Using 3.5 feats in Pathfinder

[keeper2161]

So I am working on a sword and shield build. While researching I came across 3.5 Agile Shield Fighter. The requirement for Agile Shield Fighter is 3.5 Shield Specialization which pathfinder seemed to change into Shield Focus (https://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/shield-focus-combat-final/). While Shield Specialization (https://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/shield-specialization-combat/) became something else. So a changing Agile Shield Fighter requirement from 3.5 Shield Specialization to pathfinder Shield Focus is simply. Would you allow this 3.5 feat in your pathfinder campaign? Also note that while Shield Master does something similar it's not the same. A human fighter can take Agile Shield Fighter at 1 level and Two-Weapon Fighting at level 2. So at level 2 a Human fighter can have two attacks with no negatives and keeping their shield bonus. The same human fighter can't take Shield Master until level 11. Plus Shield Master only applies to the shield not the sword. While Agile Shield Fighter affects both sword and shield. Although Shield Master is still a needed feat as it makes the enchantment bonus count for attacks and damage. Which means the fighter would still want to get it once they get to level 11. Plus Shield Master opens up a little bit of cheese.

[Von Krieger]

...why don't you just take Two-Weapon Fighting? It's the same thing, but gives you that same penalty in exchange for an offhand attack from anything, not just shields.

[keeper2161]

Agile Shield Fighter reduces all negatives associated with two-weapon fighting to -2 to both weapons. Two-weapon fighting feat reduces the penalties from your primary hand by 2 and your secondary hand by 6. So that means your off hand hits would be -0. With improved two-weapon fighting it becomes -0/-1. With Greater two-weapon fighting it would be -0/-1/-6. How I am getting these numbers is -2-5=-7+6=-1(improved). -2-10=-12+6=-6(greater). The +6 is the first feat of the tree reducing the attack by 6. I am reading Agile Shield Fighter as RAI. By RAW it's actually -0/-0/-0. Because Agile Shield Fighter reduces all negatives associated with two-weapon fighting to -2 to both weapons. The -5 and -10 are reduced to -2 because they are negatives associated with two-weapon fighting. Two-weapon fighting reduces the attacks made with the primary hand by 2 and the off hand by 6. Since all attacks from two-weapon fighting tree is made with the off hand. It would read as -0/-0/-0. So by reading by RAW its Main Hand: +11/+6/+1 Off Hand +11/+11/+11. Unless I have entirely miss read two-weapon fighting.

[Kayblis]

Agile Shield Fighter replaces the penalties for fighting with two weapons. The TWF feat reduces penalties for fighting with two weapons. You have to use one of them, and they don't stack.

Most people would accept 3.5 feats on a PF game, even if they don't claim it to be a 3.PF game already. Sword n' Board is a pretty underpowered in any system, so you're most certainly not breaking anything bringing a shield feat.

[keeper2161]

Is there a rule or precedence that says they don't stack? I mean I could do the same thing with a light shield without agile shield fighter. A light shield bash is considered a light weapon. A heavy shield requires agile shield fighter.

[Kayblis]

Is there a rule or precedence that says they don't stack?

Usually when something replaces a bonus or penalty entirely, it doesn't stack with other things related to that penalty. Some DMs may let you get Improved/Greater Two-Weapon Fighting working with ASF and a heavy shield, since it's really not much of a change. Ask your DM for it.

[keeper2161]

Other then that my math isn't off right?

[Von Krieger]

No, your interpretation is way off.

You do not get to lessen the iterative attack penalty analog from things like Improved Two-Weapon Fighting.

https://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/two-weapon-fighting-combat-final/

The stuff for Two-Weapon Fighting applies in the circumstances listed on that table, and that's it. Period.

Agile Shield Fighter does not lower the penalty. It sets it to -2. Period.

At the absolute most generous you would have the main/off penalties to hit set to -2/-2 from Agile Shield Fighter and then reduced from there to 0/0, but as a GM I would not allow that.

The penalties for Improved/Greater Two-Weapon Fighting are not reduced by anything that has been mentioned thus far.

Thus compared to a normal attack your primary and offhand weapons both occur at -2/-7/-12.

[keeper2161]

But the first feat says it lowers attacks made with the off hand by 6.

[Von Krieger]

The penalty for your primary hand lessens by 2 and the one for your off hand lessens by 6.

Not penalties. PENALTY, singular.

Which, again, is in reference to the table.

The base to-hit penalties for dual wielding are -4/-8. IT reduces the main hand penalty by 2 and the off-hand penalty by 6, making it -2/-2.

