Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Sargogen, Lord of Coils

Darksol the Painbringer's page

1,993 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 1,993 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Kryptik wrote:
Why won't anyone think of the children?!

Goblin babies would like to have words with you.


Avenger wrote:
What do you do when you play a character focused on AC, and the DM ramps up the game by throwing monsters that hit you 50%+ of the time? (95% of the time on other party members)

Ironically enough, our Wizard can have as much AC as our tank if he really wants to, and our Witch can use Evil Eye hexes to debilitate their ability to take and/or absorb attack rolls or saving throws. Tack on Misfortune and it will be an easy fight. The problem just boils down to their Saving Throws being crappy.

All I can say is if you're messing with enemies who have great to-hit and a tank whose AC is only half-effective against it, you gotta play both sides of the fence. Debuffs, debuffs, debuffs. Dispel Magic is great for removing any of their buffs, and is available to all spellcasters. Throw in some Curses, an Ill Omen or two, and the creature's to-hit is going to skyrocket back down to normal (tank barely gets hit, squishies only get hit regularly).

---

I'll point out that using AC as a stand-alone offense isn't really effective in the later levels. You have to have synergy with your defense as well as your offense; Fighting Defensively and Combat Expertise may lower your to-hit, but it's great when you're fighting super-strong guys who normally have a 50% to hit you. Displacement or Blur would help negate a few of those "would-be" hits into nothing, and unless they have True Sight or some other ability to negate miss chances, you're scot-free. DR is great for reducing the effectiveness of any hits you take, and Fast Healing helps you sustain in fights and negate some nasty bleed effects you might incur. Mirror Images helps by tossing decoys in way of the attacks, though if a creature mostly is barely missing you, it won't help as much.

The problem people have with building Defensive is that you have to take all these separate factors and try to combine them, which is almost impossible to do since you have to combine subjects from high Intelligence, Acrobatics investments, Feat Investments, Spellcasting, DR Class Features, and Fast Healing abilities. That is all very hard to put together; and even if you invest in all of this, what else do you do? Pick your nose is probably the best action you can take, and the only thing you contribute to is "Yup, I can't die. Call me Mr. Immortality."

As a solo adventurer, this may not be a bad thing to do, but winning encounters requires more than the ability to sustain the fight, it requires defeating the foe in combat, whether through strategy, or more commonly, killing it. It's also so much simpler to build offensive because you only have to worry about 3 things: Movement (to get in line to Full Attack), Attack Bonuses (to secure hits and deal more damage), and Damage Bonuses (each hit becomes that much more devastating). There are also unique effects that help this subject matter also, but all of that subject matter is much more commonplace and easier to acquire in comparison *Cough*Boots of Speed 12,000 Gold V.S. Ring of Regeneration 90,000 Gold*Cough*.


Oort wrote:
The "he" in question is Mr. Risner. Apologies for grumpiness, but at this point I'm kinda done with being dismissed. Discourse I like. Spending half an hour trying to figure how to explain my logical viewpoint only for it to be passingly referred to as "not adding to the discussion" is pretty frustrating.

Take a page from my book in regards to Captain Context Man.

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
At this point I'm just going to ignore every post you make in this thread; you're so dead-set in believing your interpretation is the RAW of the book that there is no way I can convince or explain it to you that what you think is the RAW is simply your viewpoint of the RAI, and that the RAI is basically inconclusive until the PDT comes in and tells us what's supposed to go down.]


Rapanuii wrote:

Talking to my venture captain might result in this guy from being upset with me. I really want a friendship with this dude, but this is hurting my personal PFS experience as well. Like, I want to use my character in these particular sessions, and for me to travel out and play, and have to choose something else just stinks. I rather not have to resort to switching characters, but maybe I'll have to.

Like I said, this dude has a high title, and I'm unfamiliar with his title, exactly. How does the ranking system work even?

To be honest, if he is really such a great guy, then why is he being such a stubborn goober about some situations? Throwing on absurd, houserule-like penalties to your Intimidate is hardly something I'd tolerate at a game; it's like being racist, except towards Skills. "Oh, you're intimidating [random creature]? Well, it's Cthulhu's little puppy, and what do you know? You're just a stupid human. So it won't work." That's some bull@*#&.

The whole "alluring the Paladin" ordeal seems like a complete joke; who the heck tries to seduce a Paladin? (A succubus maybe, but all the more reason to be suspicious.) I'd incur mad penalties to that check, especially considering you're essentially trying to make the Paladin fall, something which I am certain any sane Paladin wouldn't do, so your GM was right in that manner.

As for the Drake thing, that seems out of line. I'm not entirely convinced you can't intimidate it just because of what it is. It also doesn't have to just deal with making him scared of you (especially in the case of changing attitudes); it's demoralize, not scare the pants off of them. Demoralizing the enemy deals with lowering their morale (hence the terminology). A number of things can do it, though self-esteem is the most common subject matter in the case of the skill. And it's simple to do; take a look at most women who go bulimic: They do it just because people say they look big or fat. All it took was a little nudge, and bam, they go to starving themselves to please some jerkoff(s) who may (not) be right.

The same concept here. You're saying the Drake fights like a little kitty; you call yourself a Drake? I call you Mittens.

Here's an example I find is satisfactory when it comes to humanoids doing intimidation checks against giant monsters.


Diego Rossi wrote:
DarkPhoenixx wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:

Heroism, good hope, the flawed ioun stone ....

Please, let's try to avoid the "it only benefit barbarians and only if the weapon has a +4 or more enhancement" argument. It is a false statement.

That is good point, heroism/hope adds to skill and ability checks as well as damage but plain another +1 will add +1 to attack and damage even without morale buff. Yet i did underestimated morale bonuses, now when i think about it one of my characters have destruction domain 1st lvl power wich is morale bonus to damage and courageous would be good enchant for him.

Still feels more like smart play than abuse, unlike many other "legit" things.

Again, how you treat "wield" make a lot of difference, but with the "wield = wear" interpretation for armor spikes and spiked gauntlets it is a +1 bonus for 8.000 gp. Cumulative with your weapon enhancement, skill competence bonus, resistance save bonus and so on.

You could even be more stupid about this and say "COURAGEOUS AOMF OP" for a mere 4,000; but it's quite obviously something that's not applicable to AoMF, since it doesn't pertain to Unarmed Strikes in any manner. (Also, since it doesn't have an Enhancement Bonus, it wouldn't increase anything.)

In addition, wearing Armor Spikes and Spiked Gauntlets is about as close to wielding them as you can get, since you don't need hands to make attacks with them. Of course, with the (ridiculous-stupid) FAQ, you can't use a two-handed weapon with it. If you're going to require holding the gauntlets/spikes in-hand to use, good luck trying to argue with the real-life common sense that is, say, putting on a jacket and/or any standard pair of gloves to keep you warm.


Diego Rossi wrote:
DarkPhoenixx wrote:

Enchant is barely useful now, as you need to have +4 weapon for it to do any effect on stats (+2 str gives +1 modifier). Only kind-of abuse you can get is party of people with courageous weapons cast bless to get +2 bonus from it instead of +1 (+3 if their weapon is enchanted to +4), but instead of courageous they can just add another +1 at same price and get +1 to attack AND damage AND maybe DR overcome.

If interpreted as to work only on fear saves it is another useless enchant that was viable option before for characters who often have morale bonuses, but nowhere near broken.

Heroism, good hope, the flawed ioun stone ....

Please, let's try to avoid the "it only benefit barbarians and only if the weapon has a +4 or more enhancement" argument. It is a false statement.

I will agree that the bolded parts aren't entirely accurate. Though the increase is hardly overpowered; you're forgetting it's merely a +1 until you reach a +4 Enhancement Bonus weapon. Compared to Keen or Furious, this property isn't really something worthwhile to snatch right away. And you're forgetting something: The first 2 require that you have a spellcaster or item able to buff you at all times. In cases of prepared spellcasters, that's not a guarantee, and it costs spell slots. In the cases of spontaneous casters, that costs spell/day, which may not be as big a deal, but spontaneous casters aren't as commonplace or powerful, and it takes longer to reach those spells. The third is an item which, as you so quaintfully pointed out, costs 28,000 gold.

Spending 28,000 gold or taxing your spellcasters each fight with buffs (something they will either be annoyed by or is being wasted in comparison to much more powerful spells) on top of your claimed "8,000 gold overpoweredness," which actually may or may not be the best option at the time, is hardly gamebreaking.

This is no different an argument from the Fate's Favored trait. If you're spending WBL and spell slots/spells per day every time, JUST TO MAKE IT ACTUALLY DO SOMETHING, instead of just be a waste of traits/weapon properties, then everything you invest in to enhance something else is ROFLLOLWTFBBQ-OP.


Stop feeding the troll.


Komoda wrote:

Off hands are not hands.

