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

2,877 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 2,877 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Kahvikuppo wrote:
Now that's a shame. One more question, would you benefit from special enchantments (i.e. Spell Resistance on Kilt and Heavy Fortification on Breastplate) both at the same time, since the bonus to AC does not stack?

No. I imagine it would function no different than wearing Bracers of Armor, which basically allows for the same thing (and at a higher, cheaper alternative as well).

The entry (with the important notes) for Bracers of Armor is as follows:

Bracers of Armor wrote:
If a creature receives a larger armor bonus from another source, the bracers of armor cease functioning and do not grant their armor bonus or their armor special abilities. If the bracers of armor grant a larger armor bonus, the other source of armor ceases functioning.

Extrapolating that to apply to the Armored Kilt, you'd get a rule akin to this:

Armored Kilt wrote:
If a creature receives a larger enhancement bonus from another source, the armored kilt cease functioning and do not grant their enhancement bonus or their armor special abilities. If the bracers of armor grant a larger enhancement bonus, the other source of armor ceases functioning.


wraithstrike wrote:

When classes such as sorcerers or bloodragers get free bonus spells known due to their class features, such as the sorcerer bloodline, how is the level of the spell determined? <---FAQ question.

For those of you who may want to say just go by whatever level it normally counts as for that class I agree, but the oracle gets a spell early due to an FAQ. There may also be times when a class gets access to a spell it does not normally have access to, such as an arcane class gaining access to a divine spell.

I thought there was a rule or dev comment on it, but I was not able to find it.

This is a standard case of Specific trumps General. The Specific Spell Levels given for your class feature (such as in the case of Fire Domain and Produce Flame) trump the General rules for determining Spell Level (as what it's written in the sheet). With the above example and myself being a Druid, I can have Produce Flame as both my 1st level casting spell and my 2nd level Domain spell. This can be important for spells and effects dependant upon counterspelling and the like, but other than that? It's still essentially the same spell and effect that follows.

A FAQ is technically not needed, so long as the class feature in question says what level of spell it is for you (or a similar indicator), since in the case of Sorcerers via the FAQ, not only is a precedent set, but also the level is shown to match what the book says they get it at (i.e. they still get it as a bonus spell at the level the book says).


To reference the RAW I'm bringing up:

Touch Spells in Combat wrote:
Many spells have a range of touch. To use these spells, you cast the spell and then touch the subject. In the same round that you cast the spell, you may also touch (or attempt to touch) as a free action. You may take your move before casting the spell, after touching the target, or between casting the spell and touching the target. You can automatically touch one friend or use the spell on yourself, but to touch an opponent, you must succeed on an attack roll.

The important part is bolded, albeit minorly misnomered, in that it's not (commonly) based upon whether your target is an opponent or not.

The key factor to note from the bolded part is that an Ally is willing, meaning no attack roll is required, whereas an Opponent is not willing, meaning an attack roll is required.

In my above scenario with the Superstitious Barbarian, he's not a willing target of the spell, meaning he would not be willing to be hit (as well as receive the full effects of) the spell, so you would have to make an attack roll for him, despite him being an ally. Of course, I'm sure the Specifics of the Superstition Rage Power supersedes the General rules of Touch Spells in Combat.


Numarak wrote:

I think you are wrong saying that "Touching is attacking". If I'm a Wizard of level 7, and I cast a 'Haste', the spell says I could "Touch" seven persons and haste them. Obviously, a Wizard of level 7 does not have 7 attacks, and does not need them to haste his friends.

Touching is not, in any way, the same as attacking; although there are some attacks called "touch attacks".

So no, I also do not agree with you.

And about your last piece of information, for me is relevant; what makes the difference between a 'touch' and an 'attack', being this 'touch', 'melee' or 'ranged', is that you NEED to roll. You do not roll, it's not an attack. There are some exceptions to this rule, auto-hits, but they are so, exceptions, and no the general rule.

P.S. The more I look into the forum the more I realize people have different perceptions about one thing. I just can expose my arguments and try to convince you. But I might be wrong.

No, what makes a Touch require an Attack Roll is whether a creature is or is not willing to be touched (and therefore take the effects of the spell); since allies are considered willing for beneficial/harmless spells, no attack roll is necessary. The rules for delivering touch spells to allies (or mass-touching) supersedes the general rules for iterative attacks.

Additionally, a common interpretation for the Raging Superstitious Barbarian is that they aren't willing participants of any spell; this could include any attempts being delivered to that character (assuming the Barbarian knows it's a spell). So, even if the Wizard is an Ally to the Barbarian for the Haste spell, he still has to make an Attack Roll for his Ally, because his Ally is not a willing target to be hit by (and therefore undergo the effects of) the spell.


Truedragon wrote:

Hey guys, first posted topic and i need some info.

So I love magical shields, they have some of the best enchantments.
Anyway i am planning on building a very defensive tank character and i was planing on giving him 2 magical shields, something like this:

Large Shield + Longsword + Buckler

Now i fully realize that i can only apply the armor bonus from one shield and only if i am not attacking with that arm. What i want to do is make the Large Shield an all up +5 with a few other (+) enchantments and then have the Buckler be just a +1 with Mirrored and Fortification and a few others. So i would only really be taking advantage of the AC bonus from the Large Shield.

My question is whether my having 2 magical shields would preclude me from taking advantage of the enchantment effects of the second shield if they have nothing to do with AC.

And yes i am fully aware that wearing a Buckler on my main arm will give me a -1 penalty to hit and i am fine with that.

So can you guys help me out?

This does have table (and book) variation. In the Core, it lists Shields as an item slot; item slots are generally for Wondrous Items, and this includes things like Boots of Speed, Cloak of Elvenkind, etc. Each one of those items takes up a slot.

However, in the later books (Ultimate Equipment being the biggest indicator here), Shields are not listed as being a slotted item, either in your Wondrous Item Slots (which is where it's listed in the Core), or elsewhere in that book. So, in the Core, you're technically limited, whereas in Ultimate Equipment, it's not cited as being a limitation; multiple interpretations, though many players are conservative and stick with the Core, it's a misnomer in my honest opinion.

The difference this stuff makes is that you could stack one shield with your Enhancement to AC (as well as other stuff), and the other one you could just have a +1 with a bunch of other enhancements; although this has its own balancing factors (budget being the biggest, as well as self-stacking not being plausible), the Core interpretation would only let you benefit from one shield at a time, as an actual Shield, whereas the other would let you do what I just described. At worst, you're forced to live with the Core limitation, and it's not horrible; it'll actually save you some cash in the long run. At best, you got options that are going to cost you an arm and a leg for minor increases (that are in my opinion not worth it).

Keep in mind that this does not invalidate your ability to enhance a Shield as a weapon; those sorts of enhancements are applicable regardless, so if you were planning to, for example, TWF with the Large Shield and the Longsword and you were using the Buckler's enhancements, the Weapon enhancements on the Heavy Shield would still function, because it is still a weapon.


Scott Wilhelm wrote:
While I do still believe--because of official rules sources as I have explained earlier on this thread--that the Bashing Enchantment does indeed stack with Shield Spikes, that doesn't matter for the Klar, because the Klar doesn't have Shield Spikes, it has Armor Spikes, as you observed.

I'm going to poke my head in one last time just to point something out here, and is precisely the sort of argument I was making here (that basically everyone on my side of the spectrum would share):

You're saying the Bashing Enchantment, something which increases the effective size of a weapon by 2 categories, stacks with Shield Spikes, something which increases the effective size of a weapon by 1 category, according to their descriptions. We agree that's what each subject does, right?

Now, the official FAQ says things that increase the effective size of a weapon (of which both fall under, according to examples given from the FAQ) do not stack with themselves. It doesn't matter what the source of those things are, whether it's a magic property, a mundane weapon quality, etc., because there is no listed exception within the FAQ that provides such a claim.

So, the only two ways you're reaching the conclusion of "Shield Spikes + Bashing = Okay," is by either ignoring one or both of the associated items descriptions (which is betraying the RAW of the two subjects in question), or by ignoring the official FAQ (which all PFS GMs have to follow).

In either case, you're going against the rules of the game (doubly true in PFS cases), which means no matter what way you look at it, it's incorrect, and telling others that it is correct, well...they're gonna have a bad time, and that's being generous.

And to the Klar; you say it's a Light Shield with Armor Spikes that deals 1D6 Slashing, correct? How are you getting Slashing Damage, if the item, based solely on the description, is an amalgamation of the Light Shield (whose base damage is 1D3 Bludgeoning), and Armor Spikes (1D6 Piercing)?

The only way you could get the 1D6 Slashing is from what's listed in the Table, and that's not discussed or even alluded to, in any such way in the item's actual description, according to the PRD. I mean, you could try to say that the Armor Spikes part of the Klar is what makes it 1D6, but if you use the Armor Spike's damage, then you're using the damage from an item you don't Shield Bash with, for starters. There's numerous other problems (How is the Armor Spike's damage type going to Slashing? Does that really emulate an Armor Spike with that sort of change, or doesn't it become its own separate beast that's undefined in the description? etc.), so your claim that it's a 1D6 Slashing Shield Bash is, at the very least, a stretch that not everyone can connect to (myself included). Giving the PFS GMs the benefit of the doubt, I'm sure they're sensible human beings, and I'm certain several, if not many of them, would share the same concerns I've displayed here.

