Post/Author/DateTime	Post
BomTrady 01-21-07, 02:25 PM	Now I know this goes against the rules as intended.... The shield ward feat from PHB2 says that once you have the feat you apply your shield bonus against Touch Attacks, Trip Attacks, Bull Rush Attempts, Disarm, Grapple, or Overrun. You must take Shield Specialization to get it, which forces you to choose a certain type of shield from the choices: Buckler, Heavy Shield, or Light Shield. However, the RAW int he text for the Shield Ward feat simply say your shield bonus applies. With the shield spell and 5 levels of Abjurant Champion, do I get +9 against all of those things if I burn the two feats? +11 with a two level dip into Argent Savant?
schulerta 01-21-07, 02:42 PM	I would say no personally. I don't have the PHBII in front of me, can you take Shield Specialization with the Tower Shield? If not, the I don't see how you could rationalize it since the shield spell description states it is a tower-shield sized mobile disk of force.
tsuyoshikentsu 01-21-07, 02:42 PM	As far as I can tell, it's kosher. Nice find!
BomTrady 01-21-07, 02:51 PM	Today 02:42 PM schulerta I would say no personally. I don't have the PHBII in front of me, can you take Shield Specialization with the Tower Shield? If not, the I don't see how you could rationalize it since the shield spell description states it is a tower-shield sized mobile disk of force. It says in the shield spell description that it is a "tower shield sized mobile disk" and that it gives a shield bonus. The shield ward text simply states that your shield bonus applies against allt he various listed attack forms. It does not refer back to what kind of shield you are using, or even if you are using one. According to RAW (yes it smells slightly of cheese,I know, but still interesting) this could apply to tower shields, the shield bonus you get from two weapon defense, the shield spell...basically any shield bonus.
schulerta 01-21-07, 03:06 PM	You said shield specialization is a pre-req, and that you could select buckler, light or heavy for that, without that pre-req, then you can't take shield ward.
BomTrady 01-21-07, 03:22 PM	Take a look at Weapon Focus and Weapon Spec. They specify that you must use the selected weapon to gain the benefit of the feat. There is no such specification under Shield Ward, though it does require a pre-requisite feat, that being shield specialization. It never states you must use the type of shield you selected for Shield Spec. Hence, my emphasis on this relying on RAW.
schulerta 01-21-07, 03:34 PM	Take a look at Weapon Focus and Weapon Spec. They specify that you must use the selected weapon to gain the benefit of the feat. There is no such specification under Shield Ward, though it does require a pre-requisite feat, that being shield specialization. It never states you must use the type of shield you selected for Shield Spec. Hence, my emphasis on this relying on RAW. I have found lately on this board that RAW=CHEEZZZZZZZZZZZZ
BomTrady 01-21-07, 03:43 PM	Sorry, I thought I was posting on the character optimization boards...hehehe I think a lot of the stuff on here is not "here go play this and tell your DM to shove it," but more a philosophical excersize akin to sudoku or logic puzzles. To say that people are finding loopholes is, on this board, I believe, a compliment. Why thank you : )
schulerta 01-21-07, 03:44 PM	You're quite welcome. Is your namesake going to cover the spread today?
Bill Bisco: Average Adventurer 01-21-07, 03:47 PM	Don't get too wrapped up in it, there are Far Far Far worse things than a few measly extra points.
BomTrady 01-21-07, 03:48 PM	We're hopin for a win outright. We shall see. I just hope the Patriots and Saints win so that we can listen to the whole country say how much they hate the Pats and want the Saints to win for the next two weeks. God I love villification.
Iron Klaw Merc 01-21-07, 05:25 PM	Now I know this goes against the rules as intended.... You must take Shield Specialization to get it, which forces you to choose a certain type of shield from the choices: Buckler, Heavy Shield, or Light Shield. However, the RAW int he text for the Shield Ward feat simply say your shield bonus applies. With the shield spell and 5 levels of Abjurant Champion, do I get +9 against all of those things if I burn the two feats? +11 with a two level dip into Argent Savant? Okay by the RAW I would say this does indeed work, as a DM I would simply houserule that it does not, as I personally belief that you can not manevuer a shield spell around enough to gain these benifits, I would also house rule it so that the feat only works with shields you have shield specialization for.
BomTrady 01-21-07, 06:12 PM	And you would be smart for doing that...but then again you should also houserule wraithstrike out, probably create some big ol' houserules for polymorph...and a million other things. Like Bisco said...a few points here is hardly the worst of yer worries you should be houseruling. Especially for burning two feats. Polymorphing into a treant and having scintillating scales is a nice way to raise yer touch ac too. This not THAT abusive.