Yeah, makes no sense, but it is true. There was a thread with over 1K posts about it.

Off hand weapons don't necessarily need hands and Off hand attacks that don't need hands need hands.

Yeah, makes less sense. But true anyway.

But really, that has nothing to do with "wielding," which could really use some FAQ love.

I don't care if each instance has to be different if each instance is defined.

Please post a link to the bolded part, so the "Armor Spikes Need Hands" goobers can go complain about it there (and fight the uphill battle they want to fight).

I'll recommend a similar suggestion for the "Gauntlets are Armor" clowns: I'm fine with discussing it, but it doesn't really have a place here. Please make a different thread regarding that subject matter so as not to clutter this thread.

Back on topic...

At this point, a "case-by-case" ruling is the only fitting method here, since wield is obviously flavorful in several entries, whereas in other entries it has a specific, "requiremental" definition.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
James Risner wrote:
Anzyr wrote:
everyone presently arguing it applies to all morale bonuses from any source will still be correct. Only if they release a FAQ/Errata
Again, you can't say that because that isn't the only interpretation/version of RAW.

You state the bolded part as though there is another version of the RAW in question. There isn't.

There is only one "version" of RAW, and that's what's been posted constantly in this thread. There is no "other version" of the RAW regarding the Courageous property, and you're talking as if there is. Again, there is not. If there was, I'm sure you would've posted it already.

This "awkward RAW" argument that you throw out is simply your viewpoint of "Well, I think it's stupid-level overpowered and it should do X." There's a few things wrong with saying it like that:

1. You're saying it like there are multiple versions of RAW. Sure, there very well could be if we were comparing a Pre-Errata version to a Post-Errata version, but there are no such subjects on this topic. If there is some sort of secret passage hidden somewhere in a miniscule corner of a page that you're hiding from everybody, I highly suggest you share it with the class, because otherwise we're back to square 1.

2. You're essentially saying the quoted part above is the RAW, when that's clearly not what it says. Whether that's what's intended is what you're contesting, and that's to be determined through a FAQ/Errata from the PDT; until then, it's simply your viewpoint as to whether it should or should not be changed to reflect the desired intent. Are you sure you know what intent really is, or are you blatantly trolling us by saying "awkward RAW/correct RAW"?

3. You (as well as the others on your side) say the "awkward RAW" interpretation is "LOLOMGWTFBBQ-OP" for what it does and (supposedly) costs, but it's simply a synergy-like effect, that does absolutely nothing when there is no synergy put towards it. It's like saying a character with 13 Strength using a two-handed weapon is absolutely broken. You substitute that same character with 20+ Strength, and you're then ignoring what he sacrificed to get that level of power, and not to mention he still isn't overpowered compared to spellcasters ending fights before initiative is even rolled.

4. You are also using that as an argument for the reason why it doesn't work. Sure, it's sensible for when you are creating content and proposing what it should and should not be able to do when you're designing it, but it has no place for determining what it actually does, as written and/or intended.

At this point I'm just going to ignore every post you make in this thread; you're so dead-set in believing your interpretation is the RAW of the book that there is no way I can convince or explain it to you that what you think is the RAW is simply your viewpoint of the RAI, and that the RAI is basically inconclusive until the PDT comes in and tells us what's supposed to go down.


Mucronis wrote:

** spoiler omitted **

Boon Companion on d20pfsrd. as the feat is from the animal archive book.

Darksol, Boon companion looks for a Animal companion OR an Familiar class feature. getting a familiar from some outside source(and said source does NOT state it counts as the normal familiar class feature, then strict RAW, no luck)

This post shows though that it is not working as intended strictly RAW.

Thanks for that clarification, my apologies on that.

Though my original point still remains: If you get the feature from some ability through you class (hence the term "class feature), or some other subject matter, you count as having that feature for the purposes of pre-requisites and other subjects pertaining to that feature.


Ascalaphus wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:
Ascalaphus wrote:

If a suit of armor includes gauntlets, and you refuse to wear them, should you really be getting the full AC from the armor? You're not completely wearing it.

I think it's reasonable to say that gauntlets are armor that can be used as a weapon. Just like shields and armor spikes, really.

With the plethora of magical gloves and bracers, having pieces of armor taking up those slots would be a problem.

But arguing from common sense - if the maker of the armor intended you to use the gauntlets, presumably they're required to get 100% of the armor's benefit. If you don't wear the whole armor, you're not getting the whole protection.

If I sold armor I'd put it in the warranty; we can't be held responsible for armor failure if you don't use the armor as intended.

===

I disagree that something is not armor (or something else) because it's (also) listed in the weapon tables. Gauntlets are part of armor, they can be used as weapons as well. Shields are part of [shields and armor]; they can be used as weapons as well. Fists can be used to make unarmed strikes; fists are also still body parts.

You have no proof of the bolded parts. Gauntlets aren't listed in the armor table, so how can they possibly be armor? Do they grant an Armor or Shield Bonus to AC? Do they incur an Armor Check Penalty or potentially limit your Maximum Dexterity Bonus? They're metal gauntlets; I have trouble with fine motions wearing thick cloth gloves, surely metal gauntlets would incur a fairly hefty Arcane Spell Failure, right?

No. They don't, and there is no statblock in regards to them, meaning they can't possibly be armor.

There are so many things that gauntlets come with that aren't otherwise intended to go with them. I order a set of hide armor, but because of this clause, which you claim requires that all medium and heavy armors (bar breastplate) need gauntlets to be worn, which you also claim takes up the Hands slot.

Gauntlets wrote:
Medium and heavy armors (except breastplate) come with gauntlets.

So I order some leather-type armor, but because I don't wear the gauntlets that come with them, they do nothing? What kind of stupid @*#^&%^ &$^%@*#& logic is that?

So not only do all medium and heavy armors (bar breastplate) take up the Armor slot, they also take up the Hand Wondrous Item slot too? Let's extend your logic further with the Full Plate:

Full Plate wrote:
This metal suit includes gauntlets, heavy leather boots, a visored helmet, and a thick layer of padding that is worn underneath the armor.

So with the bolded parts apparently being required to be worn to receive the armor's benefits, Full Plate actually takes up the Armor, Hands, Feet, Head, Headband, and Chest/Body slots, not just the Armor slot like the Devs intended Armor to only take up. If that's how armor is supposed to be ran, then quite frankly the Caster/Martial disparity just got so big you might as well throw every non-armor wearing character out of the game.

I'd never play a martial or armor-wearing character at your game with those ridiculous rules. I'd be better off being naked with 20+ base Dexterity and Bracers of Armor +8 if I was going to be the party tank, since medium and heavy armor absolutely gimps you, and light armor doesn't do crap for AC anyway. At least Monks just got a lot better, though...


Globetrotter wrote:
This just seems wrong. If a monster had this ability he would be very difficult to kill. Players would cry foul.

They very well can, but these are Mythic Rules; the Power Creep in Mythic Games is so much stronger and overpowering than the traditional game, so coming across this is to be expected. There are tools that help the PCs deal with such unforeseeable threats, and quite frankly, coming across invisible enemies isn't rare or almost unheard of. By 3rd level it's possible, and by 5th level and higher it's basically commonplace.

Not to mention how many extra rules and effects contained in the Mythic Rules would slow down and bog an otherwise extensive and complex game. But if people want the extra Power Creep and can handle the added workload, then more power to them.


Morain wrote:
What about glitterdust, invisibility purge, antimagic field and dispel magic?

RAW, he cannot be detected by any means. You'd need to manually attack every square (or cast spells whose area could potentially affect the square the desired target may be in), and any effects that don't involve detection or revealing the location of the target apply to do anything to him.

And since you cannot see the target, he gets Total Concealment at all times. Of course, effects that ignore Concealment would be very powerful against this kind of foe.


Cascade wrote:
Shfish wrote:

Thats the thing...its not a legal rule. The only way it works is for you to discount other rules that apply ...and that is not playing by RAW. So what I said to you is still valid. I didn't say a GM should try to disallow legal choices just because they don't like it...far from it, as I said you would have to allow the normal sized wielded two handed as that one is fine within the rules.

Although as per RAW there isn't a way to TWF with a weapon wielded in two hands...the tables only gives stats for 1 handed and light weapons...so if a person wanted to do Thunder and Fang in that manner they would have to maintain those rules. SKR's posts in the past only allowed for the wielding a two handed, wielding a shield (not attacking with it), and having a bomb. The extra hands from the alch is to allow more flexibility on how you do things, but it doesn't remove core rules on things, which is what some wish it to do...

First James quoted...

--------------------------------
I would not recommend going that route in PFS.
But otherwise, yes, you can wield a 2H weapon in two hands, a shield in your third, and throw bombs with your fourth.

I also wouldn't allow this build in a PFS game by RAW.
------------------------------------
Then I commented...what I did and you jumped in.