The other alternative, saying that it's a Spiked Light Shield instead of a Light Shield with Armor Spikes, leads to the same snafu I explained above, in that you're either betraying the rules of one (or both) item/property description(s), or you're betraying the FAQ (which the PFS GMs are required to enforce).

Now I pop my head back out, as I've made my (and the rest of my side's) case (and in a more civil manner, since I was a little "heated" in the previous interactions, which I apologize for).


kestral287 wrote:
Nathanael Love wrote:
Sure orcs are stonrg, but set up to be incapable of being worthwhile spellcasters of any variety.
... If only there was an Orc-specific full casting archetype that didn't use a mental stat to cast.

...OH WAIT...


Twigs wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
That creature having Reach is perhaps even more powerful, because the only safe ways to engage them are with successful Acrobatics checks for melee (otherwise they get attacked, potentially hit, and therefore killed without any sort of reprisal)

This is the most spectacular leap of logic I've ever seen. We're still talking about kobolds, right? 9 Strength, CR 1/4 kobolds? "Hit and therefore killed"? At +1 to hit for 2.5 average damage I'd hardly think so. Maybe if the kobolds use the brace function and a PC is foolish enough to charge in, but even then the kobolds have such a dismal hit chance that it's almost a non-factor.

If our kobolds are ranked four spaces wide (any deeper and they forgo attacks of opportunity due to soft cover), they'll each get a single attack of opportunity against whoever approaches (in this case, likely a heavily armored fighter with upwards of 17AC (i.e., they only hit on a 16 or higher, a 1 in 4 chance to hit. Against our foolhardy charging fighter, those odds are improved somewhat, they can now hit on a 14 or higher. Not great odds.). The rest of the party are free to move in and cut them to ribbons at their leisure, as the kobolds have spent their attack of opportunity for the round (that is, if they haven't already been incapacitated by a sleep, burning hands, acid flask, ranged attack or anything else that takes advantage of their dismal saves and 5 hit points. Finally once our fighters are within their reach they're forced to withdraw and forgo their attacks for the round.

This is the only context I can see these longspear toting kobolds being deadly. Leading the PC's deeper into the complex where they'll be beset with other hazards. They're still hopelessly ineffective in melee even with the better equipment. They're there to serve as an annoyance and distraction. They don't become instagibbing death machines the second you give them reach. Weapon Finesse and Precise Strike are fair suggestions for giving...

You completely missed the point I was making there. The original point I made was that weapons (in addition to armor and other resources) do have an impact on CR, albeit minimal, and is doubly true for beginning-level CRs, since gear is almost absent (and therefore almost not a factor to consider when calculating CR).

Compared to the in-book Kobold, the Longspear + Quilted Armor Kobold is a significant increase, both offensively and defensively. You put the in-book Kobold against the Longspear + Quilted Armor Kobold, he'll be less likely to win than his slightly-altered counterpart, since he has a means to engage without being immediately put at risk. There are still many things that can trivialize the encounter, and that's because the encounter itself is still trivial; it's easily something that's combatted with the likes of a Color Spray, or a beefed-up Burning Hands, and that's stuff that can all be accomplished with a 1st level caster, which you already referenced. And that's working as intended.

But you're also deciding to ignore their ability to flank, or make effective use of Combat Maneuvers (a Fighter's AC might be high, but his CMD, perhaps not so much), such as Trip, which would put the Fighter on his butt, unable to attack or defend himself properly, etc. I can go on, but Tucker's Kobolds have a reputation for a reason, and it sure as hell wasn't because the Kobolds were geared to the teeth.


Scythia wrote:
Elghinn Lightbringer wrote:
I homebrewed my own Small (light) and Medium (one-handed) versions for an archetype of mine. Elven High Guard. And it has "Elven" in the name for the strict pupose of elves. The Elven War Knife is like unto Legolas's white knives, and the elven war blade is just a one-handed version of the elven curved blade. I really don't know why they never had these versions in the first place, sinceit allows some Dex combatant versatility with elves, which is what elves prefer, vs Strength.
You must not have seen the degrees of consternation that the idea of effective Dexterity based melee raises around here.

Indeed, the amount of degrees there are, are the same temperature of several GMs whose ears and noses are pumping out steam.

Too bad they're getting all heated and worked up over nothing.


Elven Curved Blade wrote:
You can use the Weapon Finesse feat to apply your Dexterity modifier instead of your Strength modifier to attack rolls with an elven curve blade sized for you, even though it isn't a light weapon.

Denoting its size would make it no longer sized for you, meaning this benefit would not apply.

If you wanted to finesse with it regardless, you'd have to make it a Light Weapon, which requires it to be Tiny-sized, and that imposes a -4 penalty, and changes the damage to 1D6.

By that point, you might as well be using a Shortsword. Or a Rapier.


We're talking about the validity of using the Class Feature to do so. The full text says:

Spell Conduit wrote:
At 5th level, as long as a blood conduit is wearing light or no armor, he can deliver bloodrager spells with a range of touch through bodily contact. When he succeeds at a combat maneuver check to bull rush, grapple, pin, reposition, or trip an opponent, or makes an unarmed strike against an enemy, he can as a swift action cast a touch spell on the creature that he affected with the combat maneuver, requiring no further touch attack roll. If this spell would usually require a successful touch attack, his successful combat maneuver check counts as this attack.

The RAI behind the ability would suggest you could, but the RAW would certainly tell you no, since you're not affecting an enemy, but an ally.

And no, you probably can't count as your own enemy, unless you're Confused or Dominated.


Mark Hoover wrote:

I just realized one answer to my question that no one has mentioned. At least, I don't think anyone's mentioned it; this is a longer thread than most I get going.

When PF was first conceived, as far as I know, most APs were generated for a 15 Pt buy with CRB created characters. 4 level 1 PCs, w/a 15 Pt buy, starting gold by class and no access to Ultimate Campaign/Magic Capital plus birchbark scroll paper could be expected, at best, to have basic weapons and armor and maybe about 2-4 scrolls, if they're lucky.

For this party, four kobolds as written in the Beastiary WOULD be an average challenge.

Now I'm just talking about the kobolds. Or goblins. Or whatever is armed with simple, weak weapons. I'm NOT talking about things like Cover, Small space, Difficult Terrain, natural Hazards or whatever. Those are supposed to add to the CR of the encounter.

At higher levels I might see a GM custom-arming their monsters. Respectfully though I'd like to say this to the posters in this thread:

I'm only suggesting optimizing the weapons carried.

Because of this I respectfully disagree that changing the weapons changes the CR. If you take 4 kobolds, change nothing else, but make their spears longspears and their slings into crossbows, they'll deal more damage but they still have the same chances to hit, same HP, same defenses and weaknesses, etc. Therefore I'd postulate that arming them thusly doesn't magically transform an encounter with 4 of them from a CR 1 to a CR 2.

Now if instead you made the average kobold warrior 1 with Kobold Sniper, gave them leather armor, rebuilt them with the Heroic array of stats, armed them with a crossbow and a greatsword and finally put them in natural caves with plenty of rocky outcrops from behind which they might crouch and snipe, then yes, their CR should change.

Now you're talking about an AC 16 creature with Stealth +11 firing a crossbow +5 (1d6) potentially denying your Dex bonus and further potentially hiding that same round to do it all over again next...

Saying weapon damage isn't relevant to a creature's CR is a little silly. Although CR calculations do not factor in weapon type or damage (much), it's still an important factor, one that is especially true in the beginning levels, where your static bonuses from your stat modifiers or your feats or items or whatever, are low, or even non-existent. The increased damage dice in the lower levels are a lot more prevalent because they consist of a larger portion of the damage dealt.

Let's take your hypothesis, and instead of that Kobold having a Spear, he has a Greatsword. That 2D6 not only has a higher minimum damage in comparison to the Spear, but also a higher average and higher maximum damage, and it bypasses Slashing DR (the only creatures I know of that have Piercing DR are Rakshasas, and there's an equally powerful weapon for that occasion). His melee attacks have received a very clear and obvious upgrade, though not in his to-hit department.

If the chances for each kobold to hit are exactly the same, any logical player would tell you that the kobold that has the Greatsword is a much larger threat than those with the Spears, because consistently speaking, he is much more likely to down a PC than those with a Spear.

Hell, let's make the upgrade even more basic, and say that instead of a Spear, they have a Longspear. That creature having Reach is perhaps even more powerful, because the only safe ways to engage them are with successful Acrobatics checks for melee (otherwise they get attacked, potentially hit, and therefore killed without any sort of reprisal), or with Ranged Weapons like Bows, and those sorts of attacks can easily be defended with Quilted Armor, providing DR/3 against those ranged attacks. A very deadly-geared Kobold if I ever saw one.

So you can say that changing weapons doesn't change CR all you want, and you're probably right. But that doesn't mean it doesn't change the inherent difficulty of the encounter at all either, especially when CR itself is a flawed system (and in the beginning levels, a very fragile and inconsistent one too).


