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

2,333 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


1 to 50 of 2,333 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Thomas Long 175 wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

Cool, 2 Traits invested into a single spell so you can cast it with a single spell 2 levels earlier. I'm glad nobody in the party knows how to interrupt spellcasters or counterspell the most commonly selected 3rd level Arcane spell in the game or anything...
Wow, fireball is the most common 3rd level spell in your games? Wow....

It's no less common than Haste, Dispel Magic, Fly, etc. It's the earliest accessible AoE nuke spellcasters have access to that have amazing range and just the right amount of area to cover. It also has a damage scale (10D6) that can expand even more with Intensify Spell (15D6).

Not to mention, you're the goober who brought it up in the first place. Why not Ice Storm, or Stone Call, or Burning Hands? Because Fireball is the best spell you can use for those 2 traits, so why would anyone who wanted to deal massive damage and get optimal use of those traits not take Fireball?

thejeff wrote:
Coriat wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Coriat wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

The reason you see it as stupid is because you aren't doing it right. Consider this:

Aid Another is a Standard Action, correct? You can ready a Standard Action, including Aid Another, correct? So, couldn't I ready an Aid Another to Aid my ally's lowest attack roll to help confirm his lower hits?

No, actually, because a ready action occurs before the triggering action.

Right. So my triggering action is Bob's third iterative attack.

You can ready an action for part way through someone's move action, (when he comes around the corner, when he comes into range) why not part way through their attack sequence?

You can certainly ready an action to interrupt Bob's third iterative attack with an aid another, what you can't do is wait until Bob's third attack is over and then go back and apply your aid another bonus.
Of course not. I assumed by "lowest attack", he meant attack with the lowest iterative bonus, not actual lowest roll. Perhaps I was wrong.

Correct via the bolded part. Here's what I meant:

Assuming 12th level, I can have the Swift Aid feat, +3 Deathless Benevolent Medium Mithril Armor, Arcane Striking Gloves, and a +3 Benevolent Cestus for a weapon (could be even higher, given it's an Arcane Bond weapon and I can enchant it for half value and count as having the crafting feats necessary to enchant, but I'll play it conservative here), plus Helpful Halfling trait via Racial Heritage (Halfling) at 1st level with Aasimar with Scion of Humanity Racial Trait, resulting in aiding +7 to AC or +7 to Attack rolls, and I can forgo the Swift Aid for attack rolls (I could probably skip taking this feat entirely if to-hit is already plenty high enough with Inspire Courage, Haste, Heroism, etc.) to either grant an additional 3 AC (resulting in 9 total) if Aiding AC, or an extra +3 to my ally's damage roll if aiding to-hit.

For my round, I use my Swift Aid feat to either give my fellow melee a +(X/2) bonus to AC against one attack (if enemies are next in the initiative before him), a +(X/2) bonus to attack rolls for one attack (if he is next in the initiative before the enemies), or make use of my Arcane Strike for an Aid Another type bonus of my choice. I then ready an action for Aid Another when my ally makes his 3rd attack roll.

So, when it becomes his turn, and he makes his attack, he would get +X (X equating to my Aid Another bonus) when he rolls for his 3rd attack roll. Everybody get it now?

Thomas Long 175 wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

@ Thomas Long 175: A Dazing Spell casts as 3 levels higher, so that's not really a scary thing by the time it becomes relevant. There are better things to apply for lesser spell levels (Empower, Intensify, Heighten, Extend, just to name a few). Even so, unless you get it in a rod, it's highly impractical to take as a Metamagic feat, given that there are much better choices to take.

In addition, reviewing the Dazing Spell description:

Dazing Spell wrote:
If the spell allows a saving throw, a successful save negates the daze effect. If the spell does not allow a save, the target can make a Will save to negate the daze effect.
No matter what kind of spell you use (you can't use non-damaging spells, by the way, so good luck with that Slow spell coming with a Daze effect), you are allowed a Saving Throw to make the Daze go away, which is usually either Reflex or Will, determined by the saving throw type of the spell being cast, if it normally allows one.
I'm just going to laugh softly because you think dazing spell isn't relevant. Btw, magical lineage + wayaang spell hunter says hi. 4th level dazing fireball, able to be cast at 7th level.

Cool, 2 Traits invested into a single spell so you can cast it with a single spell 2 levels earlier. I'm glad nobody in the party knows how to interrupt spellcasters or counterspell the most commonly selected 3rd level Arcane spell in the game or anything...

@ Thomas Long 175: A Dazing Spell casts as 3 levels higher, so that's not really a scary thing by the time it becomes relevant. There are better things to apply for lesser spell levels (Empower, Intensify, Heighten, Extend, just to name a few). Even so, unless you get it in a rod, it's highly impractical to take as a Metamagic feat, given that there are much better choices to take.

In addition, reviewing the Dazing Spell description:

Dazing Spell wrote:
If the spell allows a saving throw, a successful save negates the daze effect. If the spell does not allow a save, the target can make a Will save to negate the daze effect.

No matter what kind of spell you use (you can't use non-damaging spells, by the way, so good luck with that Slow spell coming with a Daze effect), you are allowed a Saving Throw to make the Daze go away, which is usually either Reflex or Will, determined by the saving throw type of the spell being cast, if it normally allows one.

Lemmy wrote:

Well... That's nice and all, but the amount of effort and resources invested to get a okay bonus for 1 attack makes sure AA is still pretty much useless 99% of the time.

Benevolent is an enhancement I'd never use on add to any weapon, and I sure as hell wouldn't spend a ring slot with a Ring of Tactical precision.

IMHO, if your character has nothing better to do, then someone made some grievous mistake in their character build and/or combat tactics.

Aid Another is one of those mechanics that are good in theory, but got neutered by their implementation.

Azata-Blooded Aasimar Arcane Duelist Bard 18/Sacred Shield Paladin 2 would heavily disagree with you.

The reason you see it as stupid is because you aren't doing it right. Consider this:

Aid Another is a Standard Action, correct? You can ready a Standard Action, including Aid Another, correct? So, couldn't I ready an Aid Another to Aid my ally's lowest attack roll to help confirm his lower hits? You betcha, my ally just got a heavily increased DPR for me confirming hits for him. What else would I do with my Standard Action? Cast buffs? Sure, if I need to cast them. Crowd-Control effects? If there's anything I need to lock down that we can't deal with right now, certainly. It's not like I have super-gamechanging spells available to me, being a 6th spell level caster and all.

I can also use the Swift Aid feat, granting half an Aid Another bonus to an ally's roll as a Swift Action to help the highest attack confirm too, if the enemy's AC is super-high, but if I don't have to, Quickened Buffs or Crowd Control effects via a Metamagic Rod are still available to me, or better yet, granting my Arcane Strike damage bonus to my ally, or increasing his AC for a single attack, probably the enemy's Highest Base Attack, equal to that of the bonus damage to be delivered via Bodyguard are also valid choices to make with my Swift Action for the round.

Speaking of Bodyguard, the ability to provide Aid of a base of up to +10 AC (I calculated 9 before, thanks for mentioning that ring!), while having an Arcane Bonded +5 Benevolent Cestus (much easier and cheaper to craft it that way). Even if it's for just one attack, having an 18 Base Dexterity. The best part is? These all stack with other people who Aid Another.

And that's just in regards to Aid Another. This character can also go Fighting Defensively, increasing his Reflex Saves, as well as granting half of the extra benefits for doing so to any ally adjacent to him. And once per combat, I add my Charisma as Deflection AC against a target, and if he tries to hit anyone close to me (I save this for the BBEG of a campaign), they only take 50% of the actual damage. Tack on the ability to buff like a Bard with Haste, Heroism, plus Inspire Courage and other great goodies, and your allies are going to have bonuses that make them only not work on a 1 (or 20 if it's against an enemy's roll).