Now he later changed that to large specifically, which I also agree is a bit grey. And now you also agree with the base concept 2H weapon in two hands, a shield in your third, and throw bombs with your fourth.

I won't sidetrack with a rehash of SKR rules but he basically said..

You can't gain extra attacks with vestigial arms. Period.

Having a 2 handed weapon and a shield or an off hand weapon using TWF grant only 2 attacks, the exact same as the original toon. You can make semantics however you like, but that's the print.
I'm am in no way taking an extra attack.

As far as TWF, it primary and secondary...not 1 handed. Although I can see where that would vary by interpretation....

I believe this is what they are talking about when referring to "no extra attacks."

Basically, if you cannot use a Large Earthbreaker and the Klar without the Vestigial Arm, then even if you include the Vestigial Arm, you still can't. Sure, you can have the extra arms hold onto them, but they cannot be used to make or help make attacks.


A Familiar is not an Animal Companion; it's a Familiar. There are feats with separate requirements from Familiars or Animal Companions, so a Familiar does not qualify you to take Boon Companion. On the other hand, a Familiar allows you to take Improved Familiar, whereas an Animal Companion would not qualify.

Since the Animal Companion from the Animal Domain has similar elements (not to mention, it's even named animal companion), it would qualify for feats and abilities that require an Animal Companion class feature.


@ Fergie: Scavion has a point, as Armor Spikes essentially follow the same methodology behind Shield Spikes. They're attached to the Armor. Unless you have the entire suit of armor in your hand, then the Armor Spikes aren't in your hand meaning you can't make attacks with them at all.

Of course, that's assuming you want to be ignorant about the RAI and the realism aspect of Armor Spikes.


Scavion wrote:
Trogdar wrote:

I don't think you understand the distinction between as written rules and as intended James.

As written rules cannot say anything aside from what they explicitly say in text. The courageous property may be intended to work the way you claim, but there is no written support for it in the rules text.

Whether SKR sent an email somewhere saying that the property is meant to work differently is irrelevant to the written rules until such time as the written rules see errata.

I want to point out that this is not an attack upon your position, I am simply trying to state that you and Rynjin are talking past each other because both you and him are using the definition of raw differently.

I tried to explain this to him earlier but I don't think he understands the difference between RAW and RAI.

He doesn't, and that's because he believes RAW and RAI somehow fall under a universal understanding, which he labels "context."

What he doesn't realize is that the context of a sentence is the intent behind that sentence. Something which he has yet to prove is true in this thread, and until a FAQ/Errata comes to pass, he never will, because he has no other means to prove his "context" is the right "context."

I can substitute every entry of the word "context" and the term "RAI" for every time it has been said, and get the same meaning across.


phantom1592 wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

You're kidding, right? Not wearing gauntlets equates to losing +9 AC? That example is not only stupid, it makes no sense, especially since gauntlets by themselves don't grant +9 AC, nor by RAW do they reduce or increase any armor bonuses.

I'm done arguing this point. Point out where in this section that either A. Gauntlets are even remotely treated as armor, and B. Gauntlets grant or increase an existing Armor bonus to AC. Until you can do that, which I am 100% sure you cannot, you're simply stating houserules. Not to mention, this is starting to get highly off-topic.

Why?

I've been pretty level-headed and shown more than once where they describe guantlets as armor from the actual books and you've been downright dismissive. If you're only going by the d20pfrd site... it would be here.

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering/other-rules/piecemeal-armor

but I imagine you'll ignore that too.

As for your analogy, I think it would be more like: If you buy a car, it includes four wheels and a steering wheel.

Sure you CAN have one without those items... but then you don't really have a Car do you...

Which is irrelevant since 'Arm armor' doesn't include... it CONSISTS.

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:


**EDIT** I bet you goobers would have a field day with trying to use Hand slot Wondrous Items and Gauntlets at the same time.

This is a weird case... I THINK 'slotted' items only matter for 'magical' gear. However... Gauntlets DO use the hand slot.

Quote:


Hands: This slot consists of gauntlets, gloves, and other
items that can worn on the hands.
So while I think in the videogame mentality of 'item slots' it MAY be legal to wear mundane gauntlets and gloves of arrow snatching... I think it's pretty poor Roleplaying to do it. Sames wearing 2 hats, 3 pairs of boots or anything else that doesn't make sense.

Armor Derail:
I'm dismissive of the Piecemeal rules for 3 reasons.

1. It's a variant rule. It's about as credible a rule as Hero Points or Called Shots. Unless the game you're playing includes that variant rule, then that doesn't apply. I'll also point out that because it's a variant rule, that means it's different from the otherwise standard rule. Which is that Gauntlets aren't armor, nor is armor required to wear of Gauntlets to function.

2. There is no rule that requires you to wear a pair of Gauntlets, an item that is classified separate from Full Plate as well as any other medium/heavy armor by the book, in order to benefit from Full Plate. You're saying that it should, but you've cited no rules to back that claim; since you can't prove the positive, then it is the negative. Saying otherwise delves into houserules, in which case the argument then means nothing.

3. Requiring gauntlets to be worn on a character because of the equipment they wear is unnecessarily restrictive for the character and his available choices, an intent that the Devs did not want equipment involving multiple bodily limbs (or singular bodily limbs multiple times over) to follow. Want proof? Take a good look at the Armor/Body/Chest slots; by your ridiculous logic, if you wear any item that applies to one of those 3 slots, it would cover all of those slots. Fortunately for us, that is not the case.

I think a better example regarding the car would be side mirrors in terms of the gauntlets. You can definitely drive a car without side mirrors, and when you're a professional driver, you don't really need them. The same concept applies to a character who is proficient in Full Plate. After all, RAW, a gauntlet does nothing in terms of defensive benefits, and the piecemeal rules, while it can be argued, are variant rules that aren't a part of the original game.

A fair enough claim in terms of the Wondrous Item regard, but the intent is quite obvious. Because it simply cites examples of subject matter that would go into it, doesn't mean that all forms of that subject matter have to go into it. After all, you're ignoring one very important question with that: is it a Wondrous Item? If a +X Base Price Gauntlet is a Wondrous Item, then you have a point.

Also by this logic, then all other weapons which are wielded on the hands take up the Hands slot, meaning you can't wear Gauntlets, which are supposedly required to wear Full Plate, which means Full Plate also takes up the Hands Slot (in addition to the Armor, Chest, and Body slots), equating to "Wielding Weapons means you can't wear Full Plate Armor." Looks like your interpretation breaks the intent and RAW of the game. Pretty badly too, I might add.

If you want to discuss the validity of Gauntlets/Spiked Gauntlets being armor, then please make another thread; that topic doesn't really have any business here.


Damian Magecraft wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Ascalaphus wrote:

If a suit of armor includes gauntlets, and you refuse to wear them, should you really be getting the full AC from the armor? You're not completely wearing it.

I think it's reasonable to say that gauntlets are armor that can be used as a weapon. Just like shields and armor spikes, really.

No it's not. They're not on the Armor table, so it's not armor. They have zero armor quantifications. That claim has no justification other than "it includes them," which has no grounds in both RAW and RAI.

Just because something includes stuff doesn't mean it's a requirement to wear the included stuff in addition to the base items.

If I told you that every 50 dollar order comes with a 10 dollar gift card, your logic dictates that I must use that 10 dollar gift card with the 50 dollar order or my 50 dollar order is automatically damaged and doesn't work properly.

Actually it is more like this:

With every 50 dollar order (full plate) you get a 10 dollar gift certificate (+9 AC).
Failure to order 50 dollars (not wearing the full ensemble) nets you no gift certificate (the +9 AC).

You're kidding, right? Not wearing gauntlets equates to losing +9 AC? That example is not only stupid, it makes no sense, especially since gauntlets by themselves don't grant +9 AC, nor by RAW do they reduce or increase any armor bonuses.

I'm done arguing this point. Point out where in this section that either A. Gauntlets are even remotely treated as armor, and B. Gauntlets grant or increase an existing Armor bonus to AC. Until you can do that, which I am 100% sure you cannot, you're simply stating houserules. Not to mention, this is starting to get highly off-topic.

**EDIT** I bet you goobers would have a field day with trying to use Hand slot Wondrous Items and Gauntlets at the same time.


Under A Bleeding Sun wrote:
The key word is acts. It is not a +1 weapon, it just gets to function like one when bashing.

And according to the RAW regarding shields as weapons, "acting" as a magic weapon is all that needs to be done for it to be treated as a magic weapon for adding enhancements and properties.

@ Durngrun Stonebreaker: A Magic Ring, a subject that is completely separate from the item itself being enhanced, is not a proper comparison.

In addition, the only requirement for a character to apply weapon special abilities is that the weapon "must have a +1 enhancement bonus," which, given the context, means it should apply to attack and damage rolls. The Bashing property already fulfills that requirement, and RAW, there is no other requirement. I don't know where this "you must enhance it as a weapon," you keep saying comes from, because all of the relevant texts make no such implications.

