imply that you treat your polearm as a one-handed weapon.

Jotungrip says exactly what it does.

Thunder and Fang says exactly what it does.

Notice a trend?


I didn't quite ninja you, but there is actually that third FAQ that I partly quoted, which came even later in October

FAQ October 2013 wrote:

Bastard Sword: Is this a one-handed weapon or a two-handed weapon?

A bastard sword is a one-handed weapon (although for some rules it blurs the line between a one-handed and a two-handed weapon).

The physical properties of a bastard sword are that of a one-handed weapon. For example, its hardness, hit points, ability to be crafted out of special materials, category for using the Craft skill, effect of alchemical silver, and so on, are all that of a one-handed weapon.

For class abilities, feats, and other rule elements that vary based on or specifically depend on wielding a one-handed weapon, a two-handed weapon, or a one-handed weapon with two hands, the bastard sword counts as however many hands you are using to wield it.

For example, if you are wielding it one-handed (which normally requires the Exotic Weapon Proficiency feat), it is treated as a one-handed weapon; Power Attack only gets the one-handed bonus, you cannot use Pushing Assault or Shield of Swings (which require a two-handed weapon), and so on.

If you are wielding it with two hands (whether or not you have the Exotic Weapon Proficiency to wield it with one hand), it is treated as a two-handed weapon; Power Attack gets the increased damage bonus, you can use Pushing Assault or Shield of Swings (which require a two-handed weapon), and so on.

An unusual case of the handedness rule is an ability that allows you to treat a two-handed weapon as a one-handed weapon. For example, the titan mauler's jotungrip (which allows you to wield a two-handed weapon with one hand) allows you to wield a bastard sword in one hand even without the Exotic Weapon Proficiency, and (as the ability states) treats it as a one-handed weapon, therefore it is treated as a one-handed weapon for other effects.

So, I'm under the impression that none of the FAQs are incorrect or superceded, but can be very misleading. Because there can be a surprising difference between the game terms "in one hand" and "one-handed".


*Khan* wrote:

Since this is a fantasy setting forget what is realistic and just follow the writting of the feat.

It gives an attack penalty - thats it.
There are enough urealistic feats out there already, so this should not be the argument.

This is a fine way to look at it. Feel free to dress it up on a case-by-case basis if it helps you stay immersed, of course.


Derklord wrote:
Slim Jim wrote:
In all my years of d20 gaming since 3.0 debuted, Paizo's forum is the only place I've encountered the argument (let alone argued with visceral passion, in the case of that other thread) that a PC using a two-handed weapon in one hand is entitled to 1.5 damage when the ability granting such ability does not explicitly confer it.
Is your lying pathological, or do you do it just to annoy us?

(eyebrows)

Why, Derk. How... *passionate*.

Derklord, in the other thread, wrote:
Slim Jim wrote:

Shield Brace, while not a bad feat per se, does have limitations:

* You use your two-handed spear or polearm in one hand (so, forfeiting 1.5x strength and 1.5x Power Attack). -- It doesn't explicitly state that in the text, but it's in an errata floating around out there (I know it's been ruled this way in PFS).
That's not official. It's nothing more than a houserule. PFS changes are not official rules.
Except we now do know it is official (i.e., not merely PFS), thanks to the FAQ uncovered by Diego Rossi in the commentary preceding your second instance (the first being in the other thread linked in the OP) of accusing me of lying. (I thank thee kindly for maintaining civilized decorum by not boldfacing the word this time. <doff tricorn>)
FAQ wrote:

Weapons, Two-Handed in One Hand: When a feat or other special ability says to treat a weapon that is normally wielded in two hands as a one handed weapon, does it get treated as one or two handed weapon for the purposes of how to apply the Strength modifier or the Power Attack feat?

(answer) If you're wielding it in one hand (even if it is normally a two-handed weapon), treat it as a one-handed weapon for the purpose of how much Strength to apply, the Power Attack damage bonus, and so on. (posted July 2013)

(...)
Diego Rossi wrote:
RAW it is x1.5, it never says that you use the polearm or spear with one hand. RAI, I see a way to do that only when you are stationary and bracing your shield against the terrain. In a home game, I would apply more stringent requirements to use the feat than those in its description.

Your arm with the shield equipped has its hand wrapped around the handle of a light, heavy, or tower shield, as this is required for it to be considered equipped. Consequently, you'll have only one hand available for the weapon unless you have a unique physiology, additional limbs, or some other relevant factor.

Derklord wrote:
No one is arguing that "a PC using a two-handed weapon in one hand is entitled to 1.5 damage" thanks to Shield Brace. No one.