From the D20PFSRD:

Grappled wrote:

A grappled creature is restrained by a creature, trap, or effect. Grappled creatures cannot move and take a –4 penalty to Dexterity. A grappled creature takes a –2 penalty on all attack rolls and combat maneuver checks, except those made to grapple or escape a grapple. In addition, grappled creatures can take no action that requires two hands to perform. A grappled character who attempts to cast a spell or use a spell-like ability must make a concentration check (DC 10 + grappler's CMB + spell level), or lose the spell. Grappled creatures cannot make attacks of opportunity.

A grappled creature cannot use Stealth to hide from the creature grappling it, even if a special ability, such as hide in plain sight, would normally allow it to do so. If a grappled creature becomes invisible, through a spell or other ability, it gains a +2 circumstance bonus on its CMD to avoid being grappled, but receives no other benefit.

In regards to the OP and "two light weapons," it becomes a corner-case issue, given the bolded part above, because making attacks with light weapons can be subjects that do not require hands to perform. Bite Attacks, Unarmed Strikes (with Legs and Elbows, or even a Headbutt), Spiked Armor, etc. are all attacks that don't really require hands to perform.

However, if you were to TWF and you tried to use both weapons in your hands, you wouldn't be able to because of the bolded clause; you are using two hands to perform the TWF action, and therefore that becomes an action you can't take. If, on the other hand, you were trying to use just one weapon in your hand, and an Unarmed Strike with your leg, it becomes a valid action you can take.

Secane wrote:
@ Darksol, but do you think the extra crit range should come from taking Keen or via Improved Critical?

It depends on if you plan to use that weapon for the rest of the game, and if you plan to make use of Bless Weapon. If you plan to use that weapon for the rest of the game, it's not a bad idea to get Keen on it, though if you want other juicy properties, it will cost you even more to get those on, not to mention the other great wondrous items you may be able to get. But, if want to make use of Bless Weapon, you'd have to take the Improved Critical feat, though as I said above, it will free up some cash for other useful items.

I also suggest you compare and contrast each choice, and weigh its strengths versus what you give up for it: to me, Improved Critical is very nice for your weapon type, and your immunities, saving throws, and strong healing power as-is (getting an extra 2D6+4 for your Lay On Hands is extremely powerful, not to mention causing one of those Lay On Hands to give Lesser Restoration is just icing on the cake), you can stand to do without Greater Mercy. Although your AC would be lacking due to Blood Rage, your ridiculous damage should be able to destroy any immediate threat on a given auto-confirmed 17-20/X3 critical against a Smited BBEG. It costs a feat, but you can always get Greater Mercy by 11th level, whereas that 6K you spend for Keen can be put to some amazing but cheap wondrous item. Of course, doing that gives you an extra 1D6+2 to your Lay On Hands if you use no Mercies, but you're already ahead of the curve with your Bracers anyway, so no point for that at the moment.

Ultimate Mercy can be very good to bring to the party, but in PFS play, I find spells such as Raise Dead, although a mean way to look at it, they are, as you said, a random group composition, so it is either going to be overly useful (to the point that you have to give up all your LoH charges to use it, potentially compromising the integrity of your build), or absolutely useless (because this base is covered by a Divine spellcaster in the party). In addition, you won't be getting it until 11th level at the earliest, and by that point PFS play is almost at its limit, so you won't be getting much use out of it, if at all.

When you get access to casting 3rd level spells, be sure to pick up Haste from your Unsanctioned Knowledge. Being able to buff yourself and the party with easily the most powerful Martial buff in the game on a regular basis is a really nice boon, and also helps you not have to rely on others to have it. And for 4th level spells, Freedom of Movement is amazing to have.

So either I use it as a Light Spiked Shield for D4 damage and Finesse with it, or use it as a One-handed Weapon for D6 damage, but no Finesse or Agile; as evidenced by the Thunder and Fang feat description, very well, you proved me wrong here. I also forgot that I probably wouldn't be able to cast spells with the Klars either, whereas with Quickdraw Darkwood Light Shields and the Quick Draw feat, I could.

You aren't reading what I typed correctly once again. I said I take the Infiltrator Witchguard Ranger archetypes for the first 10 levels; at 10th level, thanks to Witchguard Patron spells, I can get access to the Silence and Haste spells from the Time patron, since they will be put on my spell list to prepare for the day. The Infiltrator Archetype allows me to select adaptations from my Favored Enemies, 1 at 3rd level (Iron Will from Undead Favored Enemy), and then 2 more at 8th level, which are usable 10 minutes per day per Ranger level.

So I take that for 10 character levels. Once I hit 11th level, I then take Invulernable Urban Barbarian archetypes for the remaining 10 character levels, getting the Beast Totem line, and a couple other goodies. By level 20, I'll have the ability to Pounce to serve as my capstone, plus 3rd level casting (although I really only use it for the Haste), and the ability to make 8 attacks with TWF with no penalties, and deal competent damage while maintaining a strong defense. You with me so far now, or am I still tripping you up?

I assume this is the item in question? Doesn't call itself a +1 Bashing/+1 Flaming shield like you say it does. It says it's a +2 Bashing Heavy Spiked Shield, so you're wrong on at least two accounts, that the modifiers for the propertes calculated separately, and the actual Enhancement bonus amount. It then says it deals 1D6 Fire damage and 1D6 Divine damage. It also costs ~27,000 gold. If we did it the way of +1 Bashing and +1 Flaming combined like you said it was, that number makes absolutely zero sense, since +1 Bashing equates to 4K, and +1 Flaming equates to 8K, there's 15K that unaccounted for.

So let's try it my way: A +2 (AC) Bashing shield costs 9K to enchant. We have a mimicked Flaming property, so 2K for that. It also has a 1D6 versus Evil creatures; the closest property that symbolizes that is the Holy property, a +2 bonus, so that bumps it from 2K to 18K. Combining the 2 different numbers according to what the Shield section says (9K + 18K = 27K), that total equates to the price being listed, and it functions as an effective +6 Shield, having +2 in Enhancement Bonuses to AC, +1 in Shield Special Abilities, and +3 in Weapon Special Abilities.

Trying it another way, we can have a +2 AC Bashing shield with a +2 Hit Flaming (it explains how it says the regular bash damage is 2D6+2, which, with the above example, makes that line of text incorrect via calculation), making it the same cost, though the 1D6 V.S. Evil price isn't factored in, which, if it was, would make the shield cost a lot more.

That being said, Specific Items with effects not symbolized in the special abilities chart aren't an accurate means to determine whether an item is calculated with separate or combined modifiers, since the Asura Shield in question doesn't actually refer to the Flaming and Holy properties, even if the effects are practically identical. (Ironically enough, using the properties themselves would actually be stronger than the specific item in question.) In this case, we also don't know how much bonuses the uncalculated effects are worth, if we decide to enhance this same exact weapon in the future.

My argument of Armor Spikes V.S. Shield Spikes is the same argument that was presented in whether Haste allows Monks to make an extra attack with their FoB or other Full Attack Option if they didn't use a Monk Weapon; the Haste RAW mentioned "When making a full attack action, a hasted creature may make one extra attack with one natural or manufactured weapon." Because Monk Unarmed Strikes are considered both a Natural and Manufactured weapon for spell effects that target such, and Haste targets a creature, not a creature's natural or manufactured weapon, RAW, Monks couldn't get an extra Unarmed Strike attack with Haste.

The same concept applies to the former argument we are having; because Shield Spikes refer to enhancing "the shield" into a magic weapon in its own right, you must enhance the shield itself as a weapon, not the spikes on the shield itself, because RAW, they aren't considered an object separate from the shield for you to enhance. Armor Spikes, on the other hand refer to enhancing "the spikes" into a magic weapon in its own right, meaning you can enhance the Spikes separately from enhancing the Armor.

Seranov wrote:
In theory, yes, but I'm pretty sure you can't put Bane on shields? I might be wrong here.

Yes, you can. You can enhance a shield as both a weapon and a suit of armor. You can even give it a +1 to AC and be able to apply weapon special abilities to it.