If that were the intent, then the sentence should say "A weapon with a special ability must have a +1 weapon enhancement," especially considering "+X Weapon" is a variant game term.

But it doesn't. Ergo, if my interpretation were infact incorrect (though the RAW seems to say that I am), there should be an errata/FAQ to clear that up, since there are properties symbolize the +1 enhancement bonus to attack and damage rolls that aren't actually a +1 weapon enhancement.


Ascalaphus wrote:

If a suit of armor includes gauntlets, and you refuse to wear them, should you really be getting the full AC from the armor? You're not completely wearing it.

I think it's reasonable to say that gauntlets are armor that can be used as a weapon. Just like shields and armor spikes, really.

No it's not. They're not on the Armor table, so it's not armor. They have zero armor quantifications. That claim has no justification other than "it includes them," which has no grounds in both RAW and RAI.

Just because something includes stuff doesn't mean it's a requirement to wear the included stuff in addition to the base items.

If I told you that every 50 dollar order comes with a 10 dollar gift card, your logic dictates that I must use that 10 dollar gift card with the 50 dollar order or my 50 dollar order is automatically damaged and doesn't work properly.


...Keeping this to a more mature and family-friendly topic, she could simply have the group go after a high-powered Succubus who was once a servant of Calistria but was either coerced or taken prisoner by one of the rival Evil deities and turned into the vile being that she is now as a gesture towards what Mr. BBEG thinks of Calistria's monarchy.

From there you could either have them kill the super-powerful succubus outright (if she was coerced into betraying Calistria, whom would then be damned to grovel as Calistria's feet), or take her back to base alive and perform an extensive ritual to cleanse the demon out, which can expand as a part 2 to what would otherwise be a very simple "Go kill X" quest, which is too boring and straightfoward to say the least.


I'll gladly point out that every single Illusion spell is trumped by Goggles of Truesight. Although the most expensive eyewear (and quite frankly, the best), the fact that you can trivialize an entire school of magic with just a single item tells you its balance levels.

It's great in the lower levels because you're pitting foes against each other or misleading enemies to running into traps, and half the time they're stupid enough to believe it. It sucks in the later levels because of see above. Ultimately, that's how it's balanced; it's one of the strongest early game schools, but easily the weakest late-game school.

@ OP: Look, there's nothing wrong with being wary of everything around you at all times; if anything, it's encouraged, but he has to have some sense of security with his party members as well as the adventures occurring before his very eyes. I mean, how are you even in a party fighting baddies when you sit there and disbelieve everything going on around you? That party member is totally not gargling up blood from being stabbed in the stomach by that goblin 12 times. I definitely didn't coup de grace a hobo for his food that I think isn't even what it looks like. Oh, and that treasure chest containing all the loot? Yeah, I don't want anything to do with that pile of skeleton bodies waiting to be animated and tear you apart.

He's got to believe in something, because if you're going to play like that, I have a feeling the GM is going to require Wisdom checks for you to even do anything, because don't forget, your character is a part of everything, and when you disbelieve everything, you might as well think you don't exist either.


Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
The Bashing special ability allows it to act as a +1 weapon but it still has to be a +1 weapon before you can add special abilities.

The RAW would disagree with you, if that really is the intent. I'll bring up another relevant paragraph I stumbled upon:

Magic Shields wrote:

Shield enhancement bonuses stack with armor enhancement bonuses. Shield enhancement bonuses do not act as attack or damage bonuses when the shield is used in a shield bash. The bashing special ability, however, does grant a +1 bonus on attack and damage rolls (see the special ability description).

A shield could be built that also acted as a magic weapon, but the cost of the enhancement bonus on attack rolls would need to be added into the cost of the shield and its enhancement bonus to AC.

As with armor, special abilities built into the shield add to the market value in the form of additions to the bonus of the shield, although they do not improve AC. A shield cannot have an effective bonus (enhancement plus special ability bonus equivalents) higher than +10. A shield with a special ability must also have at least a +1 enhancement bonus.

It seems to be mixed messages. The first bolded part says that Shield Enhancements don't count as damage bonuses, though the Bashing property does; obvious, though it does signal that the Bashing property is one of those special abilities that specifically adds to attack and damage.

In regards to the second bolded part, here's the entry for Bashing:

Bashing wrote:
A shield with this special ability is designed to perform a shield bash. A bashing shield deals damage as if it were a bashing weapon of two size categories larger (a Medium light shield thus deals 1d6 points of damage and a Medium heavy shield deals 1d8 points of damage). The shield acts as a +1 weapon when used to bash. Only light and heavy shields can have this ability.

Given the intent behind the above bolded clause, building a shield to "act" as a magic weapon, a fool-proof way to ensure weapon special abilities can be added, in comparison to the Bashing property, which states the enchanted shield "acts" as a +1 weapon for bashing (i.e. attacking), further symbolizes that the Bashing property at the very least shares the same language needed as any other generic shield enchanted with a +1 weapon enhancement, essentially showing me that it's plausible the Bashing property fulfills the same requirement cited when doing it the old-fashioned way.

**EDIT** And if that's not enough, if I have a simple +1[AC] Bashing Heavy Shield, I get a +1 Enhancement Bonus to attack and damage rolls (since it says I bash as a +1 weapon), the same as any other magic weapon. It also has the same increased Hardness and Hit Points like any other +2 Base Price weapon would, so to be quite honest, it already contains all of the subject matter that a +1 enhancement/+1 property weapon would otherwise contain; why would you require spending a +1 property when the weapon already effectively functions as a +1 weapon (and then some)?

The final bolded part in the Magic Shields entry only specifies that "a shield with a special ability must have at least a +1 enhancement bonus." I'm not sure if the writers just copy-pasted 3.5 text, overlooked it, or whatever, but the RAW tells me that it doesn't matter what kind of special ability is being applied, or the kind of enhancement bonus is on the shield (Shield Enhancement or Weapon Enhancement), if it has a +1 enhancement bonus, it qualifies for any kind of property, whether it be Armor, Shield, or Weapons. (Of course, properties that specify shields cannot be used with said property are exempt of that statement, since those are more specific to this general rule.)

As far as I can tell, it seems like a RAW-workable combination to me. Whether that falls with the intent of the rules is exactly why I created this thread; to FAQ it and set the record straight.


Under A Bleeding Sun wrote:
Nope, you must enchant it as a weapon first. It's still super cheap compared to a weapon at 172k for a +10 weapon/shield. Heck a +5 weapon/shield with 26th damage is only 36k which is really really solid.

I'm not sure it's really that simple though. The problem I run into is Bashing says it attacks as a +1 weapon; other than Hit Points or Hardness, which I'm sure are otherwise calculated the same for AC enhancements, which are already active on the shield at this point, it's not really different. It's the same concept behind SLA's counting as pre-requisites for PRCs; do I get a +1 Enhancement Bonus to Hit and Damage? Yes. Do I have increased Hardness and Hit Points associated with a +1 Enhancement? Yes. So should I then qualify for it?

Im addition, I would also point out this paragraph:

Magic Weapons wrote:
Some magic weapons have special abilities. Special abilities count as additional bonuses for determining the market value of the item, but do not modify attack or damage bonuses (except where specifically noted). A single weapon cannot have a modified bonus (enhancement bonus plus special ability bonus equivalents, including those from character abilities and spells) higher than +10. A weapon with a special ability must also have at least a +1 enhancement bonus. Weapons cannot possess the same special ability more than once.

The bolded part is quite unclear, but honestly supports my theory. In terms of RAW, as long as it has a +1 Enhancement Bonus (assuming this +1 Enhancement Bonus must apply to Attacks and Damage Rolls), the Bashing Property says it bashes (in abstract terms, makes attacks) as a +1 Weapon, which includes a +1 Enhancement Bonus, meaning that it should technically work. And that's assuming +1 Enhancement Bonus requirement couldn't also be fulfilled with a +1 to AC. I think I might have been answering my own questions a lot; not sure if this is a good thing or a bad thing.

I do agree that yes, it's no doubt cheaper, but getting that +1 worth of extra weapon properties can be really helpful; it is the difference between a Keen and Not-Keen Spiked Shield, after all, as well as the sooner (or even potential) availability of other properties, whether they be a +2 or even +4 property. So it definitely matters in the long run and grand scheme of things.


Just because purchasing certain equipment gives you extra goodies (the gauntlets) doesn't mean you automatically have to equip them. It's like the mail scam advertisements that tell you all this "double the offer" and "order now and we'll throw in X, a 30 gold value, yours free," just because I get the main product doesn't mean I must accept or even use the "free gifts" that come with it.

