PDA

View Full Version : Am I being unreasonable?



AKA_Bait
2007-11-28, 09:37 AM
I have a player in my game who really wants to take advantage of a particular ToB maneuver. I don't remember the exact name of the maneuver but it's 'sheild something' basically, one of your allies gains "a deflection bonus equal to your shield bonus +4."

I have a player who wants to take this maneuver, which I'm fine with but I point out to him that it won't work. The reason is... he doesn't have a shield. He's a two handed weapon fighter. I say, since you don't have a shiled, the shield defense maneuver won't work as you don't actually have any object you are thrusting in front of them to increase their AC. He argues that since it says that your allies gain a deflection bonus of your shield bonus +4 that it should work, since he doesn't have a shield, only give +4.

Am I being unreasonable in not letting this work?

Leadfeathermcc
2007-11-28, 09:42 AM
Your interpretation does not sound unreasonable to me.

Point out that by his interpretation a naked melee combatant without a weapon could provide a +4 deflection bonus to an ally without taking any damage himself.

AKA_Bait
2007-11-28, 09:44 AM
Oh that came up in the form of adding an 'arm bonus' during the discussion.

Duke of URL
2007-11-28, 09:46 AM
Am I being unreasonable in not letting this work?

Without the exact wording, it's hard to tell, but no, I don't think you're being unreasonable. You're the DM, so your interpretation of the rule is the one that counts in the end.

Then again, the request isn't unreasonable either. The character using that maneuver isn't getting the benefit from another maneuver and could conceivably still be interposing him/herself between the attacker and the designated ally with his/her own body or weapon.

sapphail
2007-11-28, 09:46 AM
Not at all, I wouldn't allow that either. It specifically states the bonus is granted through use of a shield. Think about it, would you give a +4 bonus for essentially not doing anything related to the feat in the first place? If he takes up a shield, fine. If not, he can't have it. That's if you allow splatbooks in the first place. Rule 0, baby, DM's word is law.

Leadfeathermcc
2007-11-28, 09:47 AM
Arm bonus? He is blocking whatever with his arm? That is one impressive arm, does it get cut and take damage? :smallconfused:

AKA_Bait
2007-11-28, 09:51 AM
Then again, the request isn't unreasonable either. The character using that maneuver isn't getting the benefit from another maneuver and could conceivably still be interposing him/herself between the attacker and the designated ally with his/her own body or weapon.

Well, he hadn't selected it yet. This was part of a discussion for selecting a new one known. I certianly wouldn't let my player pick a maneuver that's useless to them and then make them be stuck with it.

Regarding the interpostion, of their bodies, that already exists within the game mechanics and using a weapon doesn't make much sense for a sheild feat.


Rule 0, baby, DM's word is law.

Oh I know, I just prefer to be a benign monarch :smallwink:

Tokiko Mima
2007-11-28, 09:52 AM
I'd allow him to use the manuever providing he took the Two Weapon Defense (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/feats.htm#twoWeaponDefense) Feat. That's what that feat is there for. You can't apply a shield bonus when you don't have one, after all.

Leadfeathermcc
2007-11-28, 09:54 AM
I'd allow him to use the manuever providing he took the Two Weapon Defense (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/feats.htm#twoWeaponDefense) Feat. That's what that feat is there for. You can't apply a shield bonus when you don't have one, after all.

The player is using a two-handed weapon not two weapons, so I would not think that the Two Weapon Defense feat would apply.

AKA_Bait
2007-11-28, 09:55 AM
The player is using a two-handed weapon not two weapons, so I would not think that the Two Weapon Defense feat would apply.

No, I wouldn't think that two weapon defense would apply to a charger with a greatsword...

Xuincherguixe
2007-11-28, 10:03 AM
You can use a buckler with a two handed weapon I believe, if I'm not mistaken.

I mention since it sounds like you're not so much against the thing, but that you figure the guy needs a shield.

Lord Lorac Silvanos
2007-11-28, 10:10 AM
The maneuver's named Shield Block and is a second level Devoted Spirit maneuver.

The initial fluffy description of the maneuver states:


... you thrust your shield between ...

Requiring a shield seems more than reasonable.

Lord Lorac Silvanos
2007-11-28, 10:11 AM
You can use a buckler with a two handed weapon I believe, if I'm not mistaken.


You are not mistaken, but you take a -1 penalty to attack when doing so.

Tokiko Mima
2007-11-28, 10:15 AM
The player is using a two-handed weapon not two weapons, so I would not think that the Two Weapon Defense feat would apply.

Oops. I misread it. Sorry!

Maybe he could use a ring of force shield (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/rings.htm#forceShield)? It would depend on your definition of "wielding," though.

AKA_Bait
2007-11-28, 10:19 AM
Oops. I misread it. Sorry!

Maybe he could use a ring of force shield (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/rings.htm#forceShield)? It would depend on your definition of "wielding," though.

Now that is an interesting notion...

DraPrime
2007-11-28, 10:25 AM
If you do let him use this maneuver with a sword, decrease the bonus. The protection given by a thin strip of metal is significantly less than that given by a big piece of wood.