@ Mavael: At the level they're at, even round/level spells last enough for the combat; assuming 9th level, that's 9 rounds they can use buffs to slaughter creatures (Divine Favor has a 10 round non-scaling limit, but still). Most combats by the low levels last 3 rounds tops; in the mid levels, maybe 5, maximum 10 rounds if it's a BBEG. By the endgame, Rocket Tag begins, making even round-duration spells a bit much.

@ OP: I'm a level 10 Mobile Fighter in a homebrew who gets access to Divine Favor 3/day, just to make sure I can have that buff in practically every fight. There was only ever 1 instance in where I had to cast it twice in the same fight, and that's because of crowd control shenanigans combined with reinforcements from the enemy half-way through the battle.

As a Paladin, who has all kinds of immunities to crowd control shenanigans, and the ability to crush evil down to nothing with a couple solid hits, combats will be a lot shorter than what my Fighter had to deal with.

That being said, your focus is key. If you need the survivability, Greater Mercy is pretty good, since it's about half the effects of your Bracers if you just simply need a heal (it doesn't apply the extra 1D6 if you have to use at least 1 Mercy on yourself). If you want to give more survivability to your friends without compromising your own, Reward of Life is good, since you still heal yourself up to your Charisma modifier if you use a LoH to heal someone else.

If you need the damage, I'd take Improved Critical; using a Falcata, the 17-20/X3 multiplier is pretty nasty, and getting automatically confirmed X3 criticals on bad guys who are Smited about equates to a one-shot. Paladins are practically invincible anyway, so I would take this option.

Aelryinth wrote:

You forgot Improved Shield Bash, to keep your Shield AC.

You forgot all the TWF feats. You're still spending feats to keep them, and you can't take them and the Shield Master line of feats at the same time. So, you're spending general feats.

EACH of those shields cost you 54k. That's 108k. That's level 14+ to acquire that much money for weapons/shields.
Rangers don't benefit from Courageous and Furious.
Light shields don't benefit from 2h Str or 2h Power Attack. And you need to take the Natural Attack totem line to get Pounce.
Light shields suck on single attacks. You can't charge and Pounce all the time.
Rangers still take level 6 to get Shield Master. When exactly are you grabbing all these uber barb levels and spellcasting on top of it?

The crappy damage from using a shield is that it's a 20/x2 weapon. If you want to do real damage, you need a higher threat range or a higher crit mod. It's a SIMPLE weapon, for all intents and purposes. A spiked Bashing light shield is a worse weapon then a LONGSWORD, without spending 4k in magic to make it viable.

You went and started stacking enhancement bonuses again, which is done nowhere else in the game. You want to cite a rule that specifically says that shields stack enhancement bonuses, you're fine.

Otherwise, that rule that you keep citing for +10 bonuses means that two non-stacking +10 bonuses do not violate the cap. When they stack, come see me. I could give the shield 50 different +10 enhancement bonuses, and as long as none of them stack, I'd be fine.

What you're arguing about that shields are not treated exactly like armor spikes is strange, dude. I mean, come on. The only other item which is weapon and defense at the same time, and you're basically saying that precedent and how they handle it doesn't apply. No, no, they have to make up rules which exist nowhere in the rules and get spun into place because you don't want weapon and armor enhancements to remain separate.

You cling to your interpolation and odd English. Ignore the dev...

Never ignored them, you just don't know how to calculate the feat progression. I get ISB and Weapon Finesse by 1st level (you can figure out how that works), TWF by 2nd level, Piranha Strike by 3rd level, Shield Master by 6th, Improved TWF by 7th, Bashing Finish by 10th (can get earlier, but other important feats, plus bonus feat slot by that point is quite limited), and Greater TWF by 11th. So, I get 3 off-hand attacks and 4 main-hand attacks, since by the time I hit 10th level, I get access to cast the Haste spell, at standard iterative BAB. I also get Bodyguard and In Harm's Way as Bonus Feats for free too, not to mention my Hunter's Bond basically makes both me and my caster friend practically invincible to melee attacks for a certain amount of rounds.

What else do you spend your general feats on as a 2H Martial? Extra Rage Power? Barbarians get Rage Powers every 2 levels, what's so damn good that you can't get both Spell Sunder and Pounce by the time you're 10th? Maybe Raging Vitality if you have the base Con for it?

Power Attack is a given for any martial, unless they're Dexterity based using Light weapons. In which case, Piranha Strike takes precedence, as it does here.

Extra LoH/Channel? Sure, if you're a Paladin or Cleric, but healing is frowned upon in games unless it's from the Heal spell, and Channel Smite is just plain bad form anyway.

Improved Initiative? Everybody gets that, good to know you have to take this feat just to be like everyone else.

Except, since I'm building Dexterity and use Light weapons, I can dump my Strength to 10, and increase my other statistics, but it's the same exact thing. If those feats are being spent for things like Iron Will (which I can get access to in fights by 3rd level), it's hardly a problem to spend feats on that sort of thing, since it seems there's nothing really build-breaking to not take.

You compare 54K for a single shield to 200+K for a single two-handed weapon. I'll have close to 100,000 gold in WBL in other items besides my weapon, meaning my secondary items will be a lot more prevalent.

And in hindsight, I shouldn't even get Light Spiked Shields, when a Klar deals 1D6 base damage and still functions as a Light Shield with Spikes, meaning I can enchant it as a shield, so the 2D6 damage it can deal from Bashing property (compared to a Heavy Spiked Shield, which does the same exact damage) is still in place. (Thanks for helping me notice that, the build got quite a bit stronger and cooler now.)

A Pure Ranger? No, they don't make use of them, and that was never stipulated. What you didn't seem to understand is that this isn't a pure Ranger. It's a 10 Infiltrator Witchguard Ranger/10 Invulnerable Urban Barbarian. By 11th level (about damn time) is when I get access to Urban Rage, being able to amplify my Dexterity to a +10 modifier by that level.

Rangers get access to spellcasting by 4th level. Then they can cast 2nd level spells by 7th, and 3rd level spells by 10th. Although they don't actually have any spells/day for 10th, any bonus points from your casting modifier (having a 16 Wisdom allows me to cast a 3rd level spell, i.e. Haste) still let you cast for the day.

I'll agree that I won't be pouncing all the time, but Barbarian Pounce is a very powerful ability by 10th level, the absolute earliest they can take it and is something that basically no other class can duplicate. At least I still get it as my 20th level capstone, which is about in-line with a Mobile Fighter's capstone, if not outright superior.

People don't use shields as weapons to Crit Fish with, nor is that the intent behind it (though Bashing Finish feat sure does support it). If Crit Fishing is all you're trying to do, who gives a damn about damage dice, when everybody knows the damage comes from static bonuses being multiplied, like your Strength and Power Attack and Enhancement bonuses?

If shields don't stack enhancement bonuses, and calculate them separately why does "that rule that [I] keep citing for +10 bonuses" not differentiate between what each kind of enhancement bonus is being applied? In the entry, an enhancement bonus is an enhancement bonus. You apply a +1 to AC, it's a +1 enhancement. You apply a +1 to Attack and Damage rolls, it's a +1 enhancement. You apply weapon special abilities, which require any kind of +1 enhancement, either AC, or attack and damage rolls.

The point of me linking that rule profusely is because that section specifically calls out Shields. Not referencing if it's enhanced as a Weapon, or enhanced as Armor, or whatever; but if the Shield is enhanced, the Shield's effective bonus (which includes "enhancement bonus plus special ability bonus equivalents"), which is not specific as to whether that total effective bonus applies to either Armor or Weapon properties. That tells me one thing: For shields, they're calculated into one number. It has to be, that's the general rule for enhancing, as evidenced by the rules for Double Weapons being enhanced, and there is no statement in that paragraph that mentions them being separate, or in any related section, because Shields, even Spiked Shields, aren't referenced as being 2 separate items to enhance, they are one item, period.