They don't get a stat block for armor because they aren't classified as armor. They are commonly worn with armor, but they aren't armor themselves. It's as I've said, where's the ACP, MDB, ASF, AC, etc. if they are armor? Even the Haramaki/Silken Sash gives a +1 AC, surely the metallic gauntlets are more formidable than something you wrap around your waist...

Or perhaps, just perhaps...the RAW says they aren't armor and they're actually classified as weapons according to the tables? [sarcasm]*gasp!*[/sarcasm]

Armor Spikes and Shield Spikes are attached to the armor/shield. What do you think they are, make-up or clothing that you can just take on or off? They're spikes, metal tips melded/welded into a suit of steel plates or bolted into a hunk of wood; good luck trying to take them off without a super-powerful cutting tool, especially if it's masterwork and/or magically enhanced. And that's not even factoring in you could potentially damage/destroy the item with your clumsiness.

And yes, Shields and Spiked Shields are in the weapons section because Shields can be used as both a weapon (for bashing only, though, except magic shields) and a protective item. Gauntlets can't. They don't provide AC. They don't have ACP. They don't have MDB. The list goes on. Oh, and they aren't on the Armor table like Shields are.

If you're going to throw in items that aren't in the weapon table(s), they're at-best improvised weapons. At worst, good luck trying to realistically use them.


2 people marked this as FAQ candidate.

Fairly simple question.

Let's say I'm a Martial who specializes in Shields. I decide to enchant my Heavy Spiked Shield with a +1 enhancement to AC and the Bashing property. This allows me to bash with it as a +1 weapon.

Later down the road, after I get the Shield Master feat and get a +5 Enhancement to AC, I may want to apply some juicy weapon special abilities (or perhaps before that, if they are truly that good). However, the rules become unclear from this point, and I want to get a(n) (official) clarification on the matter since it's important for building shield bashing martials.

It's quite confusing to me. On one hand, it bashes as a +1 weapon, granting +1 to attack and damage rolls. The +1 enhancement to AC still fulfills the other benefits granted from a +1 weapon, such as increased hardness and item hit points, so a +1[AC] Bashing shield effectively is a (modified) +1 AC and +1 Weapon shield. On the other, even if I applied both a +1 AC and +1 Weapon enhancement, the item would count as having a +2 enhancement in terms of hardness and hit points, something which the +1[AC] Bashing shield wouldn't simulate, and is perhaps part of the requirement needed for weapon special abilities to be applicable.

To this end, I request a FAQ, and propose the FAQ question in this manner: Bashing property: Does shield bashing as a +1 weapon fulfill the +1 weapon enhancement requirement needed to apply weapon special abilities?

Also, in before "overpowered munchkin" posts.


phantom1592 wrote:
Scavion wrote:


Then at the very least, a little bit of clarifications on the more important examples. The Called property is one that I can see as not needing explanation as it's rather intuitive to figure out that it means who "owns" the sword rather than who has it currently wielded.

Considering how many of the weapons are 'claimed' by the adventurers... I could see 'owns' being a VERY fluid concept. Why is it that when I pick it up out of a dragons pile... it's now 'mine'... but when he disarms me and picks it up... it's STILL mine ;)

Scavion wrote:


Rather I'm curious as to how they'll rule on weapons that are worn. Armor Spikes, Spiked Shields, Spiked Gauntlets. Stuff like the Dueling property could be put on Armor Spikes and essentially always function. Very much a stat stick everyone is afraid of for some reason despite their limited use. A Courageous Spiked Gauntlet while actually using another weapon is fairly pointless since gold will limit your ability to use Courageous effectively.

Honestly, I think the best result would be to not allow certain things on certain items. Armor spikes... spiked Gauntlets... These really aren't 'melee' weapons... they are armor, and should be treated as such. They may get some damage ratings and stuff, but I wouldn't allow someone to 'only' enchant the spikes on an armor... They would have to enchant the whole armor. And only with properties that are appropriate for Armor.

'piecemeal' armor is very tricky thing in this game... even when they DID focus on it in Ultimate Combat.

The common way to wear armor... is Breastplate over chainmail over padding, with the rest of the platemail surrounding the limbs and back...

Yet it gets tricky if you find a Breastplate +2 and want to incorporate it into your existing half-plate or whatever you have...

Same general principal with wanting to enchant JUST your gauntlets.

Too bad the book disagrees with you. These subjects are listed in weapon tables, and not the armor tables.

(To be fair, shield and armor spikes are listed as Extras in the Armor tables, but they aren't necessarily items in their own right, since they only cite additional gold/weight increments. Sure, one could assume that the added increments and weight can be in their own little subject, but the "+" before each subject symbolizes they are assumed to be add-ons to existing items.)

I'll also point out that if they are armor, then why don't they grant an Armor Bonus to AC? Because they aren't armor. They're add-ons to armor (not the case for Spiked Gauntlets, which is an item in its own right, and not listed in the Armor table period), but they otherwise share no characteristics assumed to go with armor. Where's the Armor Check Penalty? What about a Maximum Dexterity Bonus or Arcane Spell Failure?


Scavion wrote:
I mean the game already has all these mechanics and rules, a little clarification isn't that bad is it?

It would and it wouldn't. It wouldn't be bad in that it would set universal groundrules, make it an official game term, and anything stating otherwise would be houserules.

It would be bad in that it would result in errata of a lot of published material. It's no different than a car company recalling hundreds of thousands of their product just because they forgot a minor feature that may (or may not) improve the condition of the product. *cough*Toyota*cough*

That, and you have people going anal over people being anal about "little stuff," which may or may not be the case for the latter, but actually for the former.


David knott 242 wrote:
Dave Justus wrote:
Fractions are therefore NEVER used in any mathematical operation that occurs after you get the fraction.

This is what I was disagreeing with. With favored class bonuses, you get the fraction right from the beginning.

So let's say that you have a favored class bonus of 1/3 and you have taken it 3 times. I think everyone agrees that the total bonus is 1/3 + 1/3 + 1/3 = 1.

But if you never use fractions in any operation after you get the fraction, then each of those +1/3 bonuses would have to be rounded down to zero, and your total bonus would be 0 + 0 + 0 = 0. That is clearly wrong.

Nobody is saying that. He might appear to be saying it, but that's because he's not saying it correctly.

What we're saying it fractions aren't used for a final result of an equation for damage rolls, attack rolls, healing, etc.

The rule is that yes, +1/3 + 1/3 = 2/3, but you can't factor that in to, say, equating an extra round of Rage or Bardic Performance from a Favored Class Bonus, because the calculations for those abilities (or anything similar for that matter) don't parse fractals. Since they cannot be parsed, they are effectively 0 due to the rule that the result of an equation ending in a fraction is rounded down, regardless of the number (unless stated otherwise).


Renegadeshepherd wrote:
Reynard_the_fox wrote:

If you're getting bonuses to damage on your spells and/or exploiting elemental vulnerabilities, it can be quite good. Targeting touch AC means you're much more likely to hit, after all. However, the 5d6 cap gets worse and worse as you get to higher levels, and with two claws, a bite, and the strength bonus from Dragon Disciple, you're MUCH better off trying to full attack things to pieces when possible. In which case, you'd have been better off buffing yourself with Enlarge Person, Bull's Strength, Haste, etc.

It can be a good tool for approaching and against foes with high DR, but most Dragon Disciples are better off focusing on enhancing themselves and ripping enemies to shreds dragon-style. If you really want a Shocking Grasp-centered build, Magus is by far the best class for you.

I agree, but is intensified or quickened shock worth it? Intensified would be viable until mid levels and ur strength takes over I believe, but have some doubts. And quickened, even though it would be level 5 spell, it would be similar to monk of elemental fist. Adding 5D6 to a strong strength attack and still having actions sounds good.

Intensified is definitely worth it, especially with higher-level spells, and if you have the CL to back it up. When you hit level 10, you can effectively cast 2 Shocking Grasps into one attack with the Intensify spell (and with Magical Lineage, it would basically be for free). Mix that in with Quickened (via Rod or otherwise, though Rod would be best), and you have a very nasty burst attack each round.

With a Fireball, you're essentially pre-empowering the damage dealt at level 15. You could then do an Empowered Intensified Fireball for even more increased base damage, though I'm not sure if the Empowered would amplify the Intensified amount as well.

It's not a Metamagic I'd take right away because of the CL you need to make it really good, but it's one you should definitely get when going that route, at 10th/11th level at the earliest, since that's when you can start getting the most bang for the bucks.

**EDIT** In terms of Quickened, I wouldn't recommend as a Metamagic feat to take; don't get me wrong, it's a great Metamagic, but the +4 Spell Level is really daunting to snatch, whereas the +1 from Intensified is a lot less restrictive, and still very powerful in the end-game (assuming combat is not ended before it begins).