2 people marked this as a favorite.
lemeres wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Opuk0 wrote:

I would totally love to fight these optimized kobolds by the wave at level 1

Who doesn't love getting TPK'ed on their first session?

/sarcasm

I'd prefer to think of a TPK on your first session to be called a one-shot.

If character death isn't a relevant factor, even at first level, then why even have monsters or combat in the game?

The question is not so much 'getting killed', but rather 'getting killed in 1 hit by a 1/4 cr enemy'.

I have always advocated skipping level 1- far, far too swingy. If you were starting off with a bit higher level (and thus a bit more hp), then better equipped kobolds would not be as big a problem.

Basically- the nature of level 1 requires the 'you will all most likely survive this' enemies to be.... well kobolds with spears and 9 str.

CR, especially for the beginning levels, is a shaky system. Using CR for the lower levels to determine how effective a creature is, is misleading to say the least. Putting a party of 1st level Adventurers against a Wraith is actually an equal APL encounter, but 1st level PCs are so unable to defend themselves properly against, much less effectively hurt, the Wraith, that it becomes an extremely powerful boss encounter as a best-case scenario. At the worst-case scenario, it's a TPK within 3-4 turns.

You can take about a dozen Kobolds, give them extremely useful tactics (i.e. Tucker's Kobolds), and they'll make a 1st level party into a bloodsplot. But they're about equal in APL.


blackbloodtroll wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:


A lot of people would think going against the RAI of the game is cheating, and it's not an unfair accusation, considering both the RAW and the RAI, equally, are what make up the rules. It's certainly something I'd say constitutes cheating.

No.

Accusations of cheating are personal attacks, and inappropriate on the Paizo boards.

We are not talking about fixed dice, or lying, or anything like that.

I don't care how one feels about either interpretation, of RAW, or RAI, the personal attacks such as accusations of cheating are improper.

Do not make, or condone, such accusations.

I'm not calling anyone a cheater, I'm stating what I would personally constitute cheating, and that many others would agree with my interpretation of what 'cheating' is, and that quite frankly, there's a very fine line, perhaps the width of a single strand of hair, between running the rules incorrectly, and cheating the rules. If I was calling someone a cheater, I'd simply come out and say it.

But I didn't. I may have used the word 'cheese' to constitute trying to monopolize the rules, but that's all. If cheese means the same thing as cheat, for both the intent and consequences of using that word, then quite frankly a lot of these forum members, perhaps yourself included, would fall under the very thing you say is intolerable on these boards.

What I've been saying this entire time to the side that says so-and-so stacks, is that they're playing the rules incorrectly if they follow that ruling. When I provide official FAQs regarding the associated game terms and how they interact, my own personal foresight (which I am certain is shared by the Devs, since it still follows the intent of the FAQ), and people are still not convinced things work the way I (and the FAQ) say(s) they're supposed to work, well...

In either case, this will be the last post I make on this matter, since it appears it's devolving into something a lot more sinister than a discussion of whether things stack or not. I've provided all the evidence and rules-intent that I possibly could, so it no longer becomes fruitful to continue in a conversation that's (apparently) fated to end badly.


Zaskar24 wrote:
Are there any published rules on how to make your own class? I know there are rules to create races if you want to. I remember back in 2nd Ed. of D&D there were rules to create a class if you wanted to. Of course that goes back to the days of the classes having different XP to advance. Which was great for thiefs! Not so good for magic users or druids though.

As Milo pointed out, the Advanced Class Guide does have pointers and subject matter teetered towards developing your own classes (and archetypes). I'd suggest reading those.


blackbloodtroll wrote:

So, now, a Spiked Shield does not truly exist, but rather, there is only a Shield, under the influence of a "Spiked" effect size increase effect?

I am getting a bit confused about explanations, and descriptions, coming from both sides of the debate.

Also, I don't give a damn if I agree, or disagree, with whatever anyone happens to be saying, don't throw out accusations of cheating.

That is known as a dick move.

Stop it.

If you want to be more technical, the base Shield doesn't exist either, since both entries on the table don't have a price listed.

Of course, the more logical explanation behind that is you pay what is on the Armor table (both base costs and Spike attachment costs), and the entries in the Weapons Table are merely to show the stats (since by rights, you can't technically buy them as weapons, merely that you can use them as weapons.).

A lot of people would think going against the RAI of the game is cheating, and it's not an unfair accusation, considering both the RAW and the RAI, equally, are what make up the rules. It's certainly something I'd say constitutes cheating.

But it's more conventional and appropriate to say cheesing, since it's not technically cheating, but it is taking something the way it's not supposed to work, and turning into something that it's not supposed to emulate, at all, and is precisely what I'm saying people are doing if they are getting a medium-sized Heavy Shield to deal 2D6 with the Bashing property and Shield Spikes: They're not following the rules as they're intended to work, and there are FAQs and Dev Posts that support that.

And if they aren't following the rules as they're intended to work, then they essentially spit on Paizo's RAI, because they don't like it, whether it nerfs their character, it's not the "internal consistency" they value, or whatever their reasons may be, and that's fine; for Home Games.

For PFS or other similar playstyles, it's still incorrect, and trying to preach it to be correct only sets players up for disappointment and frustration, which isn't fun (or fair) for them.


Opuk0 wrote:

I would totally love to fight these optimized kobolds by the wave at level 1

Who doesn't love getting TPK'ed on their first session?

/sarcasm

I'd prefer to think of a TPK on your first session to be called a one-shot.

If character death isn't a relevant factor, even at first level, then why even have monsters or combat in the game?


Scott Wilhelm wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Klars are their own different beast, and have no relation to this.... separate thread, there is a time and place to discuss those things, and it's not here.

I disagree. The OP was asking about doing 2d6 with a Shield Bash, and a Bashing Klar is a way to do that. You do have a point that we've had this out on another thread, already.

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
I only brought it up because of the shenanigans you try to do and what people are trying to do now are basically the same levels of cheese;

And since you led with a strawman argument, and followed it with an ad hominem, it's clear you have no real arguments to make on the subject, anymore.

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
No, let's not.
You don't have to. And from what you've brought to this topic so far, you shouldn't.

It's a way to do that, but it's not intended to do that. So if you want to spit on RAI, then sure, it's a fair way to do it, and this applies to both cases.

I already made all the arguments on the other thread (which, by the way, was also an irrelevant place to discuss what a Klar can and can't do). There's no reason to recite them again since you refuse to treat what I (and several others) have said as valid evidence; it's a waste of time and space.


Baumfluch wrote:

Hi everybody.

Does a withdraw full-round-action work while being mounted? And how does it work.

So far from the combat section i could figure out that you and your mount share the same initiave, but not share your actions. (if my mount moves, i still have my move-action).
Also we learn that we share the mounts space.

So my problems with withdrawing:

1: Since me and my mount dont share actions, it could be possible to let the mount do a withdraw. while i go for a full(ranged)attack.
that wouldnt even provoke attacks of opportunity since the attacks are made in the middle of the movement (10 squares away from the threat).
CRB:
"In either case, you make the attack roll when your mount has completed half its movement. You can make a full attack with a ranged weapon while your mount is moving. Likewise, you can take move actions normally."

2: A technical one. Lets say im riding my horse and want to withdraw from a foe with natural range 10 ft (like trolls). so both squares im in are threatened. Withdraw allows me to treat my starting square as not threatened. Now i have a Problem: i have 2 starting squares.
If i would say both dont count as threatened i can get away from a 10ft reach foe without taking AoO in 1 single round, while i usually need 2 rounds.

3: Balancing overall. At the price of 110 (light horse, ct) i may do a withdraw and still have all actions left allowing me for to do any fullround action. And the only requirement would be a dc5 ride check it i want to use both Hands for my actions? seems not correct to me, but i cant find sth else. Did i miss something or does this just require a houserule.

PS: i know there is an animal trick called "down" but i dont think that applies on mounted animals, since you ride them and do ride checks to guide the animal in combate (elsewise no fighter could ever do mounted combat if it would require him a move Action with a dc 15 handle animal check)

The rules generally tend to lump your actions together as Mount and Rider. For example, if you were to use the Charge action, not only would the Mount receive the benefits and penalties of Charge, but since you are the Rider and follow what the Mount does, both in movement and actual actions, you would be forced to Charge as well, and take the benefits and penalties associated with it also. Of course, if you could get Pounce one way or another, it would be a truly terrifying action.

The same ruling there can easily apply to things like Withdraw, in that you can't take actions separate from the Mount. One could argue that you can, since most people believe Charge is called out as a specific exemption of ability, but the result is you don't receive the benefits and penalties of the action. In the case of Withdraw, you would provoke 2 attacks of opportunity, while the Mount would only provoke 1, assuming natural reach of 10 feet.


Kchaka wrote:
If there's another BloodRager in the group, you could both attack each other as AoO. Who would miss the chance to attack a friend?

Sure, but they're still not valid targets for the action in question, so the ability still fails.

That being said, friends punch each other all the time, so why not?


RAW, you can.

RAI, you can't with the methods you're trying to pull, as subbing out attacks to yourself for an effect that requires an opponent will fail.

That being said, I would personally allow it if you actually decided to stab yourself to deliver the effect, similar to how 3.X's Blade of Blood spell dealt damage to the caster to create a greater effect.