Spiked Armor, on the other hand, is referenced as being able to enhance two separate items, since the book says enhancing Armor does nothing to the Spikes, but you can be enhancing the Spikes, which does nothing to the Armor, since the Armor itself is not a weapon, the Spikes are. You can't say that about a Spiked Shield, since a Shield itself is an armor and a weapon, and spikes on a shield simply strengthen that weapon, which is also a source of armor.

I cling to my inference (a synonym of extrapolation, which you seem to be unable to spell correctly, or use that other word in mocking sense) because it hasn't been proven wrong yet, and as it sits, the case only gets stronger as your mocking just gets worse and worse, being even more politically incorrect with every post.

You haven't given one shred of evidence to discredit my claims other than "I and several other people have done that for the longest time, there's no way it can be wrong!" which, things have been quite inconsistent by RAW for the longest time, even though the RAI is so common knowledge it never became an issue except against Rules Lawyers, and "Devs said it works this way," which you have yet to post any source from a Dev in either Pathfinder or 3.5. You want to prove something to me, you throw your chips on the table and play out your hand; I already did, and I'm waiting for you to throw your cards out on the table. If I'm really full of crap, call the bluff and claim your victory. By all means, if you're holding back, don't do it on my behalf.

Driver 325 yards wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

I just did a quick abstract math calculation there. I could more-or-less break down the math better, and it will most likely be higher. So let's calculate.

** spoiler omitted **...

Seems like it is better than I originally thought. That said, a typical barbarian at 11th level would have power attack, reckless abandon, rage (+6), and probably a +2 furious courageous greatsword, +8 Mod Strength before rage. Everyone has access to haste one way or another at 11th (speed boots)

2d6 + 16str (courageous weapon included)* 1.5 + 4 weap enhancement + 9PA = 2d6 + 37.

So, 31/31/26/21/15 (2d6 + 37). Assuming the top three attacks hit you get 132 points average. I think this is a good assumption if you are hitting four times a round with much lower to hits.

Now that is not even trying for a typical barbarian. Also, if its the typical superstitious barbarian, then your saves don't even match up.

I am not putting your build down. I am just saying that, at best, the results you got are those one would expect to have for a dedicated melee fighter. Therefore, I say you may have come up with an alternative build for variety sake, but not a build that is worth fighting over or shutting down with an overly strict ruling.

Also, I wonder what you results would be if we were to assume that the rules are not what you say. Your damage would go down some, but not a terrible lot. So, what is the discussion really about. A nuisance without much significance?

Unfortunately, I've had to be conservative with that post; I could probably deal even more if I wanted, since Courageous and Furious properties would increase my damage, not to mention I had Strength at 13 for Power Attack; foolish of me to do when I can get Piranha Strike, lower my Strength to 10, and increase my Wisdom and Constitution even higher for more durability or spellcasting ability. That being said, I can get two +2 (AC) Furious Courageous shields for the same price as my previous, and wind up having a +5 bonus to AC from my shield, a +4 Enhancement Bonus to attacks, and having my Dexterity score become 2 higher. Sadly enough, that makes my shield damage become 1D4 now.

You are missing one key thing here between my build and yours: how are your defenses? I'm practically immune to anything that requires a Reflex Save, given that I possess Evasion and a +22 Reflex Save (or +20 without Rage), my Fortitude Saves could rise to 12 (or 14), and my Will Saves to 11 (or 13), as final numbers. Not including Superstition Rage Power (should get it, though it goes against my ability to cast spells, even as Urban Barbarian), this would be even higher against spells. My AC approaches 30 without reserves, my CMD at 33, and decent enough hit points, whereas you lower your AC and CMD with Reckless Abandon, even if able to confirm more hits.

I also wonder how you're getting 5 attacks at level 11 as a two-hander, when you should be at-best getting 4 attacks via Haste.

Aelryinth wrote:
Aaaaand you're doing that interpolation thing again.

How else does one truly read then? Quite frankly, everything that is read requires extrapolation so as to comprehend the purpose behind the text, and saying I'm "extrapolating," a quintessential part of reading and comprehension, "instead of reading," which is a term used to comprehend the extrapolation from symbols like text and words, is what one gathers from reading something is what one extrapolates from the text.

In other words, you're doing the same thing I'm doing too, even right now as you're glossing over this post. Being a pot and calling the kettle black doesn't help your case any more than it helps mine.

Aelryinth wrote:

A shield is, by default, treated as an armor bonus.

A weapon is referred to by itself, and even if acting as armor, is IRRELEVANT.

Armor enhancement bonuses refer to enhancements on the armor, even if it is serving as a weapon. Enhancement bonuses to armor have NO effect on a weapon. Ditto on the other side.

I've never debated this point. Texts specifically stated whether the spikes themselves (Armor Spikes) can be enhanced, or the item that has spikes on it (Spiked Shield) can be enhanced as weapons in their own right, and from what I gather, you find those texts irrelevant.

Aelryinth wrote:

So, they are simply declaring a weapon can have +10 of enhancement bonuses AS A WEAPON, and armor can have +10 of enhancement bonuses AS ARMOR.

And a shield defaults to being armor, but CAN be a weapon, just like spiked armor CAN be a weapon.

Actually, Armor Spikes are an item that have to be enhanced as weapons themselves without affecting the Armor bonuses themselves, simply because of the line that says Enhancement Bonuses to Armor does not make the Spikes better, but you can enhance the Spikes to make them a magic weapon in their own right.

RAW, Shields, while they have similar language, don't make the distinction of the Spikes on the shield being a separate entity, unlike the Armor Spikes entry, which does.

Aelryinth wrote:

And ARMOR and WEAPON enhancements exist on TWO TABLES, separate, NOT JOINED, NOT STACKING.

If your logic held true, they'd all share the same table, which they don't.

Aelryinth wrote:
You can very, very easily have +20 items. A double weapon with 10/10 on each head. Armor +10 with Armor Spikes +10. And a Shield +10 with +10 Weapon enhancements.

I think you just contradicted yourself there. You've said previously that you can have an effective +20 item in question, but now you say the effects cannot be joined or stacked together? Sounds like you don't even know what side you're explaining.

You're also ignoring the exceptions of the Shields section that supersede that general rule of being on separate, unrelated tables; which I specifically quoted from the PRD, that doesn't specify as to what kind of Enhancement Bonus you need to apply either kind of special abilities. I'll reference it again, since skipping over things seems to be an acceptable way to win arguments; I'll even throw in the 3.5 version, so as to do a side by side comparison.

D&D 3.5:
D&D 3.5 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 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 have at least a +1 enhancement bonus.

Pathfinder 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.

They both say the same thing in their respective entries. They both state that "A shield cannot have an effective bonus...higher than +10."

Now, Question: Why does it refer to the shield itself as having a +10 hard cap, when, according to you, you can enhance a shield as both an armor and a weapon, and their bonuses are mutually exclusive?

That must be filler text if you're correct; if so, why didn't the company just cut that out and put in a pretty picture or more relevant rules text? Doesn't make any sense otherwise.

Aelryinth wrote:
Seriously, man, do you think you're having an original idea? This argument was beaten into the dirt over ten years ago!

There are several things that have changed from 3.5 to Pathfinder that many people have overlooked, even argued against that change. Monk FoB, Two-Handed Weapon + Armor Spikes for TWF, and multiple other things have changed from the system you claimed the arguments originated from. Simply saying the subject was argued for a long time only proves to me that the Devs at the time didn't want to make a ruling on the matter and left it for the players to decide, and that to this day, there is no definitive intent given to us outside of what the RAW says and GM FIAT, the former being a much more arbitrary and credible source of game rules than GM FIAT.

Aelryinth wrote:

As for playing at my table..sure, come on. You don't see dual shield wielding builds because a) the damage as a weapon is crap and b) investing 600k into two items sounds good until you realize that's 70% of the WBL of a level 20 character, and getting either of them sundered would really, really suck. Oh, and the shield bonuses don't stack. And TWF still sucks, even worse with an inferior weapon like a shield.

Do you realize how feat intensive a shield spec TWF'ing build is for sucky damage?