You mean, aside from these four people, VoodistMonk at Monday, 08:51 pm in the thread, "1.5x, fight me" blaphers at 11:12pm Monday (I do love the style of that pig; why can't all conversationalists be this pleasant?), Diego Rossi at 11:47pm Monday (apparently before finding the FAQ, which he then honestly shared with the thread) -- with all seven of them favoriting or commenting so at least 24 hours before your first post in the thread this Wednesday morning. "No one", eh?

And let's not forget the unknown person (given a momentary worldwide spotlight) who first asked the bleedin' question that Paizo answered in the FAQ, as they were certainly hoping to glean additional damage from strength or Power Attack via "a feat or other special ability", and which Paizo, infamous for letting rules conundrums remain unaddressed for Rip Van Winklesque periods of time even during the salad days of PF1, made time to answer this particular issue, and over two years before Shield Brace was even a thing to prompt this thread into existence over an issue no one would care about unless 1.5x damage was at stake.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Slim Jim wrote:
Derklord wrote:
No one is arguing that "a PC using a two-handed weapon in one hand is entitled to 1.5 damage" thanks to Shield Brace. No one.
You mean, aside from these four people, VoodistMonk at Monday, 08:51 pm in the thread, "1.5x, fight me" blaphers at 11:12pm Monday (I do love the style of that pig; why can't all conversationalists be this pleasant?), Diego Rossi at 11:47pm Monday (apparently before finding the FAQ, which he then honestly shared with the thread) -- with all seven of them favoriting or commenting so at least 24 hours before your first post in the thread this Wednesday morning. "No one", eh?

Yes, no one. No one is arguing that you get 1.5xStr while "using a two-handed weapon in one hand", because no one but you is arguing that you use the weapon in one hand. Everyone except you can see that the feat description does not contain the word "one" (or "wield", or "treat", or "hand" outside of "two-handed"), and thus the feat cannot possibly make you wield the weapon in only one hand or have it be treated as such.

We're not arguing that if the feat would make you wield the weapon one-handed that you'd only get 1xStr, we're arguing that the feat doesn't do so. If you can't tell the difference, you honestly need help with the english language.

You lies are not "a two-handed weapon wielded in one hand gets 1xStr". I have never claimed that. Your lie in the other threat was your claim that the RAW/what the feat says changes how many hands the weapon uses when the description doesn't say so; the lie in this threat is that you claim we're arguing that you get 1.5xStr on a weapon used in one hand when we aren't saying that. I could also add you newest lie, that you claim that an FAQ talking about happens when after ability changes how many hands you use was an official stance on whether or not the feat does so.

Slim Jim wrote:
And let's not forget the unknown person (given a momentary worldwide spotlight) who first asked the bleedin' question that Paizo answered in the FAQ, as they were certainly hoping to glean additional damage from strength or Power Attack via "a feat or other special ability"

I'm slowly getting the impression that you lack the ability to adeptly read english - either that, or you're once again attacking a strawman instead of my actual argument. I included the words "thanks to Shield Brace", which means that the FAQ question does not fall under what I've said.

Slim Jim wrote:
Why, Derk. How... *passionate*.

Yes, I passionately dislike lying. If you think that's a bad thing, so be it.

-------------------------

Slim Jim wrote:
Your arm with the shield equipped has its hand wrapped around the handle of a light, heavy, or tower shield, as this is required for it to be considered equipped. Consequently, you'll have only one hand available for the weapon unless you have a unique physiology, additional limbs, or some other relevant factor.

The argument works the other way around, too: "Two hands are required to use a two-handed melee weapon effectively." CRB pg. 141 Consequently, you have to be able to use the shield without it occupying a hand.


Philippe Lam wrote:
Still personal POVs vs personal POVs, so being judgmental is double-edged.

That the feat does not say that you use the weapon in one hand is not a personal POV, but a fact. The words for that simply don't appear in the description.


Prerequisites: Shield Focus; base attack bonus +3 or fighter level 1st; proficiency with light shields, heavy shields, or tower shields.

Benefit: You can use a two-handed weapon sized appropriately for you from the polearm or spears weapon group while also using a light, heavy, or tower shield with which you are proficient. The shield’s armor check penalty (if any) applies to attacks made with the weapon.

.....................................

Just thought I would post this again, since I am starting to think that people are reading something else.

Do we need to break it down line-by-line? It won't take long, there are only two sentences. Lol.

Sentence #1:
You can use a two-handed weapon sized appropriately for you from the polearm or spears weapon group while also using a light, heavy, or tower shield with which you are proficient.

Breakdown of Sentence #1:
It says exactly what you can use...
Appropriately sized two-handed polearm or spear. Got it.
A light, heavy, or tower shield. Check.