Remember that Metamagic Rods don't increase the spell level needed to cast, they only expend a single charge to simulate the Metamagic effect, and that depending on the grade of Metamagic Rod, they can quicken spells that are otherwise impossible to Quicken (Quickened Time Stop or Wail of the Banshee is pretty dang overpowered, and only accomplished via a Greater Quickened Metamagic Rod). Keep in mind that traits like Magical Lineage may help, but only for one spell, and one effective spell level. So unless you plan to spam a single spell [one trick pony warning], I wouldn't take it, and even then it's debatable.


Dave Justus wrote:

Fractional favored class bonuses also follow this rule. After you multiply them by the number of times you have taken the bonus you drop any fraction and that tells you how much of a modifier/bonus whatever you have.

You don't lose that you have taken that bonus 1 time, even when the rounding makes it have no effect.

This is correct.

There are several Favored Class Bonuses that specifically state they do not receive the benefits of choosing X Favored Class Bonus Y times because of fractal division, right in the D20PFSRD site under some of the race's Favored Class Bonuses.

@ OP: I agree with Zhanye in that it would be when you immediately get a numerical result.

Let's take an Empowered Fireball against a Water/Ice Elemental. You deal 10D6 worth of damage on that Fireball; average 35 damage. Following the rules of Empower, you then multiply that total by 1.5, equating to an actual increase of 17.5. You can't deal half a hit point of damage, meaning you shouldn't multiply the .5, since it effectively does nothing; so it should be rounded down to 17 to accomodate those rules, resulting in a total of 52 damage. Since the Elemental has a Vulnerability to Fire, that total (52) is multiplied by 1.5, equalling 78 damage. However, the Elemental did make his Reflex Save, reducing that total damage down to 39.


Sarrah wrote:
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
fretgod99 wrote:
What happens if your DM is Captain Tantrum?

Exactly!

This is not a 'DM vs. Player' thing! We would all benefit from knowing what 'wield' means in each context.

Sometimes it's obvious, but sometimes (illustrated by the divide over Courageous) it just isn't.

The only thing we can say for certain is that it sometimes means one thing, sometimes another and other times yet another.

One universal definition would simply make nonsense out of half of the sentences in the rules which use the word.

I totally agree with Malachi Silverclaw.

Rynjin wrote:


The dictionary definition of wield (which I will spoiler below) supports all 3 of these definitions.

Wield:

1.) to hold (something, such as a tool or weapon) in your hands so that you are ready to use it

2.) to have and use (power, influence, etc.)

3.) to have at one's command or disposal

I agree with Rynjin that there are 3 definitions to the word wield.

OP Question wrote:
What constitutes "wielding" in the Pathfinder ruleset?
All three definitions are examples of what "wielding" means in Pathfinders.

There's one problem with that premise, and that's determining which of those definitions (if any or more than one) are applicable to a given case, since each case has separate requirements for activation. In the terms of a Called Weapon to activate it, the first definition cannot be applicable because activating it, even as the "wielder," requires you not holding it, though the other two may apply.

In addition, it flies in the face of several precedents already set in the game by the Devs. In the case of, say, a Defending weapon, all 3 of those definitions must apply, otherwise its effects cannot be used, whereas the Called weapon does not meet the same requirements, and yet the language is practically the same.

At this point they can't really go back and fix it without rewriting a lot of entries that involve wielding, as that's pretty much an edition-level change. Though it wouldn't help to FAQ subject matter on a case by case type basis...


Rynjin wrote:
A lot of things rely on this word being defined as a game term.

They most certainly do, but at this point, the only way to properly fix the intent of the term "wield" and make it a game term is to go back and errata all subject matter that uses "wield" and any of its associated words to fit the TBD universal definition, something which I am positive Paizo wouldn't bother to do.

This is something that would be done between the different editions of games, or even alpha/beta/whatever-testing before an official "edition" release, but when you have a game like Pathfinder that's already this far along, it becomes a chore that is practically not worth bothering.

While I don't really like the idea of trusting one's faith in the (supposed) goodness of others (because let's face it, people can really screw you over sometimes), it's the decision that the Paizo Devs went with in regards to this matter, and quite frankly, I don't blame them for it. Some things need table variance or case-by-case rulings, and this is definitely one of those things.


Lastoth wrote:
Chengar Qordath wrote:
I'm not sure if that combo is RAW-legal, since Greater Magic Weapon has to be used on a weapon, which the amulet technically isn't. Plus, one could argue that the the bonus granted by Greater Magic Weapon isn't the same as the one a weapon gets for being a +X weapon.

To the contrary, that's exactly what an amulet of the mighty fists is for.

Secondly, one COULD argue that the enhancement bonus EXPLICITLEY NAMED IN THE SPELL, which it actually grants as an enhancement bonus, isn't actually the bonus they said it was. Any other man would be well within his right to laugh the person stating that out of the room.

In my world (RAW), an enhancement bonus is an enhancement bonus. So what if it doesn't stack, it's not stacking with anything here.

If you can show me an Amulet of Mighty Fists defined in the weapons table, then you would be correct. But unfortunately for you (and any other munchkins trying this), it's not. It's a Wondrous Item. Wondrous Items aren't (all) weapons, so it's not an applicable target for GMW.

In addition, I'll point out that even if it could be enhanced, it can't get any higher than +4 if there is already a Courageous property active on it as the bonuses on an AoMF does not go higher than an effective +5; of which would only be available at level 16 with AoMF, which an extra +2 won't be gamebreaking. If anything, it keeps that +1 property relevant throughout the game; it's not really more powerful than the Keen property, which is the de facto +1 property in the game for martials.


Fergie wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Fergie wrote:

I propose that weapons are generally carried but not wielded in most travel or social situations. You don't threaten adjacent squares even if you have the weapon in your hands. It takes the "Draw or Sheathe a Weapon" action to make it attack-ready, at which point you are officially "wielding" the weapon. You can generally only wield a single weapon per hand or a two handed or double weapon in both hands at any given time.

I suspect some of the items/abilities might need a little text change if "wielding" was to become an official term. Some things, like the defending weapon property, were intended to work when attacking rather then held or even wielded.

You are right on some terms in some circumstances, but not all weapons follow the general rule of having to be drawn to be usable. What about a shield you can bash with, or a spiked gauntlet? They're worn on the hand(s), meaning they're effectively constantly drawn. By that point, the only thing holding the bearer back is being flat-footed to an otherwise present danger he is unaware of, and even that is counteracted by taking Combat Reflexes.
I would say that is one of the benefits of natural weapons, unarmed strikes and the types of weapons that are generally difficult or impossible to disarm. These types generally have disadvantages compared to heavier weapons. Most weapons would still require the "Draw Weapon" move action to threaten, even if they are not being pulled from a scabbard.

This bolded part makes no sense. You're throwing an unneeded tax on people who don't have the Quick Draw feat for no rules reason. A shield worn for protection, which can also be used to bash faces in, is constantly equipped; once combat starts, the character wearing the shield can immediately go and bash faces in until combat ends. There's no drawing required.

The same is said for a Spiked Gauntlet. It's worn on the hands. Unless the Spiked Gauntlet hand is being used for a two-handed weapon (which can be argued that the Spiked Gauntlet is still being used/wielded, since wearing it is all you have to do to threaten and make attacks with it), it theoretically can't be used, and if the hand is applying to something, it can take that hand off of what it's being applied to (or simply drop whatever is in that hand) as a Free Action; a subject which is completely separate from Drawing/Sheathing a Weapon as a Move Action.

And what about Armor Spikes? Are you going to require a Move Action to "draw/wield" them, even though they are attached to your armor to use practically at-will?

You're also throwing Combat Reflexes ability to threaten, even while flat-footed, out the window with that ridiculous ruling, something of which is not reflected in both the intent and the RAW of using such weaponry, as well as the flow of combat.


Chengar Qordath wrote:
Lastoth wrote:
I abuse this enchant rather frequently by getting a courageous AOMF (which is dirt cheap with no enhancement bonus) and a flawed Pale Green Prism ioun stone for all day heroism. In late levels you can have the party buffer drop a 16th level greater magic weapon on your amulet each day to get a +3 bonus.
I'm not sure if that combo is RAW-legal, since Greater Magic Weapon has to be used on a weapon, which the amulet technically isn't. Plus, one could argue that the the bonus granted by Greater Magic Weapon isn't the same as the one a weapon gets for being a +X weapon.

Correct, an AoMF is not usable with GMW, since an AoMF is not an eligible target for GMW, so that right there is impossible.

In addition, I suggest he re-reads this clause:

Courageous wrote:
In addition, any morale bonus the wielder gains from any other source is increased by half the weapon's enhancement bonus (minimum 1).

In order for there to be an increase, it has to have an enhancement bonus. If you simply buy a Courageous AoMF, it actually does nothing, since all of its effects are dependant upon there being an enhancement bonus in the first place.

And that's ignoring the factor that it's based off of the weapon's enhancement bonus, which AoMF most certainly is not a weapon.