You MIGHT invest 300k into one large shield, which is an okay weapon ...but inferior to a greatsword/any real 2h weapon for damage, and takes like level 14 to come online as an uber shield, if not later. So not only does it suck vs a standard weapon, but you have to wait that much longer for it to be a decent weapon, because, well, you have so much money you have to pump into it, and other 2h builds don't worry about that.

Crappy damage? Somebody doesn't optimize their damage too well if you're trying to use weapon damage dice as the main source of damage dealing, especially with a TWF build. Such builds work best with Natural Weapons from a Colossal+-sized creature with GVS. Everybody on the forums knows that static damage is key, even moreso with a Critical Hit builds. Nice try on that.

Feat intensive? Not for a Ranger who can skip pre-reqs. Shield Master by 6th level is pretty nice, and I can stand the -2 from TWF until then, since I'll still have amazing to-hit. The damage won't come online until that point anyway, and many things don't have DR until you get 8th level or so. Did I also mention I can cast Haste and Silence for my party by 10th level and get Pounce as a 20th capstone?

To be honest with you, two shields at an effective +9 enhancement bonus is all that's really required for basic optimization, since you would have 2 +5 (AC) Bashing Agile Furious Courageous Light Shields with 7 or 8 attacks and all the fixings, having decent static bonuses to damage. Even in the lower levels, a +1 Agile Light Shield with all the fixings will only cost me a little under 4,000 gold a piece.

By my calculations, that one +9 shield would cost me only 54,000 gold; 36,000 in armor properties, 18,000 in weapon properties; anything else is completely optional. So a 50,000 gold jump per shield, is hardly a problem by the endgame, and is in line with a +10 two-handed weapon.

All the while maintaining a solid AC (and Touch AC), unbeatable Reflex Saves (only way I can fail a difficult Reflex Save by 11th level is by not rolling a 1, and that's only going to increase), 30 movement, no TWF penalties, etc. etc. Try doing that with a Two-Hander, and they're just not going to be good at all.

LazarX wrote:
Jeff Morse wrote:
what if you empower it?
Since the cap is not a variable, empower won't affect it. It might however, give you a greater chance of having your max.

I strongly disagree, there was a thread about this subject before.

Empower says this:

Empower Spell wrote:
All variable, numeric effects of an empowered spell are increased by half including bonuses to those dice rolls.

The Mythic versions specifically says it increases the capacity of images to 12 instead of 8. 8 in the normal version is the hard cap, and it does not change. The amount you can generate (up to the hard cap) does.

We acknowledge that, to generate an amount of images, you roll 1D4 + an extra 1 for every 3 CL you possess.

Is that 1D4+(X/3) not, in fact, variable and numeric? You can roll 1, 2, 3, or 4. The bolded part then says you include bonuses to the dice rolls in question, which the (X/3) most certainly is. So Empower would adjust the formula to be 1.5(1D4+[X/3]), which still caps out at 8 images, or 12 if you make it Mythic.

Gauntlets do not take up an Item Slot. By that same notion, Full Plate takes up the Body, Chest, Head, and Feet slots.

Joel Harris 861 wrote:
With spells that can raise the dead without the need of any trace of remains, how can you finish off an enemy who has many people who would just resurrect him. Short of divine powers, I so far haven't seen anything that can kill someone and they can't come back other than them dying of old age. This wouldn't always work though as not all of them age anyway. So how can you really kill off an enemy?

Even if you trap souls, people are going to fight you to free them and then raise them again. Helm of Opposite Alignment could work, though if he is forced to die, he may decide to simply accept the resurrection and then come back at you with back-up to take you down again.

Methods that would increase the rate of the bolded part are perhaps the most effective, while also being foolproof and nearly impossible to counter against.

If there are creatures who cannot age, find methods that would cause them to age like normal creatures, probably a spell that can do this, and then proceed to do the same as above.

Ascalaphus wrote:
It seems that it only replaces 2nd level, not 6th level bonus feats.

Trust me, all the extra Combat feats are replaced.

Heck, I would've taken it with my Infiltrator Witchguard Ranger if it only replaced the first bonus feat.

TGMaxMaxer wrote:

Or, you could take Wild Stalker Ranger and get the whole thing going at level 13.

I'm guessing the Sarenrae Ranger stuff is in Inner Sea Gods?

This could make sense, (and even that's a stretch, since those rage powers actually require Barbarian Levels to take them), except how would you then get Whirlwind Attack, when that archetype replaces the Bonus Feats that allow you to skip the pre-reqs?

16th seems to be the earliest by my count, since A. those rage powers need Barbarian levels specifically, not the ability to rage as a Barbarian, and you probably aren't going to get Whirlwind Attack anytime soon unless you get to skip the pre-reqs.

In normal cases, no.

However, I'd say an Amulet of Mighty Fists with the Speed property can grant you a single attack with a given Natural Weapon, made at your highest BAB. Of course, there is a FAQ that says it doesn't work with each Natural Weapon you possess.

Ascalaphus wrote:
I recently noticed that the Sarenrae-Ranger combat style allows you to go to Whirlwind without all those silly prerequisites. But I haven't yet found a neat way to combine that with Pounce.

You take 6 levels of Ranger and get Whirlwind Attack with the bonus feat. You then take 10 levels of Barbarian (I'd personally take Invulnerable Urban Barbarian, but your call on this,) taking the full Beast Totem line.

It takes 16 levels to do, unfortunately, but it can be done. (Maybe if you could ignore Pre-reqs for Totem Rage Powers with an Archetype, it could be done sooner.)

That being said, that's an awful lot of work when an 11th level or higher Mobile Fighter can probably do the same thing.

Rapid Attack wrote:
At 11th level, a mobile fighter can combine a full-attack action with a single move.

That's sort of like a Staggered Pounce. The best part is, you exchange your regular attacks (in which you end up losing your highest BAB anyway) for a full Highest BAB against all in reach. Brutal stuff!

DominusMegadeus wrote:
Gauss wrote:


You cannot charge and whirlwind at the same time.

CRB p138 Whirlwind attack wrote:
Benefit: When you use the full-attack action, you can give up your regular attacks and instead make one melee attack at your highest base attack bonus against each opponent within reach. You must make a separate attack roll against each opponent.

CRB p183 has a list of full-round actions. Full attack is a full-round action. Charge is a separate full-round action. Full-attack actions and Charge actions are both subsets of the Full-round action.

Since Whirlwind Attack can only be used when making a Full-attack action you cannot use it with another type of action (such as a Charge action) even if that action is also a full-round action.

What about when you're allowed to use a full attack action as part of a charge?

I suppose it would work, though you would also lose any extra attacks you would get from effects like Haste.

...I can't believe I never saw the Cestus before...that solves the issue, and it's just a better overall weapon; for the same price, too!

Thanks much for that. The flavor for that character just got a lot cooler...

1. This table (on the right side) should help you properly calculate your skill modifiers. Regardless of you putting ranks into a skill, you still add your respective modifier to each skill when you attempt it. Having a rank in a skill determines whether it's trained or not, and some skills require you to be trained in order to use.

2. You are correct, an Elf does get 5 racial traits. The Beginner's Box might leave some concepts out so as to keep people engaged to learning how the game is played instead of being bogged down by rules. Remember that Racial Traits are different from character traits.

3. Here are the rules for Arcane Bonds. When you get it as a ring, amulet, wand, or staff, it is not magically enhanced; it would be, for all intents and purposes, a fashion choice valued at a minor amount of gold. While it does take up the respective slot (or type, in some cases), it is otherwise considered to not have magic (to all others except yourself, the Wizard), until you actually enchant the item yourself. In the case of a weapon, such as your Quarterstaff, they are always masterwork quality. Masterwork weapons grant a +1 Enhancement Bonus to all Attack Rolls made with that weapon.