Even if you insist on your weird intepretation it states it lowers penalties by 6, fine.

You start out with -8 to hit in the offhand. Another -5 for Improved, and -10 for Greater.

So -8/-13/-18.

Lowered by 6.

Which gives us -2/-7/-12, the numbers I gave to begin with.

[keeper2161]

Is there a official ruling on this or a community consensus? Sorry if I am asking to many questions. I like to make sure things line up. Because to me that's not how the first feat reads.

Edit: agile shield fighter would reduce the penalties to -2. Then two weapon fighting feat would reduce it -0. For improved -2 plus -5 is -7. -7 plus 6 is -1.

[Von Krieger]

Official ruling.

I've seen stat blocks for monsters and characters with the Two-Weapon Fighting feat chain. They've all been set up to use -2/-7/-12.

In nearly 20 years of the D20 system I have NEVER, EVER so much as heard anyone give anything remotely CLOSE to the interpretation you've come up with.

[keeper2161]

It seems weird that the first feat doesn't effect the rest.

[Von Krieger]

The intent of Agile Shield Fighter is to basically give heavily armored characters and characters with heavy shields (heavy shields are 1 handed weapons, not light) the ability to smack things with their shield without having to invest highly in Dexterity.

It's meant to be a Two-Weapon Fighting replacement, not something in addition to it.

[keeper2161]

I understand the intent behind it. It just seems when the two feats interact they should stack and stuff happen. At the very least it would end up as -0/-5/-10. Agile gets it down to -2 and two weapon fighting would bump it down to 0. Then improved and greater, not being affect by the first two feats, would simply be a -5 and a -10. There seems to be no logic to it besides "the author didn't intend it that way". It also seems werid that there aren't improved and greater versions of agile shield fighter. Historically shields are great weapons.

[Von Krieger]

My guess is that the designers thought that anybody who wanted to Two-Weapon fight with a shield that badly would just take the Two-Weapon Fighting line.

Because that's basically what Agile Shield Fighter is. A dex-less replacement for TWF. It's not meant to interact, it's meant to replace.

Like the assorted alternate flavors of Dodge that kept popping up in books.

[keeper2161]

If their intent was to have someone go down the two weapon feat line then why even have agile shield fighter to begin with? It take a lot of effort to have the shield mimick what weapons do naturally. Even if my way is right it still is doing less damage then a normal dual wielder. Mainly because the shield only crits on a 20. And the shield bonus the shield give would at best be a little bit higher then a good armor and dex bonus. It just seems weird.

[zergling.exe]

It seems weird that the first feat doesn't effect the rest.

It doesn't affect the rest because the rest already REQUIRE that first one to being with, so they took the math into account. ITWF gives you iterative attacks with your offhand anyway. Each one of those is made at a cumulative -5 penalty, so writing that it's a -13 penalty because they have to account for the -8 offhand penalty gets weird, especially because they would also have to specify that it's a -15 penalty if the offhand weapon isn't light. They just took a shortcut and said that it's a -5 penalty on the attack roll, just like a normal iterative is.

[Von Krieger]

why even have agile shield fighter to begin with?


The intent of Agile Shield Fighter is to basically give heavily armored characters and characters with heavy shields (heavy shields are 1 handed weapons, not light) the ability to smack things with their shield without having to invest highly in Dexterity.

Agile Shield Fighter is not meant to be a core aspect of a fighting style. Which is why it's got two prequsite feats instead of zero.

It's meant to be a bonus thing for shield specialists.

If you want to be a two-weapon fighter, taking two weapon fighting.

If you want to be a heavily armored, low dex, heavy armor character that likes using the shield and occassional wants to hit something with it in addition to your weapon you take agile shield fighter.

[Deadkitten]

I usually participate in high optimization games to begin with so I personally wouldn't be too concerned with him spending an extra feat to negate the -2 penalty. I wouldnt find it worth it to be honest.

Anyways. By my strict reading he could be very well right. Agile Shield fighter replaces the normal PENALTIES for fighting with two weapons and nothing else, so Two-Weapon Fighting should still work because it reduces those.

Essentially you are still using the rules for figting with two weapons you are just changing the initial value of the penalty before TWF reduces it.

[Von Krieger]

I did say that at a generous interpetation of the rules the penalties could be reduced, but it was likely not intended.

But that it definitely did NOT allow for lopping the penalties of Improved and Greater Two-Weapon fighting down to the point where offhand attacks would take place at 0/0/0, which seemed to be the main thing he was going for.