Scott Wilhelm wrote:
Aelryinth wrote:
Scott Wilhelm wrote:
Vis a vis PFS, it probably is better to follow my earlier advice. Instead of using a Heavy, Spiked Shield, use a Klar, which although it has spikes, the weapon description in UE makes it NOT a Spiked Shield! So with no virtual size increase to not stack with, the Bashing Enchantment goes from 1d6 to 2d6. It's a shame to lose a point of Shield Bonus AC protection, but it might be worth it to avoid the risk of a GM ruling against you, perhaps falsely.

Ah, Please, let's not start about klar's.

An attack with the slashing blade of a klar is not a shield bash, so Bashing will not work with it.

If you want to Bash with a Klar, it specifically says its treated as a light spiked shield. Bashing would stack with that use of a Klar.

So, you can bash with a Klar, or slash with a Klar, but Bashing enhancement only affects the former.

Still cheaper then a short sword + small spiked shield, however.

==Aelryinth

Oh, let's.

Unless you are using a shield for a combat maneuver like Bull Rushing with Shield Slam or something, all melee attacks with shields are shield bashes.

The fact that the Klar is the only shield that does slashing damage on a shield bash is interesting, but there is no rule that creates some kind of non-bash melee attack just to nerf the Klar.

Even if you were right that a melee attack with a Klar were not a shield bash, the Bashing Enchantment would still increase the damage of the Klar from 1d6 to 2d6.

Ultimate Equipment, Bashing wrote:
A bashing shield deals damage as if it were a weapon of two size categories larger
It does not differentiate between shield bashing and the non-bashing melee attack, because the non-bashing melee shield attack does not exist, but if it did, the Bashing Enchantment would enhance that, too.

No, let's not. Klars are their own different beast, and have no relation to this. I only brought it up because of the shenanigans you try to do and what people are trying to do now are basically the same levels of cheese; if you wanna continue this, then make it its own separate thread, there is a time and place to discuss those things, and it's not here.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Nathanael Love wrote:
You guys win man-- Kobolds bad/evil/dumb exist for the sole purpose of being mercilessly slaughtered by PCs and should always have only equipment that provides them with no statistical advantage whatsoever.

Technically, the role Kobolds play is also the role any monster plays in Pathfinder: To get killed by PCs. Sure, there's the occasional BBEG with his "I'll get you Gadgets!" speech, where he gets away without getting killed, but he is still defeated, everybody knows the BBEG is gonna lose his life in the end. It's typical storyline writing, slaying the dragon, saving the princess, living happily ever after, blah blah blah.

If you don't like that sort of gameplay, then it seems you should be mature enough to play a different type of campaign, where the roles are reversed (the PCs are the underdogs getting hunted by other groups of adventurers).

And the purpose of those other adventurers would be to be killed by the PCs.

I suppose you could run a game where the purpose was to kill the PCs, but I doubt many groups would take well to regular TPKs.

It's the constant "Snoozeville versus Struggle" playstyle. If you play it where things are too easy or easy enough, the story becomes extremely boring and unfun to play. If you play it where the things are too hard, the story becomes impossible to properly finish, and is also unfun to play (probably because you're save-or-sucked to death).

Some players like to breeze through things. Some players like impossible challenges just to see if they can beat them, and if they do, say "Yeah, I did that, suck it Blues." If you don't like things being automatically killable or being cannon fodder, then raise the stakes. Get out of that damn straitjacket of a playstyle, mix things up, make them interesting, take a damn good look at what you can do to make even the weakest of creatures the most terrifying things to battle against, and watch the PCs struggle for their existence, fighting tooth and nail to survive.


Dracoknight wrote:

Lets see the rules shall we?

wrote:


Spiked Shield, Heavy or Light

Description: You can bash with a spiked shield instead of using it for defense.

Shield Bash Attacks

You can bash an opponent with a shield, using it as an off-hand weapon. Used this way, a shield is a martial bludgeoning weapon.

For the purpose of penalties on attack rolls, treat a heavy shield as a one-handed weapon and treat a light shield as a light weapon.

wrote:


Shield Spikes

Benefit: These spikes turn a shield into a martial piercing weapon and increase the damage dealt by a shield bash as if the shield were designed for a creature one size category larger than you (see “spiked shields” on Table: Weapons). You can't put spikes on a buckler or a tower shield. Otherwise, attacking with a spiked shield is like making a shield bash attack.

An enhancement bonus on a spiked shield does not improve the effectiveness of a shield bash made with it, but a spiked shield can be made into a magic weapon in its own right.

For the part in italics: Is it so that the shield becomes a different weapon, or is it a flavor text for a size increase? You could easily rule that the spiked shield is a different weapon entirely due to its own entry in the weapon table. ( why does it have its own entry instead of using the weapon size table that is in the same chapter? )

For the part in bold: This discussion is still prevalent and for some unclear due to the part that attacking with a spiked shield is *still* a shield bash despite being counted as a martial weapon in its own right.

Also the description on a spiked shield still refer to doing bludgeoning damage, while the spikes addition say it turn into piercing. Might be a writers error, or its merely copy/pasted from the section about shield bashing.

Outdated rules set is outdated. It's more accurate to use the Paizo PRD, since Paizo themselves keep their stuff updated with their own official Erratas. Other sites, although good for finding material, also has their official stuff not so up-to-snuff, as evidenced by the first item quotation (FAQ and Errata doesn't include the "off-hand" junk).

Here's the PRD for Equipment, this includes both Weapons and Armor and whatever attachments, such as Shield Spikes. This actually has the weapon descriptions for both Shields and Spiked Shields the exact same. To quote for reference:

Shield, Heavy or Light wrote:
You can bash with a shield instead of using it for defense.
Spiked Shield, Heavy or Light wrote:
You can bash with a spiked shield instead of using it for defense.

That's all that's listed for weapon descriptions. The Armor section has the other descriptions.

The italicized part is an Effective Size bonus to your damage dice, that is, the shield sized for a Medium creature bashes as if it were a shield for a Large sized creature, meaning you use a higher base damage die, but it doesn't actually require the character to be larger in size to use properly, which is why it's called an Effective Size bonus, because the actual size of the item does not change, only its effectiveness does. The reason why it has its own entry is for ease of reference, the same reason Agile Breastplate and Breastplate have their own separate entries, even though they're basically the same damn thing with unique benefits.

The FAQ gives examples as to what constitutes an Effective Size bonus, and Shield Spikes fall under one of the examples. Effective Size bonuses are like any other bonuses, and do not stack with themselves under any circumstance, the same way stat belt/headbands and their corresponding spell buffs don't stack together; because they're both of the same type, and same type bonuses (barring certain exceptions, of which both Effective Size and Enhancement bonuses aren't one of them) don't stack. Period.

The source of the bonus does not matter, the reasoning behind this ruling is already set in similar, previous precedents (stacking the same types of things over and over indefinitely), and breaking this ruling would result in breaking the other rulings, since you're not only breaking the rule in question, you're breaking the precedent behind the rule that the PDT's design values follow.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Nathanael Love wrote:

You guys win man-- Kobolds bad/evil/dumb exist for the sole purpose of being mercilessly slaughtered by PCs and should always have only equipment that provides them with no statistical advantage whatsoever.

Never mind that Orcs who also have light sensitivity are listed with Falchions-- a sword that takes a massive amount of skill and long hours at the forge to create. Or the Kobolds must be dumber/less capable than the Orcs-- despite the Orcs taking penalties to Int and Wis that Kobolds don't, perhaps they aren't as skilled in hand eye coordination despite having a bonus to dex that Orcs don't get?

Never mind that the Kobold is listed as having racial bonus in profession miner. Those Kobolds mine for ore, but then have to steal anything metal they use because, again-- Kobolds only role in the world is to be slaughtered by PCs.

They must be mining only raw gold ore because its shiny, and stacking it up in big piles while they use stone spears. Must be using stone picks to do the mining with too?

Technically, the role Kobolds play is also the role any monster plays in Pathfinder: To get killed by PCs. Sure, there's the occasional BBEG with his "I'll get you Gadgets!" speech, where he gets away without getting killed, but he is still defeated, everybody knows the BBEG is gonna lose his life in the end. It's typical storyline writing, slaying the dragon, saving the princess, living happily ever after, blah blah blah.

If you don't like that sort of gameplay, then it seems you should be mature enough to play a different type of campaign, where the roles are reversed (the PCs are the underdogs getting hunted by other groups of adventurers).


@ N N 959: Actually, I can. One weapon is sized for a Large creature. A Medium or Huge creature trying to wield it suffers penalties to hit. The other weapon is sized for a Medium creature, but deals damage as if it were a Large-sized weapon, meaning Small, Large, and Huge-sized creatures suffer penalties for wielding it. That's what an Effective Size bonus is, that's what Shield Spikes emulate, and that's why Bashing (a higher-level Effective Size bonus) and Shield Spikes do not stack.

Correct, rules if left to pure RAW generally make the game unplayable, and thus RAI keeps that in check, though RAW still serves a non-RAI precedent; the PDT FAQs and Erratas are the official RAI on subjects whose RAW is unclear or inconsistent, and overturns all other RAI. Including yours. Including mine. Including everybody and their grandma's RAI.