4. Here is the Combat Section. (This is on the PRD site, an official Paizo site that hosts all of the Pathfinder rules in the hardcover rulebooks. D20PFSRD is a more elaborate source, but it's not 100% up-to-speed on every change, and contains 3rd party publishing material.) The rules say that when you hit with a melee weapon (or a thrown weapon), you add your Strength modifier to damage. (A character with a +1 Strength modifier has a Strength of either 12 or 13.) The +1 in this case is symbolized by that +1 Strength modifier.

5. When you make a melee attack, you use your full Base Attack Bonus + your Strength Modifier (and Size Modifier, if any). Ranged attacks (thrown weapons fall under this category) follow the same formula, except they use their Dexterity Modifier in place of their Strength Modifier. In some cases, depending on a character's statistics, they may be a better Dagger thrower than a Dagger wielder. Interesting that...

6. Each character class has this text written in the Starting Wealth section:

Starting Wealth wrote:
In addition, each character begins play with an outfit worth 10 gp or less.

So, the clothes you start with can be any article of clothing equal to or less than that value.

7. Here's the Armor and Shields section. The relevant text has this to say:

Nonproficient with Armor Worn wrote:
A character who wears armor and/or uses a shield with which he is not proficient takes the armor's (and/or shield's) armor check penalty on attack rolls as well as on all Dex- and Str-based ability and skill checks. The penalty for non-proficiency with armor stacks with the penalty for shields.

8. This is a bit of a gray area and will require GM FIAT to remediate properly in a given game. (In other words, the GM will have to make an on-the-fly "permanent" ruling regarding that situation.) However, it is a commonly-enforced ruling to allow enemies to be considered Flat-Footed if they did not act when combat begins. (I don't think they enforce the whole Flat-Footed AC issue, though, so your mileage may vary.)

Here's the full text regarding the Flat-Footed condition, so as to help you make your own judgement call:

Flat-Footed wrote:

A character who has not yet acted during a combat is flat-footed, unable to react normally to the situation. A flat-footed character loses his Dexterity bonus to AC and Combat Maneuver Defense (CMD) (if any) and cannot make attacks of opportunity, unless he has the Combat Reflexes feat or Uncanny Dodge class ability.

Characters with Uncanny Dodge retain their Dexterity bonus to their AC and can make attacks of opportunity before they have acted in the first round of combat.

Bwang wrote:
Tabled ruled this as a 'yes', then applied a -4 due to it being an improvised weapon and the gal was holding a javelin. This was in a weird grapple mess of a fight.

I know Javelins have a -4 penalty when used in a melee attack, so I'm not sure if this is simulated in that penalty or a GM FIAT penalty. In either case, that's pretty bad, since that doesn't also include a -2 penalty to attack rolls not involving grapples, plus an extra -4 Dexterity penalty (equating to another -2 if using Weapon Finesse), meaning making attacks or even trying to break out with Agile Maneuvers or Escape Artist becomes an impossible idea. The only other -4 I can come up with is if you don't initiate the grapple with both hands free, but that doesn't apply to someone who gets grappled, as in your scenario.

Even as a Bard with 3/4 BAB, trying to hit AC 10 with Aid Another when I am Fighting Defensively (-4) and using Combat Expertise later down the road (-1 to -6) becomes a very difficult experience, reliant purely on the roll itself, not to mention Strength penalties for my character. (With Weapon Finesse, it reduces the issue a fair bit, but still hefty penalties there.)

Scavion wrote:

Basically, the invisible hands shtick is primarily about how some weapons dont really require you to "wield" them like spiked gauntlets or armor spikes but some folks like to argue that such weapons take up one of your "hands" regardless.

Someone else could probably put this more eloquently.

You mean that argument we had with +X Courageous Spiked Gauntlet that spawned whether or not the Courageous property affected all Morale Bonuses or just Fear effects?

To a point, I understand that the rules are ambiguous and undefined, but by that same token real-life physics would take effect. In other words, if I held onto something with the shape and thickness of a rod (good thing Lamontius isn't here to make a joke about that sentence...), and tried throwing punches, how much does it interfere with my ability to punch? Is it even possible to effectively punch while holding that rod with my fist? etc. etc.

It is also those people who would say that Full Plate would take up your Feet, Head, Hands, Body, and Chest slots, which is obviously not the intent of those rules, so they are quite obviously wrong on that stance. While most weapons require hands to properly wield the weapon, Armor Spikes and (Spiked) Gauntlets are about as handey as, say, an Unarmed Strike attack, especially with Armor Spikes since Unarmed Strikes can be any part of your body, whereas Armor Spikes would be any part of your armor. (Spiked) Gauntlets I find would be much more restricting, in that you would be using your hands (and only those hands) to execute the attack.

But there are rules that cover those sorts of situations, such as the Unarmed Strike combined with, say Deliquescent Gloves, and I think that would be a conservative precedence to assume that Spiked Gauntlets would follow.

For those who don't know what Deliquescent Gloves do, here's the description:

Deliquescent Gloves wrote:

The wearer’s melee touch attacks with that hand deal 1d6 points of acid damage. If the wearer uses that hand to wield a weapon or make an attack with an unarmed strike or natural weapon, that attack gains the corrosive weapon special ability.

The wearer’s gloved hand is protected from the acid ability of oozes, allowing him to use that hand to attack oozes with unarmed strike or natural attack without risk of harm from contact with the ooze. These unarmed strikes and natural attacks never cause an ooze to split.

The text refers to the gloves as a singular item, or gloves, whereas the name of the item itself calls out the plural noun form, meaning that either this only covers a single hand (but the entire hand slot) or the description was taken from some 3.X material and wasn't proofread fully to accomodate the hand slot covering both hands. YMMV.

Mojorat wrote:
I think it is not defined well. I would assume the gauntlet is occupied while holding the rod but I'm not sure there is any rule for or against your idea.

It isn't, which is why I was hoping to get clarification. I mean, I get it could be awkward, so a penalty being imposed isn't a bad idea (-2 I'm guessing), but that falls into GM FIAT territory.

Other people would claim if I was, say, using that hand to hold a weapon besides the Spiked Gauntlet, that I couldn't make attacks. (I obviously couldn't if I was using that same hand to wield the other weapon, though that's not the debate.)

@ Scavion: I don't know anything about this "invisible hands" that you mentioned; care to explain?

And I'm not trying to munchkin the system, I just want to know if it's legal for me to fulfill the conditions of using Aid Another while using a Heavy Shield and an Arcane Bonded Spiked Gauntlet holding a Metamagic Rod, since I assume I have to be able to punch into a square if I want to make use of a +X Allying Spiked Gauntlet to give a fellow frontliner an extra 2+X to his lowest BAB attack.

Aelryinth wrote:

That's right, you're extrapolating, you're not reading. You wandered down the road of personal interpretation of corner cases in the English language and you're telling the rest of us we don't know how to read.

By your rules, having a +10 shield with a weapon enhancement is will violate the 100k limit of +10 armor. Because, you know, you can't restrict one rule and then break another, right?

By your rules, is adding +Flaming to a +3 Shield possible? It's not enhanced as a weapon yet. But you're saying it is, since it counts towards the +10. So now you've introduced stacking questions that, you know, DON'T ACTUALLY HAPPEN.

What's the price? Are you starting at +1 for the weapon side? That's not right, it's the 4th enhancement, and by your rules, they stack. So, now, WHEN I put the enhancement on makes a difference. Flaming on a +1 Weapon-side shield is 6k. Flaming on a +2 Bashing armor-side is...what? 2k? 14k?

Guess what? Those timing questions NEVER HAPPEN either. Because it's irrelevant.

They don't apply, because armor enhancements are always treated separate from weapon, and you just follow the pricing rules side by side.


So a shield is a +10/+10 item, just like a double weapon. It's function as a weapon is completely separate from its function as armor. The only place they overlap is hardness and hit points and guess what? They are both enhancement bonuses and don't stack, so it's moot.

I get where you are coming from, but you are flat out WRONG. It's not an opinion, it's not a suddenly insightful reading of the rules, it's you taking something out of context without taking into consideration other existing rules. You're just wrong, dude. And you saying that everyone else, including the people who wrote the rules, have been wrong for nigh on twenty years is making the rest of us kind of laugh.