Iron Klaw Merc 01-21-07, 06:44 PM	I wwas not house ruling it because it was different, I was house ruling it because to me it feats involved, Shield Spec. and Shield Ward are more showing how skilled you are with the shield that you can block attacks in such a way to get these benifits, and I don't think that the Shield Spell is not that maneuverabile. I mean really this is the CO board I was not saying I would house rule this because I'm concerned with the power level or something. :)
BomTrady 01-21-07, 11:09 PM	I dunno, I find the concept of an Abjurant Champion, who obviously specializes in the Shield spell, being able to have that much control over his spell pretty intriguing. I have an alternate houserule for you then if its more flavor or logic geared yer lookin for... Shield Spell House Rule: Any character able to modify the shield spell in such a way as to make it give more of a shield bonus than it normally would may take the feat Shield Specialization and designate the shield spell as the shield they specialize in. The only other feat (for now because it's late and I'm not going through every book I own) this qualifies them for is Shield Ward. I find the idea of an Abjurant Champion (who has enough control over the spell to give it more than double its normal bonus!) having enough control over the spell to weild it as pretty cool. For that matter, I think that the same applies for an Argent Savant...if they are that good with force effects, why not have a cool option like that for them? Doesn't really create a big balance issue in my mind, but it does add some unique flavor, instead of simply outlawing the cool flavor. Whaddaya think?
PhaedrusXY 01-21-07, 11:25 PM	There is certainly nothing wrong with it from a balance perspective. You've paid through the nose for a moderate AC increase. In reality, this isn't all that optimal.
tsuyoshikentsu 01-22-07, 02:20 AM	Yeah. At most +9 to your touch AC for five levels and two feats isn't really worth mentioning. It's one of those things that's like -- if you have space, cool. If not, don't bother crying.
Hariman 01-22-07, 02:34 AM	I have found lately on this board that RAW=CHEEZZZZZZZZZZZZ No. Too many take RAW as "text as written" and not as "as the author intended". Others have legitimate questions brought about by the great and simple rulesets of D&D. (hahahaha) Just look up the Ultimate Magus "practiced spellcaster trick". It's RAW abusing cheese which ignores author intent. As for the question; the shield specialisation feat applies to a specific shield which the character wields. The Shield spell is a magical effect. They're two completely different sources for the same bonus. So a feat that effects one doesn't affect the other. And doesn't shield already apply against incorporeal touch attacks because it's a force effect? Hariman
Doodle 01-22-07, 10:26 AM	No. Too many take RAW as "text as written" and not as "as the author intended".Hariman Y'know, you're not the first person to make that arguement, but damnit it really cheezes me off. WOTC doesn't even print what the author intended (i.e. as show in the EN World Forum interviews, the author of complete scoundrel intended there to be a feat that allowed the Shawshbuckler to get the bonus fighter feats - WoTC edited it to the shawshbuckler qualifying for fighter only feats - a HUGE edit). So if WoTC doesn't even print what the author intended, how are we lowly mortals supposed to even infer some mystical "intention" from the rules text. All we can go by is RAW and houserule accordingly if we feel it necessary. Me.
Caelic 01-22-07, 10:43 AM	...except, Doodle, that frequently, when people say "RAW," what they're really saying is "My interpretation is right, shut up." The game is typically played this way: 1. Find a rule where the author didn't bother to explicitly say something really, really, glaringly obvious. For instance, imagine a feat which says you can burn turn attempts to cast spells. Imagine further that the author didn't bother to explicitly say "of a level you can normally cast." (I'm selecting a fictional example to avoid touching off protests when I select someone's favorite feat.) 2. Declare that, because the author didn't bother to state the glaringly obvious, by RAW it's not so. "Since the author didn't explicitly SAY that the feat restricts you to spells you can normally cast, by RAW it doesn't, and anyone who does it any other way is a houseruler!" 3. Insist that your reading is RAW, and ignore all attempts to point out that it's an interpretation. If Customer Service contradicts your interpretation, insist that they're stupid-heads who don't know the rules and only a FAQ entry will suffice. If the FAQ contradicts your interpretation, insist that the FAQ isn't really official after all and only errata will suffice. 4. Remember: you can always fall back on the "Until they issue errata I'm right!" argument. Since WotC doesn't issue errata for rules which are vague--only for those which are actually misprinted or later altered--you can confidently say this knowing that they will never "correct" your interpretation in errata. 5. When you encounter a rule that hinders a build you want to make, discard all of the above and insist that reading the RAW literally is silly, and clearly the designers intended it to work the way you want it to work. Granted, the RAW is the only common standard we have--but the way some people on the board play games with the term makes it almost valueless.