So the PDT interpreted actual and virtual size increases, regardless of their source, to not stack with each other, the same way that bonuses of the same type do not stack with each other (which is also the reasoning behind this FAQ). The FAQ doesn't care what source the actual/virtual size increases come from, whether it's magical, mundane, or whatever; it applies to all of these things equally. Because after all, your ruling would allow us to stack Bull's Strength with Belts of Giant's Strength, Masterwork quality with Greater Magic Weapon (or even a magic + Enhancement weapon), and other stupid shenanigans, since the lack of that FAQ breaks their other precedents. Last I checked, going the more conservative route is generally the more favored way to go in regards to rules interpretations, especially when it comes to the PDT making a FAQ ruling. So, because your ruling results in ridiculous, obviously unintended shenanigans, the concept is quite clear.

The PDT provided their rationale, it's listed in the FAQ. Size bonuses are still a bonus, and bonuses of the same type do not stack. The rules regarding Size bonuses also apply to Effective Size bonuses, as per the FAQ. So you can stack a single Size bonus and a single Effective Size bonus, the same way you can stack a single Natural Armor bonus and a single Enhancement to Natural Armor bonus. The RAI regarding those subjects are identical, so if you break the former, you should also break the latter.

Disregarding the FAQ, you're still not beating Specific Trumps General. The specific written rules regarding Shield Spikes overrules any sort of cheese you might come up with in regards to what's listed in the weapons table, so this includes Spiked Clubs/Maces and Spiked Chains and Spike Traps and whatever. You can't apply Shield Spike rules to those other weapons because Shield Spikes apply only to shields. That's why they're called SHIELD spikes. To denote that they're a type of spike that's separate from the others, both in mechanics and in application, the same way Spells and Spell-Like Abilities are different, even though they are functionally and realistically the same thing.

After all, your cheesy ruling would suggest that I could come across a Spiked Pit trap, remove all of the spikes by hand (because who needs a Disable Device check when I can Sunder every single spike that's down there), nullify the trap (if there's no spikes, it's no longer a Spiked Pit trap), put them on my Shield without any sort of issue or downtime at all, and have it become the same effect as Shield Spikes on a Shield. Except you know that's 100% cheese and no sane GM, both PFS and homebrew, would allow that sort of crap to fly in their games. Whereas it's much simpler (and less rules-consistency-breaking) to say "Yup, these don't stack, so it's XDY damage."

If you're still not convinced, go to an "Ask (random dev) all your questions here!" thread, post your predicament, see what they say. If you want to take a more active approach, build a PFS character, play him for the specific purpose of purchasing a Spiked Bashing Shield for a triple Effective Size bonus to your damage dice, and see if the PFS GMs will let it fly at their table. If they tell you the same damn things I have, then you're just gonna have to suck it up and face that you've been homebrewing your rulings this whole time.


Scott Wilhelm wrote:
Nefreet wrote:
How then, logically and IC, could you enchant a piercing weapon with a bashing enchantment? That smithy's gonna suggest you just remove the spikes.

Morning Stars do more damage for the weighted, bashing end, and they do more damage for the sharp spikes. They stack. A club does 1d6; a dagger does 1d4; a morning star does 1d8. Stacks.

Magically making the spikes sharper, magically making some kind of momentum-mass-generator thingy, stacks.

QED

No they don't, because those effects aren't applicable here. Shield Spikes and regular Spikes, whether they're on other weapons, in traps, etc. aren't the same thing. Green Dragons and Black Dragons are the same thing, and they aren't, even though they both have Acid damage breath weapons, in the same way that Spiked Shields and other Spiked Weapons have Piercing damage in the entries.

They have different rules sets and different mechanics regarding their own unique abilities; trying to use one while applying it to the other leads to shenanigans.

But then again, since I'm able to have a +30 Klar that deals 3D20 in your game, I suppose it makes sense to you for this stuff to work.


@ N N 959: Does it make sense realistically? Not really. This is fantasy, with rules that are abstract of realism, meaning that doesn't really have ground here. The rules are the rules. If the rules say the mundane effect works as X, and X's don't stack with themselves, of which Bashing is an X (2X, to be more precise), then they can't combine to become 3X, period, end of discussion. It's that simple. I don't need to provide any more evidence, realistic or otherwise, to the plate. The rules say they don't work, so they don't work. If you want to play a game where they do work, then might I suggest you look at the Homebrew section, which is exactly what that is for.

Shield Spikes have a mechanical effect if they're attached to a shield. That doesn't instantly make the shield a new weapon, it simply alters it, especially when the language for Shield Spikes says that other than changing the damage dice and damage type, it's still the same damn weapon, which also shows parenthesized text to look at the entry in the weapons table to compare the differences. Since the specifics of the item description supersedes the general rule for the weapons table, the weapons table entry for Spiked Shields don't provide credence to supersede the FAQ.

You can sit there and say we should also apply that ruling for other spiked weapons, but we feasibly can't. The specifics of the Shield Spikes have no application for the generalization of Spikes on other weapons. You have no grounds here to say they should function the same, meaning they are separate entitites, where one has mechanics implications, and the other does not.

You are correct in that shield spikes and spiked shields are, in fact, separate entities. However, when you put shield spikes on a shield, it becomes a spiked shield, and is therefore combined as far as determining enhancement properties and such (since you aren't allowed to enhance Shield Spikes themselves).

And considering the FAQ was originally created to answer if Shield Spikes and Bashing would(/should) stack (as well as the other similar scenarios), it's not getting changed anytime soon.


Nefreet wrote:
Darkholme wrote:
It seems I got clarification on most of the bits I was unclear on, aside from the stacking of Bashing and Spikes.

As a bit of context, I was the one who proposed the original FAQ request, and I specifically questioned the interaction between Bashing and Shield Spikes.

When the ruling was issued later in that same thread, the Design Team favored a more broad answer:

"if you have multiple size changing effects (for instance an effect that increases your size by one step and another that increases your size by two steps), only the largest applies"

You'd think their answer would cover Shield Spikes (an effect that increases your size by one step) and Bashing (an effect that increases your size by two steps), especially since that's the question I asked, but a large enough portion of the forums disagree with that possibility, and so threads like these (and the ones you've already read) just devolve into more "yes vs no" arguments.

So, take from that what you will.

It's much more likely to assume that the Design Team made a more broad statement to cover all the bases (of which Shield Spikes and Bashing would be equivalent to), instead of just focusing on a single case, especially when the Design Team found it wasn't really necessary to focus on the single case when there are multiple subjects that mimic that case, and decided to go with the 2 birds 1 stone route.

I don't usually agree with James Risner on many things, but on this one I do; the FAQ and the item descriptions make the decision quite obvious. It's just people think Shield Bashes getting nerfed is badwrongfun and therefore it becomes an 'invalid ruling'.

I don't like it, it certainly reduces the effectiveness of my Shield Rangbarian build, but I'm not going to discount it because I don't like it.


N N 959 wrote:
James Risner wrote:
The FAQ makes it abundantly clear, that the Spiked Shield is a virtual size increase and it won't stack with Bashing.

It actually fails to do that. In fact, the FAQ to which you refer doesn't even mentioned a spiked shield. What we do have is this FAQ:

FAQ on Bashing wrote:

Shield Bash: If I am proficient with wearing shields, can I make a shield bash without a nonproficiency penalty?

Armor proficiencies and weapon proficiencies are different things.

Table 6–4: Weapon (page 142) lists light shields, heavy shields, and spiked shields as martial weapons.

In black and white, it says that a spiked shield is a martial weapon...not a virtual size increase to a shield. Why is that significant?

Because an item cannot be both a virtual increase to a weapon and weapon in its own right. There is no such category of things that do both.

Quote:
I believe the "debate" centers around the belief in some people that they intended to let them stack and may have forgot about them when they wrote the FAQ.

There is no debating that the person(s) who penned shield spikes had any inclination that these things should or would fall into the same category as Lead Blades or Bashing. There is no logical basis for grouping them. What the PDT did is identify OOC language as a basis for grouping spells. This is fundamentally contrary to the paradigm under which things had been grouped back when this stuff was written.

Now, all that having been said, the PDT could have come to some belief that spiked shields stacking with bashing/lead blades is some sort of game breaker. We saw an ancient post by a Dev that a 2d6 off-hand weapon is some sin against creation. I don't buy it. Spending 9k to get a 2d6 off-hand weapon that is piercing damage and puts a -4 on both your off-hand and main hand is hardly game-breaking, especially when it burns a feat (or you get -6 / -10). In fact, using such a weapon is a probably sub-optimal. So I flat...

The Shield Spikes entry says this:

Shield Spikes wrote:
These spikes turn a shield into a martial piercing weapon and increase the damage dealt by a shield bash as if the shield were designed for a creature one size category larger than you (see “spiked shields” on Table: Weapons). You can't put spikes on a buckler or a tower shield. Otherwise, attacking with a spiked shield is like making a shield bash attack.