Fergie wrote:

I propose that weapons are generally carried but not wielded in most travel or social situations. You don't threaten adjacent squares even if you have the weapon in your hands. It takes the "Draw or Sheathe a Weapon" action to make it attack-ready, at which point you are officially "wielding" the weapon. You can generally only wield a single weapon per hand or a two handed or double weapon in both hands at any given time.

I suspect some of the items/abilities might need a little text change if "wielding" was to become an official term. Some things, like the defending weapon property, were intended to work when attacking rather then held or even wielded.

You are right on some terms in some circumstances, but not all weapons follow the general rule of having to be drawn to be usable. What about a shield you can bash with, or a spiked gauntlet? They're worn on the hand(s), meaning they're effectively constantly drawn. By that point, the only thing holding the bearer back is being flat-footed to an otherwise present danger he is unaware of, and even that is counteracted by taking Combat Reflexes.


I'd like to expand a bit more on the 'Courageous Spiked Gauntlet' subject, noting that the criteria of a Spiked Gauntlet is a lot less restrictive than any of the standard weapons. A Spiked Gauntlet has the appearance and function of both a weapon and a slot-item, in that it is both worn and wielded at the same time, meaning effects that only require carrying/holding the weapon are constantly active, even if the hand that has the Spiked Gauntlet equipped helps wield another weapon (another factor that other traditional weapons, bar the standard Gauntlet, cannot otherwise follow).

With that in mind, a Spiked Gauntlet doesn't exactly follow the given rules of other weapons; even while equipped (which only requires wearing it on your hand), you can use other weapons with the same hand that has the Spiked Gauntlet equipped, and its attacks are made using Unarmed Strikes.

I do question how applying the hand that has the Spiked Gauntlet equipped means the property effects of the Spiked Gauntlet cease function, even though you're using the hand which has the Spiked Gauntlet to make attacks with another weapon.


Ilja wrote:
Rynjin wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:


@ Rynjin: The Courageous property usage has the same requirements as everything else; if it's drawn, in-hand, and the bearer meets the physical requirements needed to make attacks with the weapon, it functions and applies.

[Citation Needed]

"Wielding" is never defined anywhere. You're going to find table variance.

Personally, I don't think "I'm holding it with no intent to use it" is wielding it.

Well, intent is tricky. I agree that it isn't clear what constitutes wielding, and I agree that I think Darksol's interpretation is a bit too loose (or well, that depends on how ze defines "in-hand"), but I don't think we should judge it on something as vague as intent, as intent varies from moment to moment.

But consider a grappler with +1 Courageous Armor Spikes, or a +1 Couragous Spiked Gauntlet. Barbarians aren't bad as grapplers, so it's not at all unreasonable to build towards that being an option.

You many not _intend_ to use the spiked gauntlet, because you hope you won't provoke, but you still have it on you, you clearly have free hands (at least until you've actually grappled), you _could_ use it whenever really - I think in that circumstance not treating it as wielded would be too strict.

The grey area for me is when you're wielding other stuff at the same time. I wouldn't let someone get a bonus to their greatsword attacks because they wield spiked armor/gauntlets, at least not if they don't have extra arms.

I'm not sure how it's too loose. If anything, it's about as accurate as any other constantly active effects on weapons, such as Flaming or Keen. If you're going to treat it the same way as the Defending property, then the same concept behind the intent of that property applies to all other properties, in that you must be actively using it to receive its benefits.

I do agree with the bolded part though, but it shouldn't be too hard to configure. I will point out that the bonus of the Courageous item being used would confer to the other weapon, but if that other weapon isn't being actively used, the benefits going to that other weapon are being wasted.


blackbloodtroll wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
SKR's definition is good enough for me.

Same.

This thread secretly has nothing to do with wielding.

It is a shadow argument against a weapon property, that some don't like.

There is a thread on that property already.

In the other thread, I respectfully asked that if he wanted to discuss when armor and weapon properties become applicable that he should make a separate thread, as that has nothing to do with the other thread in question (and that I would gladly contribute my two copper in the discussion).

I'll also point out that there is more than the single weapon property discussed in the other thread that this question pertains to. Defending was one property, its cousin the Guardian property is another. The Called property calls out for a wielder, even though there is language that dissuades the definition we all assume the term "wielder" to mean in the game.

The discussion here is about when and/or if weapon and armor properties (or even other abilities that call for wielders or wielding) are applicable in terms of usage. If you have the notion to bring in other threads without any sense of contribution, please take your irrelevant and unhelpful subject matter elsewhere.

I was not the first to mention it, and it had all the usual traits of a thread, that was secretly about another thread. I already said I jumped to conclusions, on what I saw, to be suspicious. I have tried to contribute in a meaningful manner, but was under the impression that my efforts would be for naught, if I was not discussing the underlying topic.

So, I believe this removes all the confusion, and we can move on.

Right?

Perhaps. Though my point still extends to the rest of the peanut gallery.


As to my input in the discussion...

I don't think there is really any one right answer to this, and is dependant upon the situation; it is probably for this same reason that there is no truly official statement from the PDT via FAQ/Errata/Whatever: Because it's not one that can be band-aided or solved within singular subject matter.

Let's take weapons and their magic properties as primary examples of conflicting meanings in the term "wield." We have the Defending property. This property requires that the bearer makes attacks in order to receive its benefits. This had to be clarified in a FAQ to get this intent across, as many people believed it did not have to meet this pre-requisite to receive its benefits, meaning for this specific weapon property, the definition of wield had to be altered to accommodate this. There are also similar properties, such as the Allying and Guardian properties, which use almost the exact same language as the Defending property.

We then also have other properties, such as the Called property which does designate a Wielder, but its effects cannot be usable unless it is in hand and able to make attacks with it. Although the intent of the ability is clear, going by the assumed game terms of wielding, the Called property would not be able to function, meaning for the purposes of this property, the term wield either is changed or is simply flavor text; I'd like to think it is the latter, since that is the most conservative interpretation to keep in-line with the intent of the property.

And that is one of many problems: Sometimes the terms "wielder" or "wielding" gets confused with being a flavorful explanation V.S. being a game term in-between properties and abilities. When does the term "wield" and its related words follow the terms assumed in the game? When does it just simply seem to be a specific synonym for 'use' or 'held'?


blackbloodtroll wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
SKR's definition is good enough for me.

Same.

This thread secretly has nothing to do with wielding.

It is a shadow argument against a weapon property, that some don't like.

There is a thread on that property already.

In the other thread, I respectfully asked that if he wanted to discuss when armor and weapon properties become applicable that he should make a separate thread, as that has nothing to do with the other thread in question (and that I would gladly contribute my two copper in the discussion).

I'll also point out that there is more than the single weapon property discussed in the other thread that this question pertains to. Defending was one property, its cousin the Guardian property is another. The Called property calls out for a wielder, even though there is language that dissuades the definition we all assume the term "wielder" to mean in the game.

The discussion here is about when and/or if weapon and armor properties (or even other abilities that call for wielders or wielding) are applicable in terms of usage. If you have the notion to bring in other threads without any sense of contribution, please take your irrelevant and unhelpful subject matter elsewhere.


Rynjin wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:


@ Rynjin: The Courageous property usage has the same requirements as everything else; if it's drawn, in-hand, and the bearer meets the physical requirements needed to make attacks with the weapon, it functions and applies.

[Citation Needed]

"Wielding" is never defined anywhere. You're going to find table variance.

Personally, I don't think "I'm holding it with no intent to use it" is wielding it.

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
By your logic, Enhancement Bonuses on weapons don't grant increased Hardness or Hit Points unless they're being "wielded," since that too is a magical function being applied by Base Price Bonuses being put on the weapon.

Except for the fact that those bonuses don't require the weapon to be wielded to function. They're merely bonuses given for teh weapon havinga certain enhancement. That's not my logic at all.

However, if we want to play this game, by YOUR logic a +1 Kukri held in your off-hand imparts a +1 attack/damage to the longsword you're wielding in your main hand.

The bolded part is exactly what I'm saying about the Courageous property, which also applies to the Enhancement Bonuses as it stands. I simply put in the whole "drawn out, in-hand, and physically meet the requirements needed to make attacks with it" so as to help explain the intent behind its function more clearly. (I actually could clarify that second part a bit better, and specify that you actually have the amount of hands needed, but it's too drawn out on-paper.)

Kukri Derail:
The Kukri +1 to hit and damage only applies to attacks made with that weapon; although it doesn't come outright and say it, the context of the subject is obvious, and does have an important clause:

Magic Weapons wrote:
A magic weapon is enhanced to strike more truly and deliver more damage. Magic weapons have enhancement bonuses ranging from +1 to +5. They apply these bonuses to both attack and damage rolls when used in combat. All magic weapons are also masterwork weapons, but their masterwork bonuses on attack rolls do not stack with their enhancement bonuses on attack rolls.

