Rules Question: Rhythm Blade Weapon

[covaithe]

Abstain. I can't keep this sort of nonsense straight any more.

 

[Iron Sky]

I've always assumed the Rhythm Blade was an enchantment that essentially let you give up your off-hand enchantment for the equivalent of a light shield (the seeming CharOp consensus). I have no problem with it in that capacity - in fact, I'd never even thought about the possibility that it might have a different intent until I read this thread.

 

[WEContact]

I'd like to return to the crux of the question here: should the SRs expect character sheets to conform strictly to the Rules as Written, or should we be allowed to approve things that break the rules slightly as long as we feel that they break the rules in a way that may be Rules as Intended and is beneficial (or at least not harmful) to the game?

 

[Luinnar]

I have no problem with Rhythm blade working without a shield bonus.

I shall summon @garyh @Ozymandias79 @TwoHeadsBarking [MENTION=79440]H.M.Gimlord[/MENTION] to see what they think

 

[MetaVoid]

Yeah I forgot about the shield bonus with two-weapon defense. Now that I actually look at the item description I think the thread you pointed out is right as well as your interpretation.

Edit: Did you get the items recently Metavoid or were they on your characters when they had past approvals?

I had first one on my shaman as wish list item at around third level or so...she's now 9th.

Others are newer additions.

Also, they work in the old CB without shield bonus. I don't have new online access so cannot say anything about that. Also, they are part of the set and there are some sets that have powerful enchantments, but are rare now.

 

[stonegod]

As a reminder, I'm not judge over here, just in LEB (you should run a game over there, really )

The CB is not a rule-adjudicator; its buggy. Sometimes the bugs are in our favor.

The crux is whether "increase" applies to a bonus value of zero (which is what you have when you have no bonus). From a purely math perspective, I'm fine w/ that. From a balance one, I'm fine w/ that. Where is the "consensus" that is doesn't work come from?

 

[WEContact]

The argument that was made and was eventually accepted as valid was that PCs do not natively have a shield bonus of 0, because no rule anywhere indicates that they do. I'm looking through archives right now to see if I can find a thread where this happened.

If we want to houserule it here, that's totally fine with me. It wouldn't unbalance anything and it would preempt up future confusion on the matter.

 

[Son of Meepo]

Yep, it's pretty much a nit-picky type of rules lawyer argument that I think made it's presence known on the CharOp forum.

I too would be fine having it work, I just wanted to bring up the alternate interpretation.

 

[MetaVoid]

I'm not a reviewer for L4W, but a shield bonus of 0 doesn't exist. So, if a PC has a shield bonus, it will add to it. If not, it doesn't.

As rules support for this interpretation:



No shield, no shield bonus. No power, feat, or magic item, no shield bonus.

Note: one exception to this. If a PC had a shield bonus of +1 and a shield penalty of -1 to AC and/or Reflex, then yes, the item would work. Not sure if this is possible in the game system.

KarinsDad opinion...

 

[KarinsDad]

KarinsDad opinion...

It might help if you also quoted the relative text:

A shield bonus is granted by your shield. Shield bonuses apply to AC and Reflex defense. Powers, feats, or magic items might provide a shield bonus; these typically help only characters who aren’t using shields.

It might be rules lawyer-y, but I point out the words "granted" and "provide". Until it is granted or provided, the PC doesn't have it. This is unlike an armor bonus where the PC is granted one automatically.