The bolded parts specifically say the only difference between a Shield Bash with a regular shield and a spiked shield is the damage type and the effective size increase (which IS there, and is also supported by the damage difference between the two entries on the table). Outside of those two differences, the weapon is effectively the same. It is only listed on the weapons table for ease of reference.

There is a FAQ (that I linked to in my previous post) that says Actual Size Increases and Effective Size Increases can be combined, but you can stack multiple Actual Size Increases and Effective Size Increases together (only one of each). It also gives a size-stacking example with a shield, suggesting that Bashing + Spiked combos were the reason this was FAQ'd. Here's the text:

FAQ wrote:
As per the rules on size changes, size changes do not stack, so if you have multiple size changing effects (for instance an effect that increases your size by one step and another that increases your size by two steps), only the largest applies. The same is true of effective size increases (which includes “deal damage as if they were one size category larger than they actually are,” “your damage die type increases by one step,” and similar language). They don’t stack with each other, just take the biggest one. However, you can have one of each and they do work together (for example, enlarge person increasing your actual size to Large and a bashing shield increasing your shield’s effective size by two steps, for a total of 2d6 damage).

Bolded the important bits for ease of reference.

**EDIT**

As for mundane qualities stacking with spells, you're saying you would allow Masterwork Weapons to stack with a Magic Weapon spell? (AKA, I'd get +2 Enhancement to hit, but only +1 Enhancement to damage?) We both know those don't stack, not because they're the same effect, but because they're separate effects, that both give +1 Enhancement bonus to hit, and we know that bonuses of the same type (of which Enhancement bonus isn't an exception) don't stack. This situation is absolutely no different.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mark Hoover wrote:

Let's take the lowly kobold. In my Bestiary 1 I see a pic of a kobold with a bone through its nose, a spear and it's range weapon lists a sling. Bear in mind that it is defined by its class levels. Its listed class in the stat block is Warrior 1, one of the only advantages of which is all martial weapons.

Why so cruel to the kobold?

Without changing/optimizing stats, adding PC class levels or modifying any feats I'm looking at a Str 9, Dex 13 Small sized creature. Said creature is also of average intelligence and capable of wielding ANY martial weapon, so why is he depicted with THESE weapons?

A simple change from a sling to a shortbow gives the kobold a +2 avg damage for a mere 30gp. There's not much you can do for the melee weapon but if he HAS to fight melee you could drop a Lucerne hammer in his hands; justify it as a mining hammer and pick combined. He's using 2 hands for his ranged weapons; why not max out his damage potential?

Ok, so maybe the hammer is too much but seriously; why a spear and sling? For that matter mites are throwing darts? Seriously? They ride on giant vermin; poisoned darts or instead maybe a crossbow?

I get hamstringing monsters with inferior stat arrays compared to the heroes. After all the PCs ARE presumably the heroes right? But really sub-standard gear seems like overkill on making monsters weaker than the PCs.

Before people even bring it up (I'm probably too late on this)...

Yes, you should play the monsters like Tucker's Kobolds if you think their weaponry is junk. You'll reconsider your claim of "BAD WEAPONS MEAN BAD MONSTERS" in the snap of fingers (which, if played right, would also be the snap of a PC's neck from said Kobolds).


Jolken Jenkins wrote:
I'm debating on whether to make my new druid a human or aasamir. Aasamir is appealing because the stats are perfectly designed for a druid and also the availability of the Celestial Servant feat to apply the celestial template to my animal companion. On the other hand, humans can increase an ability score of their animal companions by 2, which is also very appealing. Thoughts?

Either one is pretty good. The +2 to the ability score allows for offensive increases (More Strength = More to-hit and damage), whereas the celestial template grants resistances (and maybe immunities) at the cost of a feat.

It depends on if you plan to be more offensive or defensive with your animal companion.


Darkholme wrote:

I have a player talking about Two-Handing a spiked shield of bashing. I've looked for a faq and I've found some threads with people arguing various positions, but no official stances, so I thought I would ask what the RAW of the matter is.

1. Do shield spikes count as a separate weapon that can be enchanted, separate from the heavy shield they're placed on?
My guess is no.

1a. Are weapon enhancements on a shield priced separately from shield enhancements, or is a +1 shield that is also a +1 weapon counted as a +2 weapon?

2. Do shield spikes and bashing stack, giving you a shield that hits for 2d6?
Again, my guess is no.

3. Can you use a heavy shield as your main weapon attack in one hand, or as a two-handed weapon, without using it as an improvised weapon?
This line makes me think they can only be used as off-hand weapons.

Core Rules, P152: Shield Bashing wrote:
You can bash an opponent with a shield, using it as an off-hand weapon. Used this way, a shield is a martial bludgeoning weapon.

1. Shield Spikes are called out as being an 'attachment' item. That is, Shield Spikes are essentially a separate item, but when attached to a Shield, the Shield becomes its own item (a Spiked Shield). This makes sense flavorwise, since Spikes on both Armor and Shields are usually molded into the steel and such that the Spikes are inseparable from the Shield (unless it is smithed off, which takes time and resources). It also makes sense mechanically, because you can't really effectively bash with only the spikes of a shield without also bashing with the shield itself, and vice-versa, and it doesn't let you get into +30 item shenanigans.

1a. They are treated separate, but the cost of the two separate calculations are added together. So if I had a +1 Bashing and a +1 Furious Spiked Shield, they cost the price of a +2 Armor and a +2 Weapon combined.

2. No. A lot of people argued that because Spiked Shields were treated as their own separate weapons in their own categories, they stacked together, and they were technically correct. However, this FAQ says that actual size increases and effective size increases (which both Shield Spikes and the Bashing quality emulate) do not stack with themselves (though of course, an actual size increase stacks with an effective size increase as normal).

3. Using a shield as a weapon does not constitute it being improvised, especially when it is listed on the weapons table, and when it has its own category for Fighter Weapon Groups.

**EDIT**

A random party of Ninjas appeared...

Roll initiative!


If you want a Rogue that is more of a weapon aficionado instead of a sneaky guy, then what's the harm in dipping a level of Fighter or Ranger (or even Barbarian) to get basically all of the proficiencies you want? Delayed Sneak Attack dice progression (but no net Sneak Attack dice loss)? Losing of the Rogue capstone (which actually sucks anyway, and won't hardly get any use)?

The Rogue doesn't really lose anything by dipping a level into a class that has all of the proficiencies. In fact, it's actually one of the few things in Pathfinder (as far as multi-classing is concerned) that isn't a complete kick in the nuts to do. The only issue is their (valuable) class features are delayed a level, and it's not really that bad, if you think weapon proficiencies are so damn important.


ngc7293 wrote:

We are playing Rise of the Runelords. The group is 7th level an we all have about 16 thousand gold to spend.

Here is what I figured so far:
Put keen edge on my +1 Katana. With some help that should cost only 3000
Get my Masterwork Chainshirt to +1 (I think that's 1000gp?)
Get a heavy Steel Shield +2 for 4000gp

At that point I have about 8000 left over.

I could get a Runestone of Power level 2 for 8000gp. But I am not sure it is worth it.

At 10th level I want to get a Mithril Breastplate, so I am not sure about spending all of this.

Also I'd like some ideas for other things if any.
The Keen Katana is set in stone.

Thanks.

edit:
Here is what I already have:
Haversack, Runestone of power level 1, Amulet of natural armor +1, Ring of Protection +1 and some Medallion that I got in game that gives +1 to all my saves and false life 1/day.

+2 weapon (AKA +1 Keen weapon) costs 4,000 to make, not 3,000 (unless someone is willing to forward you the 1,000 cash). This leaves you with 12,000 gold left.

Getting +1 armor and shield will cost you 2,000 to buy. 10,000 gold left.

A base Agile Mithril Breastplate will only cost you 4,000 gold; adding a +1 bonus will make it 5,000. It's not that bad of a cost later down the road if you already get 16,000 to spend at this level, so it's definitely fine for you to spend cash (just don't spend too much on your Chain Shirt, since you plan to replace it soon.

From there, I would sincerely consider investing in a Headband of Charisma and a Belt of Dexterity; this will provide permanent increases in your spell DCs, Spells Per Day, AC, Reflex Saves, Initiative, and respective Skill Checks. This will also leave you with 2,000 gold left.

I see you don't have a Cloak of Resistance; I'd buy a +1 for 1,000 gold pieces, and sit on the 1,000 gold you have left (or buy important consumables with it, like healing potions, special buff potions, etc).

Curious, is the Medallion's Save bonus a Luck bonus?


Stats seem to be okay. Although you get good Will Saves, unless you plan to dip 2 levels into Paladin for Divine Grace (which is a great investment IMO), I wouldn't be dumping Wisdom. You do get a lot of skills as a Bard (6 + mod), unless you want to be an all-encompassing Skill Monkey, dumping Intelligence would be better, and you don't technically lose any skill points if you use your Favored Class Bonus for it. Although you lose Bardic Knowledge (meaning you have to manually invest in more Knowledge ranks if you want that to be your forte), you still have Versatile Performance, and this is something both you and your Familiar get (though to be quite honest, all it will give you, at-best, is an Aid Another bonus from your familiar) that you can sub out for your other day-to-day skills.