PhaedrusXY 01-22-07, 11:32 AM	No. Too many take RAW as "text as written" and not as "as the author intended". That is exactly what it means. RAW = Rules As Written. Rules As Intended is abbreviated as RAI.
Khan the Destroyer 01-22-07, 01:16 PM	The game is typically played this way: 1. Find a rule where the author didn't bother to explicitly say something really, really, glaringly obvious. For instance, imagine a feat which says you can burn turn attempts to cast spells. Imagine further that the author didn't bother to explicitly say "of a level you can normally cast." (I'm selecting a fictional example to avoid touching off protests when I select someone's favorite feat.) 2. Declare that, because the author didn't bother to state the glaringly obvious, by RAW it's not so. "Since the author didn't explicitly SAY that the feat restricts you to spells you can normally cast, by RAW it doesn't, and anyone who does it any other way is a houseruler!" 3. Insist that your reading is RAW, and ignore all attempts to point out that it's an interpretation. If Customer Service contradicts your interpretation, insist that they're stupid-heads who don't know the rules and only a FAQ entry will suffice. If the FAQ contradicts your interpretation, insist that the FAQ isn't really official after all and only errata will suffice. 4. Remember: you can always fall back on the "Until they issue errata I'm right!" argument. Since WotC doesn't issue errata for rules which are vague--only for those which are actually misprinted or later altered--you can confidently say this knowing that they will never "correct" your interpretation in errata. 5. When you encounter a rule that hinders a build you want to make, discard all of the above and insist that reading the RAW literally is silly, and clearly the designers intended it to work the way you want it to work. So... what's the issue? :P
Caelic 01-22-07, 01:23 PM	So... what's the issue? :P The issue is that I'm the mean, rotten old Board Grinch who wants to spoil everyone's fun by reminding them that the goal of the game isn't to see who can twist the wording of the rules the most.
Iry 01-22-07, 01:52 PM	It seems like Shield Ward and Abjurant Champion is a very nice and quite legal combo. There is no reference to previous shields used except in the feat requisites. Of course, at the price of Two Feats for such an ability, it's already at a very high cost. But I'd say that cost is just about worth the exchange.
Khan the Destroyer 01-22-07, 02:11 PM	The issue is that I'm the mean, rotten old Board Grinch who wants to spoil everyone's fun by reminding them that the goal of the game isn't to see who can twist the wording of the rules the most. Well, so be it. But that doesn't stop you from being one of the most respected members of this forum ;). I think for a lot of people, it's a competitive drive to have the next big thing on the CO Board. Many want to have a contribution. But I agree with what you have to say. My comment was just a joke :).
BomTrady 01-22-07, 03:18 PM	And I agree too. : ) But yeah, it's fun to play around with the wording and see if you can find loopholes. I mean, like I said earlier, a LOT of the stuff, on this forum especially, is taken as a puzzle or a challenge. It's fun to see if you can spot loopholes to exploit and say "hey look at this." Would I ever seriously expect a DM to accept half the stuff on this board just 'cause its RAW? That would be silly. I do think that the houserule I threw out there earlier is kinda fun if you want to burn the two feats to become a Shield Spell Specialist. Would I demand to be taken seriously with the RAW loophole I pointed out and that hosuerule not in effect? Hahaha no way. WotC needs to talk with my mom though. It seems their writers have an awful habit of assuming that people will understand what they are saying. My mom had a saying about what happens when people assume...
Caelic 01-22-07, 03:49 PM	Honestly, Bom, I wouldn't have a big problem with it if someone tried to use your particular trick in a game. If a shield of wood or steel could be used in such a fashion, why wouldn't it be possible to learn how to use a shield made of force in the same way? Besides...as has already been pointed out...you're paying a fairly steep price for what's really a moderate bonus.