The first bolded part specifies that the intent behind an enhancement bonus to attack and damage rolls only applies to the weapon itself, not any other weapon. There's also the precedent of the Allying property, which specifically allows the transfer of a weapon's enhancement bonus from the weapon in question to another weapon (i.e. the Longsword).

The second bolded part says that the Enhancement Bonuses to attack and damage rolls only is applied exclusively when it is used in combat. (To be fair, it is an ambiguous meaning, though it's safe to narrow it down to events that involve attack and damage rolls with the weapon in question, since the clause mentions only those subjects.)

I'll gladly talk about when armor and weapon properties are applicable, but I suggest you make a different thread for that, since it would be a fair bit off-topic aside from using the Courageous property as an example, which is minute subject matter in comparison.


Majuba wrote:
Darksol... I'm not really sure what you're saying there.

Not sure how much more clear I can make it. A 17 Strength (or other odd-number) Barbarian can make usage out of an odd-numbered increase via Courageous, and the same applies to Constitution, but when you get into the even-numbered intervals, the increase between an even-numbered attribute is the same amount; people are complaining about a +1 Strength and Constitution when it may or may not do something, and when we hit +2 Strength and Constitution, the even numbered Barbarian is getting the same level of benefits, and (assuming he's not gimping himself) is going to have the higher modifier anyway. The fact that the 17 Strength Barbarian needs a magical property to be equal with the 18 Strength Barbarian (which won't be the case come 4th level, the earliest of which an increased statistic is applicable) doesn't really compare.

And comparing a Barbarian who doesn't have it to a Barbarian who does is like comparing a Martial who has Power Attack to a Martial who doesn't have Power Attack. The fact that it's practically a de facto property for them (which, by the way, isn't exactly definitively great until the endgame, and only works when Rage is active, which won't always be the case) is no different an argument of Power Attack being a de facto feat for all Martials.

@ Rynjin: The Courageous property usage has the same requirements as everything else; if it's drawn, in-hand, and the bearer meets the physical requirements needed to make attacks with the weapon, it functions and applies.

By your logic, Enhancement Bonuses on weapons don't grant increased Hardness or Hit Points unless they're being "wielded," since that too is a magical function being applied by Base Price Bonuses being put on the weapon.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

A +4 Courageous Weapon V.S. a +5 Weapon isn't as fair of a comparison, since by that point the benefits increase to +2 per instead of simply +1.

With the above Courageous Weapon, you'll get an extra to-hit and damage over the +5 Weapon. However, you then won't be able to bypass all alignment-based DR, and by the time you're affording +5 Enhancement Bonus weapons is when you're fighting things like Inevitables and all of the other Chaotic/Lawful DR creatures, that +1 to hit and damage may not be as valuable, since you would effectively have a -10/-15 to damage by taking the +4 Courageous.

It's also important to point out that at even-leveled increase intervals (for example, let's take a +4 Courageous Flaming Burst Furious Bane (Evil Outsider) Greataxe {abbreviating it as the Hellslayer from Diablo II}, and compare it with a 17 Strength or 18 Strength base Barbarian fighting some demon). While raging and fighting, the weapon's effective enhancement bonus is a +8, meaning the Barbarian has an increased point of Strength, Constitution, and Will Saves versus that creature on a rate of +4. So the 18 Strength Barbarian goes up to a 22 when fighting the demon, and the 17 Strength Barbarian goes up to a 21 when fighting the demon. While the same increase is met, there is still a 1 point strength modifier difference between the two because of it.

It's the same phenomenon associated with, say, odd-numbered stat belts/headbands when used with odd-numbered stats. An odd number + an odd number equals an even number. It's when you take an even number and add an odd number and add them together is when the total does not change (in terms of statistics). The Will Save increase otherwise remains equal amongst the Barbarians.


Ilja wrote:
LoneKnave wrote:
For starters, not everyone plays a barbarian, and not everyone plays at levels where courageous is actually worth a damn (you need a total of +5 bonus for it to not just give you +1STR and CON when raging, which, you know, isn't even enough to get a bonus if your stats aren't odd numbers), not everyone has ultimate equipment, or feels like combing it through for optimal stuff.
Huh? How do you figure? A +1 Couragous weapon would give +1 Str and Con and Will saves when raging.

It increases the score. It takes 2 points into an attribute to either increase or decrease the modifier it grants.

A Courageous Weapon with a less than +4 Enhancement Bonus only grants 1 point to the given attribute.

The Will Saves would increase, but the Strength/Constitution modifiers would be unchanged unless the amount needed to increase the modifier is 1 attribute point.


@ SiouL

The FAQ says otherwise:

Power Attack 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.

This FAQ says that if you are using a two-handed weapon with a single hand, you still calculate the Power Attack benefits.

Also, take a look at the Power Attack feat more closely...

Power Attack wrote:
This bonus to damage is increased by half (+50%) if you are making an attack with a two-handed weapon, a one handed weapon using two hands, or a primary natural weapon that adds 1-1/2 times your Strength modifier on damage rolls.

It even spells it out. As long as the attack is being made with a two-handed weapon (or even a one-handed weapon being used in two hands), that 150% damage is calculated, no questions asked. There is no handiness amount involved (except in the case of one-handed weapons, but that is its own separate topic).

In the case of a Lance, since it's a two-handed weapon that only requires one hand to use while mounted, the Power Attack +50% increase still applies, since using the Lance in one hand does not turn it into or tell you to treat it as a one-handed weapon.


I believe it's important to not fixate on the whole "lance" thing. They are an example and are subject to the FAQ, but it's not the de facto subject. To be honest, this can extend to far more than the Lance example. Let's take the overly-confusable subject that is a Bastard Sword. Atleast now we know where it got that name from...

Bastard Sword wrote:
A bastard sword is about 4 feet in length, making it too large to use in one hand without special training; thus, it is an exotic weapon. A character can use a bastard sword two-handed as a martial weapon.

Bolded the relevant text.

We know that a Bastard Sword is a One-Handed Exotic Weapon according to the table. Meaning for hit point calculations, hardness, Strength and Power Attack modifiers, feat/ability qualifications, etc. it is to be calculated as a One-Handed Weapon.

But now look at the bolded clause. It says that I can choose to use a Bastard Sword two-handed as a Martial Weapon. What exactly would that entail? And so for this case, we look at the two FAQs, except in reverse.

The first FAQ talks about feats and special abilities allowing us to use two-handed weapons as one-handed weapons. For the purposes of hit points, by the table it is still a Two-Handed Weapon, meaning hit points and hardness are calculated as a Two-Handed Weapon. Everything else changes though; Strength and Power Attack modifiers, feat/ability qualifications, required handedness for proper usage, the list goes on.

The second FAQ talks about using a two-handed weapon in a single hand. Since the weapon type does not change, the feat/ability qualifications, and Strength/Power Attack modifiers all remain the same. Even the weapon stats remain the same (hit points and hardness). The only difference is the hands required to properly use it become reduced. Everything else otherwise is unchanged.

Reversing this logic, using a Bastard Sword in two hands as a Martial Weapon appears to function as a modified version of the 1st FAQ, though only because of the rules for using a One-Handed Weapon in two hands. The 2nd FAQ applies when going from Two-handed to One-handed, not the other way around.


@fregod99: And yet that still doesn't make sense according to the RAW. Bravery does not grant a Morale Bonus to Saves V.S. Fear. SKR's clarification is the only grounds on which Bravery is even remotely applicable, because although it's a bonus to Saves V.S. Fear, it's not a Morale Bonus, which is called out in the RAW.

To be honest, the only way SKR's interpretation (or to be more precise according to his statements, the supposed collective viewpoint of the design team, of which he is currently no longer a part of) would be considered correct is if the "morale bonus" increase being referred to in the second sentence was treated as flavor text, since the literal definition of morale refers to the confidence or discipline of a person or group, the only feasible explanation I draw from which people claim it only affects Fear Saves (and for it to affect the Fighter's Bravery).

But "morale bonus," as far as I can tell, is a kind of conjoined game term; bonus is a positive integer/modifier being granted to a specific roll or result of an action/activity a creature takes or is given. Morale is a prefix type applied to a bonus (or even possibly a penalty) so as to help determine the stacking of bonuses. Throw them together, and you have a type of positive modifier being applied to a roll or result of an action/activity.

Using a conjoined game term, which has a completely different meaning from the flavor text for which their interpretations would be correct, is very, very poor choosing on their part to say the least, if not outright false advertising (that is, the weapon property, not the published product it comes from).

This is exactly why I called for a FAQ/Errata; because they are using an already defined (and conjoined) game term to something that is otherwise completely different. And until such subjects come to pass, the RAW would disagree with the Dev Team's statements heavily.

1 to 50 of 1,993 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.