Your basic character outline is that you want a fairly self-reliant Bard that can also provide buffs. Being 3/4 BAB and only D8 Hit-Dice (without any really cool powers), combined with your buffs (both spells AND performance), will make you only as effective as an unbuffed Flurry of Blows Monk on the front lines, and that's being generous. Although you might be able to hold your own melee-wise in the lower levels, I would personally consider trying to consolidate your stats to be less MAD to provide more for your party in the later levels; finding a way to go a pure Dexterity to hit and damage would go a long ways, since you can dump Strength to 16 (sparing you 10 point buy), giving you more skills, more Will Saves, more Dexterity, or more Charisma. Hell, you don't even need to find a way to get Dexterity to damage, since you can specialize in Aid Another (via Weapon Finnesse), and pump those bonuses through the roof, and you can invest in Crowd Control spells so your other more squishy party members don't get overrun from mooks that come later in the fight.

So to sum up:

I'd change the traits to Reactionary and Indomitable Faith (cookie cutter, I know, but it's the best set-up for basically everyone). +2 to Trip Attempts will become obsolete later in levels (because your BAB and buff scale won't compare to enemies who have higher BAB and similar or better buffs), and the +3 rounds becomes invalidated with Lingering Performance feat (which basically every bard should have, and is doubly true with effects that cost multiple Performance rounds, which a Duettist has).

Duettist is great because it provides you with a familiar that, if chosen right, can be resourceful, such as dropping Acid Flasks and such onto enemies (though this too becomes obsolete in the later levels), and providing Bardic Performance benefits from two different locations (this puts your familiar at risk, and becomes invalidated with the Shadowbard spell).

Combat Reflexes and Bodyguard are great investments, but I would shore up your defenses greatly if you were to go this route, as this requires you to be next to allies (usually your melee friends) to be useful. In other words, you better be planned to get attacked if you use such a tactic. Methods to increase your defenses would include maximizing your Dexterity, increasing your AC through other means (buffs, items, etc.), as well as your Saves (2 levels Paladin is an awesome investment for this, in my honest opinion). Other effects such as Blur/Displacement, Mirror Images, are great ways to make yourself an invincible target.

If you are going to be using Versatile Performance, using a feat like Thrush (or whatever) for an enhanced Diplomacy won't apply if you're using Performance to mimic a Diplomacy skill check. I would instead choose the Prodigy feat, since this applies to 2 separate performance skills, this means up to 4 skill checks that you mimic with a Performance get a +2, increasing to +4 by 10th level, an overall net gain in comparison, since you're basically getting a +8 skill increase (going to +16 by 10th level) at the cost of a +3 skill increase feat slot (going to +6 by 10th level).


Azilrro wrote:

so im running a campaign and im planing to use the innate item bonus from pathfinder unchained but the problem is does items kind of mess up the economy an item that used to be 4000gp now is 8000gp so should i adjust the wealth by lvl or should i just let them take their time to gear up with the current wealth by lvl

In my opinion, I think it would be easier to simply reduce the incoming PC wealth by half, which is what the book suggests you do, and it makes sense, considering you spend over half of your cash on the Big Six and enhancing your armor/weapons, and the other half is spent on your consumables, upkeep, and miscellaneous items. This both nerfs some playstyles (Sword and Board/TWF becomes less powerful, since their ability to make attacks or protect themselves becomes reduced), and boosts some playstyles (Specializing in a single weapon never felt more right than they do now). It also provides different options for PCs to buy items (Couldn't get the cool Spaulders of the Juggernaut because you had to use a stupid Cloak of Resistance? Looks like you can now!)


So our group runs a (usually) fairly high difficulty setting, and several times our dice don't pan out the way we hope, we are hit with effects that are extremely debilitating, you name it, chances are, it happens.

But sometimes it feels like the GM is pulling punches so as to keep giving us a fighting chance; it seemed obviously evident in our last battle in the previous campaign, when one of our PCs got knocked into a 20D6 Lightning Vortex (not a spell, a supernatural environment effect created from the boss), hit by a 10D10 Call Lightning, in addition to suffering a 12D10 Mythic Chain Lightning, and the GM handwaived the 20D6 (because it obviously would've killed him).

Now, I'm not opposed to the GMs ruling, and sometimes the GM doesn't pull punches (we've had PC deaths in this campaign before, 3, in-fact), but it seems in key areas where it would most likely cause TPKs, the GM pulls punches one way or another, and it also seems to stem from the factor that I'm not as skilled a player (both character-wise and tactics-wise) as I thought I was, and it makes me question whether I actually built a decent character, I behaved properly in accordance to the situation, or if I simply screwed it all up.

I'm certain there are other players who have had this happen to them before, whether they were beginners, or were getting royally screwed by the dice (7 1's in a row happened once in one of our meetings, thankfully they were all skill checks); do you notice when the GM pulls punches? If so, what are some methods you use to determine whether a GM insta-nerfs something or slightly bends the rules to the PCs favor?


_Ozy_ wrote:
Can you link to that FAQ? I can't seem to find it. Thanks.

This is where I got the text from. This is nice to know since the FAQ elaborates that it's only considered TWF when you are making more attacks than what your iteratives allow, and it requires that you use separate weapons (or for the case of Unarmed Strikes, requires that you have at least 2 separate limbs capable of carrying out those Unarmed Strikes) for each iterative set you acquire from TWF; this also means you can't sub out different weapons for each iterative, you choose one weapon, that makes all of the attacks of one set of iteratives, and then you have your other weapon make all of the attacks of the other set of iteratives.

I'll also note that the FAQ says you can draw weapons mid-iterative as far as your normal attack scheme is concerned, whereas the same language for that sort of subject is absent when they get into the TWF attack options, which further supports my theory, in that you must be able to take all of your attacks simultaneously before you can take the TWF option, which is another reason why a Greatsword with Spiked Gauntlets/Armor Spikes aren't allowed, meaning I couldn't use a Spiked Gauntlet, or Armor Spikes with a Bow, but I could certainly use a Blade Boot or a Kick from Unarmed Strikes.


CountofUndolpho wrote:
Thank you, not in the PRD but on d20 which explains the search results. I think I was misunderstanding the point being made anyway.

Let me do the breakdown then:

Elven Curved Blade is a two-handed weapon that can be finnessed. Applying Agile to the Elven Curved Blade makes it deal Dexterity damage, capping out at 1x Dexterity modifier, but it still takes two hands to properly use.

Next, you have Armor Spikes. Since they are a Light weapon, they too can be finnessed, and because they can be finnessed, they too can have the Agile property; used in TWF, they are a 0.5x modifier. They require a hand to use.

One of the reasons why you aren't allowed to use TWF with a Greatsword and Armor Spikes is because of the "Can't be more than 1.5x modifier" rule; that is, the sum of your stat modifiers between the two sets of attacks cannot be greater than 1.5x (the standard Greatsword + Armor Spikes equating to a base 2x modifier). But it's not called out as being the only reason you can't TWF with a Greatsword and Armor Spikes.

So, many people (myself included) believe that not only is the "unwritten rule" in play here, but also because you need to be able to wield them for the entire duration of the action, as evidenced by the final bit in the TWF FAQ makes a clear mention of this:

Two-Weapon Fighting wrote:
In other words, once you decide you're using two-weapon fighting to get that extra attack on your turn (which you have to decide before you take any attacks on your turn), that decision locks you in to the format of "my primary weapon gets my main attack and my iterative attack, and my off hand weapon only gets the extra attack, and I apply two-weapon fighting penalties."

Emphasis Mine on the key words.

This can certainly mean that you are required to carry out your attacks simultaneously, for the full action; that means no swapping handiness, no punching while reloading, etc.

So, if an Armor Spike requires an actual hand to use (in addition to the meta hand for the multiplier application), that severely restricts the activities of the player's hands in regards to utilizing TWF, meaning I couldn't use an Armor Spike (or a Spiked Gauntlet, as mentioned in the Armor Spikes FAQ).


BigDTBone wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:

It just seems odd to me that you can, with Rapid Reload, you can Reload, Fire, then Kick, with a Sling, but somehow, when you Reload, Fire, with a Bow, you would be unable to Kick.

There is no difference in actions required, and no difference in damage applied by strength(with the right strength rating), and yet, we try to play them out differently.

There is no great advantage, and no rules finagling for some otherwise unavailable benefit.

Because basic iterative attacks and TWF follow different mechanics, even though they can essentially be the same thing. The TWF FAQ says you can use separate weapons for iteratives, but you can't for TWF attacks. You use one weapon for one set of iteratives, and then you use another weapon for the other set you acquire from TWF.

Additionally, until it's clarified that the sole reason you can't TWF with a Greatsword and Armor Spikes is because of the "unwritten rule," it's unclear as to whether you can do that with Armor Spikes and, say, an Agile Elven Curved Blade, or not.

That being said, if you can do it with an Agile Elven Curved Blade and Armor Spikes, then I don't see why you can't do it with a Bow.

BBT's example has nothing to do with iteratives. Why do people keep thinking he is talking about iteratives. There is no iterative in his example.

He is saying that *using two-weapon fighting* that someone could use a sling and make an off-hand kick. However, one could not use two-weapon fighting, to fire a bow and make an off-hand kick.