BomTrady 01-22-07, 04:04 PM	Totally agreed...just thought the idea was cool. I will hafta see what other feats out there could logically apply. I know it'scertainly not optimized, but when I think ofideas that come from loopholes and RAW vs. RAI I think of you guys. And I mean that with all due respect adn affection for these boards :P
BomTrady 01-23-07, 12:38 AM	Ok so I actually fleshed out a build using the Shield spell for the Shield feats. I think it turned out pretty cool actually. I'm curious what you guys think. Shining Champion of the Shield (Human Paragon 3/Fighter 6/Wizard 2/Abjurant Champion 5/Spellsword 3/Eldritch Knight 1) Level1: Human Paragon 1 (2 Feats: Combat Reflexes, Dodge) Level2: Fighter 1 (Feat: Exotic Weapon: Spiked Chain*) Level 3: Wizard 1 (Feat: Combat Casting) Level 4: Fighter 2 (Feat: Shield Specialization*!!) Level 5: Fighter 3 Level 6: Fighter 4 (2 Feats: Mobility*, Deft Opportunist) Level 7: Human Paragon 2 (Feat: Sidestep) Level 8: Abjurant Champion 1 Level 9: Spellsword 1 (Feat: Hold the Line) Level 10:Spellsword 2 (Feat: Shield Ward*) Level 11:Abjurant Champion 2 Level 12: Fighter 5 (Feat: Stand Still) Level 13: Fighter 6 (Feat: Power Attack*) Level 14: Eldritch Knight 1 (Feat: Robilar's Gambit*) Level 15: Abjurant Champion 3 (Feat: Active Shield Defense? maybe not needed) Level 16: Abjurant Champion 4 Level 17:Abjurant Champion 5 Level 18: Wizard 2 (Feat: Practiced Spellcaster) Level 19: Human Paragon 3 Level 20: Spellsword 3 *Fighter bonus Feats !!The character chooses to specialize in the Shield Spell here...as we discussed. -Casts as 10th level Wizard (5th level spells) Caster Level 20 (Martial Arcanist, Practiced Spellcaster) -BAB +18 -HP is pretty good...2d4+1d6+6d8+11d10 -Saves are Fort 10/Reflex 5/Will 17 (His Dex, Buffs, and Weasel familiar will help compensate) -Shield Spell can be quickened, is also extended and counts for a shield bonus to AC of +10. Applies to touch attacks, bull rush attempts, trip attacks, grapple checks, disarm, and overrun. -Greater Luminous Armor (+13 AC) is automatically extended and balances the penalty from Robilar's Gambit well. (-4 to enemy melee attacks) -Uses Spiked Chain +1 with every possible type of extra damage that can be smushed onto it. -GMW on spiked chain (20th caster level) -CAN fight defensively for some extra AC...but probably doesn't need to. (Has at least 8 ranks of tumble) -AC somewhere in the neighborhood of 50-60 or so really easily. (Shield, GLA, Alter Self, Haste, High Dex, etc.) -High Dex High Strength Moderate Int needed -Use Magic Device (yay for self-healing) as a class skill the whole way (Adaptive Learning) -Can escape chargers by using AoO from Hold the line then Sidestep or Use the Stand Still feat. -Should have ample fodder for Power Attack with Deft Opportunist/Buffs (Can scribe scrolls too) -I personally dislike flaws, so even in this feat intensive build I refused to use them -No EXP penalties or changes of alignment, skill requirements for PrCs and Feats are met early and easily **Note: This character could actually be viable at mid levels with different progression and feat order PEACH?
+1 GM of Waffling 01-23-07, 01:00 AM	The Shield spell creates a real, albeit invisible, object -- arguably, a shield. Can you cast Greater Magic Vestment on it to increase it's Shield bonus?
BomTrady 01-23-07, 01:16 AM	I would say that if we are accepting Shield as something that can qualify for feats with shields, why not go nuts and say sure. With a minute/level duration, it makes it awful expensive to put GMV on it though. If you really wanted to be a trooper and get teh bang for yer buck on Shield, you could persistent spell it, take a couple levels in argent savant, all 5 in AbjC, cast GMV on it and go to town with an all day long with a Shield spell giving you 16 AC. (17 if you use shield spec with it : ) May as well throw it down on your Greater Luminous Armor too though. That would get it up to...18 AC...20 AC with argent savant levels I believe. 17+20+10 Base AC= 47 AC already all day long...with both hands free and no armor check or spell failure...and as much Dex to armor as you want.
Hariman 01-23-07, 01:49 AM	That is exactly what it means. RAW = Rules As Written. Rules As Intended is abbreviated as RAI. I wasn't trying for an acronym fest. I was trying to make the point that stating that something is "RAW" when the intent is something else is... ...not good. It's semantics anyway. The prerequisite feats require that you specialize with a specific SHIELD. Not that you be able to cast the shield spell.