You are making the pricing schema unnecessarily complicated, and are quite literally ignoring 20 years of the game saying "Armor and Weapon enhancements are treated separately on the same item."

The differences between RAW and RAI are obvious enough to determine whether it's RAW or RAI. I'll re-read the stacking sentence(s) again and point out the RAW and how I reflect it:

Magic Items - Weapons wrote:
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.
Magic Items - Armor wrote:
A suit of armor cannot have an effective bonus (enhancement plus special ability bonus equivalents, including those from character abilities and spells) higher than +10.
Magic Items - Shields wrote:
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.

The sentence structures are almost identical when put side-by-side, so we can assume that the rule for one is equal to the rule applied to the others. For simplicity purposes, I'll reference the Weapon section mostly.

As you can tell, it says that a single given weapon (barring Double Weapons and Artifacts, as they have special exceptions to this rule) cannot have a modified bonus (what that "modified bonus" encompasses is included in the parentheses) over +10. Period. That's it. It also makes no specific mention as to what types of effective bonus can be applied (given that it's assumed for weapons). This is reflected in the Armor section, meaning that both Armor and Weapons share the same restriction. A Shield counts as both for enhancing, so by rights, you could effectively make it a +10 Armor and a +10 Weapon.

However, the Shield entry is the biggest giveaway as to why I say it works the way I say it does. That section has the same exact sentence structure regarding both Armor and Shields. If it is treated as having separate Armor and Enhancement bonuses, why state whether the Shield itself has a +10 limit, when by rights, it would simply combine those restrictions? That alone leaves me one of two possible interpretations of that section:

1. The Shield must be constructed as either an armor item or a weapon item, and once the decision is made, it cannot be changed (less likely interpretation).

2. A Shield's enhancement bonus origin, nor their respective level isn't relevant to the general "+10 is it" rule (more likely interpretation). The bonuses themselves are combined for a grand total, as is evident by "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."

So, going with the more conservative and sensible interpretation, RAW, +X limits aren't specific as to whether they're Weapon enhancements or Armor enhancements, simply that they are enhancements. The bonuses themselves are combined for a grand total, as is evident by "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."

With this, I assume that having a Shield that has an effective +6 in Armor enhancements and an effective +4 in Weapon enhancements still equates to being a +10 item, which it cannot surpass unless it's a Double weapon (boring7 still thinks it is, apparently), or an Artifact. I really need to stop bringing up Artifacts, they add nothing to this discussion apparently...

I'll also point out that the enlarged sentence answers the question as to whether you need to have a +1 Weapon or +1 Armor enhancement to add special abilities. The answer? The book doesn't specify, so either kind would work. If the book doesn't specify, why should we?

That getting off my chest, I'd LOVE to play my Two-Shielding Martial at your table if you're going to let me have an effective +20 to my weapons.

Self-explanatory question.

Working on a Support Melee Bard with Arcane Duelist archetype, and this implication arose when I was fleshing out the build. (Before you say it, no, I am not dealing melee damage with this character, he's just a frontline support.) Basic equipment results in Mithril Medium Armor, Heavy Shield, Metamagic Rod, and Spiked Gauntlet as his Arcane Bond.

Now, with the rule of Arcane Bond regarding Arcane Duelists, I can use a Heavy Shield for protection, hold a Metamagic Rod in the same hand as my Arcane Bonded Spiked Gauntlet, and cast spells. But another implication arose when it came down to his other asset, which is being able to Aid Another constantly. The Spiked Gauntlet which I would use for Aid Another holds a Metamagic Rod.

But would simply holding the Metamagic Rod for spellcasting usage interfere with my ability to make Spiked Gauntlet attacks (or in this case, use it for Aid Another)?

RAW, correct, if you have 3 or more arms, you must MWF. It's no different than taking an archetype that replaces a class feature.

However, in cases like Alchemist with Vestigial Arm discovery, you can't make extra attacks with those arms if you normally couldn't without the discovery, meaning even if you take the MWF feat, you still only have access to 2 weapons to attack with.

I do see the implications, should you have a game that goes to the later levels, as being denied extra attacks simply because you have extra arms that you can't effectively use for attacks becomes a major balance issue if you planned to use TWF/MWF as an Alchemist. (It's yet another reason why I disliked the Vestigial Arm FAQ result, especially since you can't deliver Touch Attacks with those extra arms, but thems the breaks.)

Yet another reason why playing with PFS rules will simply end up shooting your character concept in the foot.

Aelryinth wrote:

It's a good thing you're wrong, or we'd all be totally confused.

Weapon and armor enhancements have always been priced and treated differently, and their limits applied differently. Now you're trying to introduce a crazy patchquilt instead of the simple and direct means of treating them as separate additions. I can't imagine the pricing problems that would erupt if your method was true.


I'm glad following the RAW confuses you, since that seems to be what you take issue with, as that's all I'm extrapolating with here.

Both Armor/Shield and Weapon follow very similar, if not completely identical, rules. Base Price Bonus increases each follow a specific formula. You need a +1 enhancement (doesn't specify, so any kind of +1 could work in the case of a Shield) to apply special abilities, and you can't beat the hard cap of +10 through any basic means (Artifacts being an exception). This is universal among those subjects.

Shields can be enhanced as both an Armor item and a Weapon item. But Shields don't have any rules that allow them to circumvent them being over a +10 weapon item or +10 armor item. I'll also point out that while items don't specify what kind of +1 enhancement you get (in the case of shields), either event says a single weapon/armor cannot have a bonus higher than +10, regardless of where the source came from (again, Artifacts are an exception, and Double Weapons have a slight difference when it comes to this rule).

I also want you to explain to me how there would be confusion with pricing as well as the problems they could possibly present, and give examples as to how that's the case. I'll gladly solve all of these supposed "problems" that you think exist, even though I already solved Boring7's, which he didn't even calculate the total price properly, because he didn't read the rules I listed from the PRD correctly.

I thought my explanation regarding "it adds together" would answer your question. But you apparently refuse to read into it. Fine, I'll jump through your hoops, if only because you have no legs to jump with it seems.

boring7 wrote:
When I make take a +1 bashing shield

Okay. So you have 4,000 golds worth of Armor special properties there, counting as a +2 Base Price Bonus for the purposes of being able to apply special abilities.

boring7 wrote:
and add the corrosive quality

You want to add a Corrosive property? Many people would tell you that you'd have to spend a +1 Base Price Bonus to apply a +1 Weapon Enhancement before you can add a weapon special ability. Ask around, and you'll see.

Lucky for you, I'm not one of those people.

boring7 wrote:
does it cost 14k or does it cost 5k?

The answer is neither.

If "the cost of the enhancement bonus on attack rolls would need to be added into the cost of the...enhancement bonus to AC," when you're making "a shield...that also acted as a magic weapon," your calculations end up invalidating one or the other Base Price Bonus tables, when that's not what the book is saying at all. You add the costs together.

So you have a +1(AC) Bashing in Armor properties, valued at 4K. You then have the Corrosive property, valued at 2K. You take the second value, and you need to add it to the cost of the first value, result in a total of 6K; it's no different than having a material component cost added to the value of a given item's cost or price. Count 1 for not reading through the entry and applying what it says.

boring7 wrote:
And now you're making up self-contradictory rules again. the quoted text does not say a double weapon is calculated as two weapons for the purposes of its modified bonus, only for the cost, time and special abilities. According to your position on shields, a double weapon can never go above a modified +5 because it's still a single weapon.

The first bolded part is included when calculating modified abilities. Re-read the passage again.

Magic Items - Weapons wrote:
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.

It specifically calls out Special Abilities as being part of a modified bonus that you say the rules don't cover, scaling out to a hard cap of +10 (barring Artifacts). Re-reading your quoted text:

The SRD wrote:
Creating magic double-headed weapons is treated as creating two weapons when determining cost, time, and special abilities.