How does it not?

With the Armor Spikes FAQ, TWF FAQ, and having BAB +16, I could: Greatsword +16/Armor Spikes +11/Greatsword +6/Armor Spikes +1. That's 100% legal, since I could swap handiness between those attacks to make use of Armor Spikes while also making use of my Greatsword. It doesn't break the "unwritten rule" at all. No toes are stepped on. Everybody wins.

But when you throw TWF into the ability to make attacks, such as it getting you an extra set of attacks, and you no longer able to divvy up your attacks how you see fit, is when it gets hairy and all of the "No, No, No" answers fly out, because you're delving with a completely different beast.

I will iterate the issue again: The problem with the people throwing out the "No, No, No" arguments are that it's not 100% defined as to whether the sole reason you can't TWF with Armor Spikes and a Greatsword is because of the "unwritten rule" or not. After all, if Armor Spikes require a hand to wield (both meta and physical), one other problem presented (that the FAQ could've mentioned, but didn't) is whether you're making the dual iterative attacks simultaneously or not (i.e. granting you the ability to swap handiness), and this is supported by the factor that you need you have your weapons drawn and able to use before you opt for TWF, as presented in the TWF FAQ (and is one of the many-faced definitions of "wield").

Again, if I can TWF with an Agile Elven Curved Blade + Agile Armor Spikes, then I'll concede that you can TWF with a Bow and an a Magic Gauntlet. Until then, I'll stay conservative and say "No dice. The attack fails. Rocks Fall, Everyone Dies."


UnArcaneElection wrote:

^It does, but it can also be an enchanted item, and as noted in posts above, in many cases you can put the enchantment on yourself even if you do not have the Item Crafting feat.

And at cost, too.


blackbloodtroll wrote:

It just seems odd to me that you can, with Rapid Reload, you can Reload, Fire, then Kick, with a Sling, but somehow, when you Reload, Fire, with a Bow, you would be unable to Kick.

There is no difference in actions required, and no difference in damage applied by strength(with the right strength rating), and yet, we try to play them out differently.

There is no great advantage, and no rules finagling for some otherwise unavailable benefit.

Because basic iterative attacks and TWF follow different mechanics, even though they can essentially be the same thing. The TWF FAQ says you can use separate weapons for iteratives, but you can't for TWF attacks. You use one weapon for one set of iteratives, and then you use another weapon for the other set you acquire from TWF.

Additionally, until it's clarified that the sole reason you can't TWF with a Greatsword and Armor Spikes is because of the "unwritten rule," it's unclear as to whether you can do that with Armor Spikes and, say, an Agile Elven Curved Blade, or not.

That being said, if you can do it with an Agile Elven Curved Blade and Armor Spikes, then I don't see why you can't do it with a Bow.


Mystic Lemur wrote:
Is there a way to get this marked "Yes, a response is actually required." Getting tired of seeing FAQ requests marked this way without the supposedly clear answer not being posted.

The necroing is real.

But to add, I've made a thread that has hit over 400 posts and over 60 FAQ requests, I suggest looking there for an answer.


Shinma the Lost wrote:
Building a wizard and have seen the guides that recommend familiar but most players I speak to say bonded item....What are the pros and cons?

Third Mind covered a lot of what the difference between the two are.

I will highlight that the probability of losing your bonded item, unless it's a weapon or staff/wand, are pretty slim; those are most likely to be disarmed/sundered, whereas not many will think to sunder your ring or necklace (which would be pretty damn hard to do without hurting the character, since they're such diminutive-sized items). Even so, if you're facing creatures that Sunder or Disarm, melee-types are just as likely to be targeted, if not moreso, because you can still cast spells without your Bonded Item, but it's just more difficult to do so; the martials will have to go grab their weapon or get a new one, or revert to Unarmed Strikes, which makes them almost as useless as you.

Additionally, if you're having difficulty deciding, I'd consider taking the Eldritch Heritage feat for the Arcane Bloodline, as you get a free Arcane Bond, so whatever choice you make with your class feature, you can make the other with your character. The one from your Eldritch Heritage will be two levels lower than your actual character level, so I would suggest you take the Familiar if you plan on going this route, since the Familiar will scale with your class level, which is more important for determining hit points and such, whereas the Bonded Item isn't that dependant on your level, class, character, or otherwise.


So we are starting a new campaign, Neutral-aligned, and the GM is considering alternative uses for Charisma; or more accurately, making Charisma a more plausible and combat-related statistic for all characters, and failing that, removing the Charisma statistic entirely, and I'm not all that opposed to it, since this would remove a possible dumpstat, and there are several successful games that don't have a statistic like Charisma (though most of them are a lot more combat-centric, i.e. MMOs).

Although this has very obvious implications for classes, skills, etc. that are Charisma-based, we've already solved the idea for swapping it over to one of the other mental statistics; i.e. Bards and Sorcerers cast via Intelligence, Paladins and Oracles cast with Wisdom, etc. So removing them can be an option, though the GM doesn't want to go that route if he doesn't have to.

All that's left is to find a more combat-related use for Charisma (if possible); one idea I came up with is to nerf Intelligence by creating a "Skill" stat, meaning the Skill modifier alters the amount of skills a character gets (just the same way as Intelligence does); this could lead characters like Rogues and Bards and Rangers who have a lot of Skill Points per level able to dump it (like they probably would anyway), whereas characters with lower skill points per level would want to invest in a couple ranks of this stuff anyway. It also nerfs the powerlevel of Wizards, Sorcerers, and Bards down a fair amount since, if they want their skills usage, will need to split their stat investments. (It might not affects Bards so much if they're primarily being a support-type.)

However, that's the only big idea I've come up with, so I'm coming to the community to help brainstorm some ideas to propose to the GM.

Is my "Skill" stat a good idea? Are there things that you think I could tweak? Do you have other possible uses in mind? Any help would be appreciated; thanks!


James Risner wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
A Dev disagrees with that statement you make with an absolute that is bolded.

No, "A Dev" says that is the norm. Special abilities that allow you to exceed the "norm" wouldn't be covered by that statement.

I can only guess you are serious and not being a joker, but statements like that are based around base characters without special abilities that allow you to do things not normally allowed.

How would they not? There is nothing in the class features or the feat that grants you the ability to exceed the hard cap that SKR says. He also mentions that 'optimally' (which means best case scenario, so this includes things like Double Slice and Two-Handed Fighter, meaning 3x modifier), you're not getting any more than 1.5x modifier, as SKR says, and that's regardless of what attack mode you use.


_Ozy_ wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
_Ozy_ wrote:

? Why wouldn't it come up? I have two iterative attacks. For my first attack, I shoot someone with my bow. For my second iterative attack, I punch someone else in the face.

What's the problem? Why can't I do that? I've asked this question at least 3 times now and nobody has answered it.

Because changing weapons for your iterative attack has no relation to two weapon fighting. So no one is answering you because the question is irrelevant to this thread.
Who's changing weapons? Instead of drawing an arrow and firing it, I'm using that hand to punch. The bow is still in the other hand. Why does that work for an iterative attack, but not the extra attack from TWF? Either that hand is available for punching or it is not.

For basic iteratives, it's available. For TWF, it's not. TWF doesn't follow the same rules for iterative attacks, and required hands for pulling off the attacks are separate issues for each employ of attack. Trying to treat iterative attacks and TWF as being the same beast just doesn't work.

@ Byakko: That's actually taken from the very same post that mentions 1st level characters being able to do (X). It doesn't change, no matter what level you are, or what class features or feats you possess, and that's evidenced by the Armor Spikes FAQ. This isn't like some Spells class feature that scales based on your class level, the scale has a hard cap as defined by SKR; 1.5x modifier for both THF and TWF. He says that's the most damage you're allotted from TWF or THF. That's it. That is a hard cap. If I get a +10 weapon, I can't raise it any higher or give my weapon further properties (from magic items or other class features) because +10 is a hard cap.


James Risner wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
actually invalidates Double Slice and several of the Two-Handed Fighter's class features, if the "unwritten rule" can't be broken at all,

I keep seeing this come up.

Specific trumps general. General is only 1.5x and specific is 2.0x of Double Slice.

Sean K Reynolds wrote:
The most damage you can do without TWF is using a 1H or 2H weapon in two hands for x1.5 Str damage, and the most damage you can do with TWF is x1 in the main hand and x.5 in the off-hand (for a total of x1.5 Str added to your weapons), so optimally you're getting no more that x1.5 Str no matter which attack mode you choose.

A Dev disagrees with that statement you make with an absolute that is bolded. If we're talking optimally, I can get 2.5x, or even 3x modifier using the Armor Spikes + Greatsword method (Two-Handed Fighter + Double Slice). An even less optimal scenario, which results in 2x modifier, is disallowed according to the FAQ; what makes you think an even more powerful modifier from the result of Double Slice or THF class features would change that? Specific trumps General has no basis if the Specifics don't give the ability to pass the hard cap, which it seems SKR mentions. One could extrapolate this to mean that Multi-Weapon Fighting is also invalid, though that's a completely different beast compared to merely TWF or using a two-handed weapon, which I can guarantee you the FAQ does not cover.

1 to 50 of 2,877 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2015 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.