Roderick_BR
2007-11-28, 12:16 PM
The maneuver clearly states that he uses a shield, so, he needs a shield. You could even argue that he can have the effective shield 0 +4, he just can't use it at all.

AKA_Bait
2007-11-28, 12:23 PM
Oh, I agree. The thrust of the disagreement is largley that in the mechanical text of the maneuver it doesn't specifically say that a sheild is required for the menauver to work but in the flavor text it describes it as using a shield and the title of the thing is 'shield block'.

lord_khaine
2007-11-28, 12:25 PM
using the shield to block is imo just part of the fluff, he might as well parry the opponents attack with his sword, for about the same effect.

since its not in any way breaking the game, then i think you should let him do it, it allows for more teamwork, and makes the player happy.

prufock
2007-11-28, 12:27 PM
You aren't being unreasonable. In fact, it wouldn't be unreasonable to beat him over the head with the Tome of Battle until he concedes.

Fax Celestis
2007-11-28, 12:32 PM
I would say that if he can find a way to acquire a Shield Bonus to AC (even if its some strange, convoluted magical item that emulates a shield or something for THF that mimics TWD), I'd let him use the maneuver.

However, let's bring semantics into this. The maneuver states "you grant an AC bonus to an adjacent ally equal to your shield's AC bonus + 4." This clause, to me, says that you need a shield to grant the AC bonus, and the +4 comes from the oblique angle from which you are guarding the attack.

AKA_Bait
2007-11-28, 12:34 PM
However, let's bring semantics into this. The maneuver states "you grant an AC bonus to an adjacent ally equal to your shield's AC bonus + 4." This clause, to me, says that you need a shield to grant the AC bonus, and the +4 comes from the oblique angle from which you are guarding the attack.

True, but the alternatie interpretation is that your shield's bonus is 0, since you don't have a shield. Which is what my player argued.

Fax Celestis
2007-11-28, 12:36 PM
True, but the alternatie interpretation is that your shield's bonus is 0, since you don't have a shield. Which is what my player argued.

Right, and by that logic I can also say that the lasers I fire from my eyes deal 0 damage, but since X Maneuver adds 1d6 damage to all my attacks, now the lasers deal 1d6 damage.

Make sure your player understands the difference between a score of 0 and a score of Ø (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#nonabilities).

Thinker
2007-11-28, 12:38 PM
I agree with your interpretation. Try to explain to him that he does not have a shield bonus of 0, he has no shield bonus at all. Its a subtle distinction, but mathematically important one.

Haakon
2007-11-28, 12:43 PM
A bonus implies thats its more then 0. (to me anyway). A bonus of 0 makes as much sense as a penalty of 0. Both of them provide no direct benefit of penalty, so they can be ignored.

He isn't wearing a shield, so he doesn't have a shield AC bonus of "0", he has a shield AC of "nothing."

So, "nothing" + 4 is still nothing or a meaningless number. I don't think it should apply and I don't think your being unreasonable in not letting it apply either.

mostlyharmful
2007-11-28, 12:43 PM
True, but the alternatie interpretation is that your shield's bonus is 0, since you don't have a shield. Which is what my player argued.

But he doesn't have a shield bonus 0, he's got a shield bonus -. If his shield was under a weird magical effect that reduced its effectiveness to nothing then he'd have shield bonus 0 and could still use the manuver. As is not having anything in the score means it cant be applied, like with con boosting items to undead, Int boosts to skeletons, etc.

Emperor Demonking
2007-11-28, 12:44 PM
I don't see any reason not to let the character take it and use it.

silentknight
2007-11-28, 12:56 PM
If you let him do this without a shield, then I say he takes any damage the intended target avoided because of his maneuver, no save, no dodging. You want to block the attack? Then you take the damage.

Dode
2007-11-28, 12:58 PM
Personally, I think it's a bad idea. First it's giving shieldless characters an effective shield-bonus, then where does it end? Declaring that characters have an effective burrow speed of 0ft, therefore they should be able to cast Rapid Burrowing on themselves?

The solution is simple - the PC needs to suck it up and use a shield if he wants to receive any sort of shield bonus. But clearly he wants to have his cake and eat it too.

Cristo Meyers
2007-11-28, 01:06 PM
Oh, I agree. The thrust of the disagreement is largley that in the mechanical text of the maneuver it doesn't specifically say that a sheild is required for the menauver to work but in the flavor text it describes it as using a shield and the title of the thing is 'shield block'.

Which is exactly why it's your call in the end.

No, you're not being unreasonable in the slightest. If wants to use the ability, he needs a shield of some kind. Guarding someone else with your sword only works in anime and movies (speaking from rather painful firsthand experience). Of course, that opens up the whole fantasy/realism thing.

At any rate, as others have stated, his shield bonus without a shield is nil, nothing, not "0" With nothing to grant him the bonus in the first place (even if the bonus is +0), he can't use this ability to gain another bonus for someone else.