More importantly, it does NOT say anything about this feat changing how many hands are required to use the appropriately sized two-handed polearm or spear whilst using a light, heavy, or tower shield.

Sentence #2:
The shield’s armor check penalty (if any) applies to attacks made with the weapon.

Breakdown of Sentence #2:
You may suffer a penalty to the accuracy of your appropriately sized two-handed polearm or spear, IF your light, heavy, or tower shield causes you an Armor Check Penalty...

More importantly, it does NOT say anything about this feat changing how many hands are required to use the appropriately sized two-handed polearm or spear whilst using a light, heavy, or tower shield.

....................................

As if the Shield Focus prerequisite wasn't enough to clue people in that this feat MIGHT be about shields and shield-related stuffs, we can further deduce that the feat definitely DOES NOT say anything about changing how many hands are required to use an appropriately sized two-handed polearm or spear.

When feats are doing weapon-related stuffs, they usually have things like Weapon Focus as prerequisites. Weird, I know.

If you want to follow a path of logic and identifying simple patterns, you can see that most every feat that DOES change the "handedness" of a weapon, or has wording similar to "treat this weapon as", they require Weapon Focus with a specific weapon, and the feats only work with that particular type of weapon.

I already provided two examples of this, being Bladed Brush, as well as Thunder and Fang. Both of these are weapon-related feats, with Weapon Focus as prerequisites, and do things like changing the "handedness" of an Earthbreaker from two-handed to one-handed, or allow you to treat a Glaive as a one-handed weapon for the sake of feats and class abilities.

And guess what. Both of those weapon-related feats specifically say that they do exactly what they do in regards to the "handedness" or "treat this as that"... language that is clearly absent from Shield Brace.

Two sentences, people.

Don't be difficult, because it's not difficult.

The feat does exactly what it says it does. Nothing more. Nothing less.

In order for there to be an argument, you literally have to add language to the feat that simply isn't there.

What Strength bonus do you get from using an appropriately sized two-handed polearm or spear? 1.5x, right?

When using Shield Brace, that is the exact same Strength bonus you get whilst using an appropriately sized two-handed polearm or spear with a light, heavy, or tower shield.

Why? Because it is still an appropriately sized two-handed polearm or spear, which, by definition, is used with two hands.

And since the feat didn't say anything to change this, it would just be common sense to assume that it hasn't changed.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

@Derklord: There' a difference between lying and being wrong. Assuming Slim is wrong, he's not lying. Nobody here has lied.

@Slim Jim: I think what you're missing is that nobody else thinks you're wielding the weapon in one hand. You seem to think the only way this works is that you have a shield in one hand and a two-handed weapon in one hand (effectively reducing the "hands" cost of the weapon by one). The argument they're making is that it doesn't affect the weapon, but the shield (effectively reducing the "hands" cost of the shield by one - to zero). This means they still have two hands free to wield the weapon.

@Everyone: I've deliberately tried not to weigh in one way or another in this argument. This isn't because I think it's ambiguous, but because the way I play this in my home games has no bearing on anyone other than the people I play with. If you're getting angry or upset by this thread try to remember that.

I started this thread because the people arguing the strongest really just weren't (aren't) even trying to see the other perspective at all. It was derailing the other thread, and nobody involved was (is) going to be convinced. At this point I don't really see anything constructive coming out of it, it seems like really it's just causing upset. Unless someone has a good reason to keep going I suggest we all just let this be and use whatever ruleset suits us best.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
MrCharisma wrote:
I started this thread because the people arguing the strongest really just weren't (aren't) even trying to see the other perspective at all.

I shouldn't have said that part, it was presumptuous and unfair. My appologies.

My point is that this thread isn't really being constructive, and there are people (including me apparently) who are putting more emotional weight into this argument than it deserves.


Slim Jim wrote:
Your arm with the shield equipped has its hand wrapped around the handle of a light, heavy, or tower shield, as this is required for it to be considered equipped. Consequently, you'll have only one hand available for the weapon unless you have a unique physiology, additional limbs, or some other relevant factor.

Then I guess they can't wield the two-handed weapons that the feat is for as it doesn't make them act as one-handed weapons, and they only have one hand available. Consequently, it's a useless feat.


MrCharisma wrote:
I shouldn't have said that part, it was presumptuous and unfair. My apologies.

It's understandable. Proper adjudication of weapon usage in a game involving goblins and fireballs is pretty far up there on the ladder of things people should get worked up about. Can't think of anything more important. Nope, nothing at all.

*slurps gin*

1 to 50 of 64 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Shield Brace and Strength modifiers: What do you get? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.