Roderick_BR
2007-11-28, 01:26 PM
Okay, I re-read it. It doesn't really states that you require a shield, or something like "you use a shield you are using", or "you doesn't receive the benefit of your shield bonus until the beggining of your next turn" or anything.
If you read Shield Counter, if does state that you need to do a shield bash.
It's either a legal move (like the Glare of the Iron Guardian), or the designers forgot to say you need to be wearing a shield. I think you'd need to ask Wizards about it.
Then again, you can claim that since he has no actual shield, he can't grant any bonus. Nothing + 4 = nothing. Not carrying a shield equals to nothing, not +0 shield.

See it this way: If your friend's logic is correct, not wearing armor gives you armor +0, so whips can't hurt unarmored characters, and the Flay feat won't work, and monks doesn't gain the AC bonuses, since he is wearing a +0 armor.
Another good example: Whenever a effect allows a "0" points, it does espicify. Some effects that enhances natural armor, for example, will say "count a character without natural armor as +0 bonus". This doesn't say "treat a shield-less character as having a +0 shield bonus"

Dairun Cates
2007-11-28, 02:18 PM
Rule 0, baby, DM's word is law.

I thought Rule 0 was to have fun. Rule 1 is DM's word is law.

Telonius
2007-11-28, 02:31 PM
True, but the alternatie interpretation is that your shield's bonus is 0, since you don't have a shield. Which is what my player argued.

It doesn't say "your shield bonus," it says "your shield's bonus." The bonus of (the shield that belongs to you), not (the shield bonus) that belongs to you. Apostrophes matter. [/English nitpick]

KIDS
2007-11-28, 02:40 PM
I think that common sense would not require a shield (it is just called shield block, you don't need a blade for wall of blades or such anyway) but a shield bonus from some source would be mandatory I think. I.e. buckler, tower shield, shield spell, two-weapon defense and such...

Dausuul
2007-11-28, 03:28 PM
Entirely reasonable.

I would argue that he has no shield bonus, so he can't give it (or a modified version of it) as a deflection bonus. It's not that his shield bonus is zero, it's that it doesn't exist at all--there is no number there to which you can add 4, not even zero. It's a null value.

Even setting this aside, however, the clear intent of the maneuver is to be used with a shield.

Ralfarius
2007-11-28, 03:48 PM
It doesn't say "your shield bonus," it says "your shield's bonus." The bonus of (the shield that belongs to you), not (the shield bonus) that belongs to you. Apostrophes matter. [/English nitpick]
I believe that semantics may have saved the day, here!

Leadfeathermcc
2007-11-28, 05:09 PM
Rah Rah! Semantics!

sikyon
2007-11-28, 05:27 PM
A bonus implies thats its more then 0. (to me anyway). A bonus of 0 makes as much sense as a penalty of 0. Both of them provide no direct benefit of penalty, so they can be ignored.

He isn't wearing a shield, so he doesn't have a shield AC bonus of "0", he has a shield AC of "nothing."

So, "nothing" + 4 is still nothing or a meaningless number. I don't think it should apply and I don't think your being unreasonable in not letting it apply either.


Your Armor Class (AC) represents how hard it is for opponents to land a solid, damaging blow on you. It’s the attack roll result that an opponent needs to achieve to hit you. Your AC is equal to the following:

10 + armor bonus + shield bonus + Dexterity modifier + size modifier

Note that armor limits your Dexterity bonus, so if you’re wearing armor, you might not be able to apply your whole Dexterity bonus to your AC.

Sometimes you can’t use your Dexterity bonus (if you have one). If you can’t react to a blow, you can’t use your Dexterity bonus to AC. (If you don’t have a Dexterity bonus, nothing happens.)

Note that AC has shield bonus factored in. By your reasoning, nobody without a shield has an AC.

Therefore, his shield bonus is indeed +0, at least in this case.

Mechanically, I see nothing wrong with this. This is how the spell works, and it is not overpowered to simply deny him it. It can be justified through fluff in a number of ways, like you can use your arms/waving to distract the shooter (which could be part of the +4). Or you could just invent another feat called "Distraction" for him and let him do it without a sheild and get a bonus with a sheild.

Indon
2007-11-28, 06:02 PM
Personally, I would also not allow the use with a shield under normal circumstances, but I would houserule that he could use the maneuver to grant +4 if he were using Combat Expertise (or fighting defensively) to grant himself AC, just to add versatility and make things interesting; taking such actions implies that the character is actively defending themselves, which then makes using a maneuver to parry more reasonable.

Severus
2007-11-28, 06:14 PM
I don't think either of you are unreasonable.

I don't think a +4 to ac in most games is all that crazy, so if he was really set on it, I think I'd let it go. Block with a shield, parry with a weapon, does it really matter that much?

If both are reasonable interpretations, and one makes the player happy, why not let it go?

FinalJustice
2007-11-28, 07:46 PM
Tell the player to stop being a cheapstick, stick his forearm into a buckler, get 1 shield bonus, take -1 in attacks and give +5 to his allies. Totally reasonable IMHO. ^^