As it says, for special abilities (which includes enhancement bonuses), it counts as 2 weapons. That being said, the chart never goes beyond a +10 modifier. Here's where your silly "self-contradictory" argument comes in So even if you tried to make it a +11, how much would you charge for that? Do you just eyeball it and call it good? Hardly a proper rules answer, nor is it really an official one either.

Or, maybe, you apply common sense, and assume that the Double Weapon just treats each head (or haft) as a single weapon that you enhance, making the enhancing rules so much simpler? As practically everyone on this forum will tell you (including the Devs), this is how it's ran.

So count 2 for not reading the entry clearly enough.

And what do Shields and Double Weapons have to do with each other? Is a Shield, or even a Spiked Shield, a Double-Headed Weapon? No. Does it have the Double weapon property? No. Can I TWF with using just a single (spiked) shield to fulfill both my main-hand and off-hand weapon? No. Ergo, Shields, even Spiked Shields, cannot possibly follow those exceptions, unless you're grossly overlooking those subjects. Since you seem to think they do, that's count 3 for not reading it through.

Lastly, Paladins would also like a word with you regarding their Divine Bond, should they use a Double weapon.

@ boring7: That's just how it is. If it was from Paizo themselves, then I'd concede.

From the PRD under Magic Armor and Shields:

Magic Items - Shields wrote:

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.

Notice that the first part says the cost of adding enhancement bonus would need to be added as part of the cost. Also, the second part makes no clarification as to whether the +X is from a Weapon property or Armor/Shield property, meaning the +10 capacity applies to either one.

If you looked at that part closely, it says Double Weapons are calculated as being two weapons for the listed exceptions. It otherwise follows the rules of being a single weapon. (For the record, I use the term "haft" to differentiate which part of the Double weapon has what properties and such, and is the same term used in multiple Special Material entries.)

From the PRD under Magic Weapons:

Magic Items - Weapons wrote:
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.

Since it's calculated as two weapons for special abilities and cost purposes (combined), either haft can have up to a +10, and no higher unless there is some specific rule that trumps such, which is usually only present in Artifacts.

I've already explained it profusely how Shield Spikes cannot possibly function the same as you would treat a Double Weapon for the purposes of enhancing. Whether you choose to accept them or not is your call, and we'll just have to agree to disagree.

I just did a quick abstract math calculation there. I could more-or-less break down the math better, and it will most likely be higher. So let's calculate.

Character Calculation Breakdown:
We start off with a 20 base Dexterity. This increases to 22 by 8th level, 26 with a +4 Dexterity Belt, and to 30 with Urban Rage. That makes a +10 Dexterity modifier, 10K spent of my 80K WBL (I'll assume I spent 2K in consumables from leveling).

Next we get 2 Quickdraw Throwing Light Darkwood Shields of Masterwork quality, so that costs ~700 (646 to be exact). Now we throw on +1 AC, +1 Hit/Damage, Bashing, and Agile to each shield, (I don't think +1 Hit/Damage is necessary for weapon special abilities, especially given the RAW of the properties and the RAI of Bashing, but including it if only to be conservative in rules,) racking up 24K. So 34.7K of my 80K WBL spent so far.

From here, we need a solid armor piece. This is difficult, given our fluctuating Dexterity modifier, but for cost and conservative purposes, a Mithril Kikko will give us a 5 AC bonus with a 6 Dexterity modifier. Plop it with a +2 and the Deathless property, and that'll run us 13,030 gold, so round up to 13.1K. 47.8/80K WBL spent.

Tack on 3 of the Big 6 items, such as Cloak of Resistance +3 (9K), Ring of Protection +2 (8K), Amulet of Natural Armor +2 (8K), and that marks up an additional 25K. 72.8/80K WBL spent.

This character does get access to 3rd level Ranger spells, though he doesn't actually get slots to use unless they're from Bonus. Buying a Headband of Wisdom +2 does put us with the ability to cast 1 3rd level spell, and we get access to Haste, putting us at a grand total of 76.8/80K WBL spent. The rest will go into notable consumables, misc. costs, etc.

So now we go with attack roll breakdown, assuming Haste at start of combat (I get access to this via Ranger spells and Archetype). First iterative starts at BAB 11, plus 10 Dexterity via Urban Rage, plus 1 Enhancement bonus from Shield, plus 1 from Haste. Assuming Favored Enemy, I get up to an additional +3 to this roll. This increase is off-set by Power Attack penalties, leaving us with a grand total of +23 on our first 3 highest BAB attacks. Refined and with GTWF (no penalties via Shield Master feat), it becomes +23/+23/+18/+13 main hand and +23/+18/+13 off-hand. Non-favored enemies will be at +20/+20/+15/+10 and +20/+15/+10.

On average, 4 or 5 of those attacks will hit, with a fluxuation of 3 to 6/7. Now we go on to damage. We have 2D6 damage dice on these shields, with our 10 Dexterity modifier, 6 from Power Attack (3 for off-hand attacks, average 1-2 will hit), and 1 from Enhancement bonus. There is also the +3 damage from Favored Enemy, which is optional. Grand total we have is 2D6+17 (+20 with FE) per hit on our main hand, which hits on average 3 times, and 2D6+14 (+17 with FE) per hit on our off hand, which hits on average 2 times.

Grand equation total then becomes 3(2D6+17) + 2(2d6+14) [+15 if main FE], leaving a grand total of 35 [average of 10D6 roll] + 51 + 28 [+15 if main FE] coming out to a grand total of 114 DPR, 129 against Favored Enemies.

Not the best, though he has some good kickers when it comes to saving throws and other defenses. Armor grants a total of 13 AC (7 from armor, 6 from MDB), Shield grants another 2 (you'd think it would be more...), AoNA grants another 2, and Ring of Protection with yet another 2, Haste granting 1, leaves him rocking at a fairly solid 30 base AC. CMD would be calculated as having +10 Dexterity, +1 Strength, +1, +11 BAB, so ~33 CMD. Saves will be at 11/21/10, since he gets access to Iron Will in-combat via Infiltrator archetype with Undead favored enemy, so good luck hitting him with a Fireball or other Reflex save-based spell/effect.

1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.

Hero Lab is a 3rd party product, and as such isn't a credible source for rule arguments. It's about as credible a rule source as 3.X books are.

By RAW, I don't have to have +1 to attack and damage rolls to apply weapon special abilities. RAI, the +1 to attack and damage rolls, as well as the increased hit points and hardness for having a +1 base price bonus increase, is simulated with the Bashing property. Conversely, I can have +1 to attack and damage rolls on a shield, and I can apply armor special abilities. Why? Because RAW, it doesn't specify what kind of enhancement bonus you have, merely that you have a +1 Enhancement Bonus minimum.

Just because you calculate the Weapon-type properties and Armor/Shield-type properties separately doesn't give you specific permission to exceed the +10 bonus on an item. Double Weapons are different in that you are granted specific permission to apply +10 to a given haft, and that the properties on one haft are not transferred to the other haft

The rules regarding Double Weapons, even in a similar scenario you try to make up (instead of two hafts, you have a shield and its spikes), cannot apply to Spiked Shields because 1. They lack the Double weapon property, meaning they cannot possibly utilize that kind of exception, and 2. Shields and their Spikes are considered one item, period. The description of Shield Spikes in the Armor table is conclusive proof of this, versus the description of Armor Spikes, which specifically list the Spikes themselves being able to be enchanted as a weapon.

I am aware that you don't get 2 sets of AC bonuses from two shields. But reviewing the Shield Master feat, you suffer no TWF penalties to attack rolls made with shields. Using 2 shields for your attacks equates to 0 TWF penalties on all my attacks, meaning I can swing around with 8 attacks with at-worst Power Attack penalties on a regular basis, each shield by RAW dealing 2D6 + Power Attack + Dexterity modifier for each attack that is a hit, not including the +5 I'd get from Shield Master, as well as the chance to make a free attack with each critical hit I make with a shield (at a 19-20 Critical Modifier thanks to Improved Critical [Light Shield]).

Quickdraw Light Shields with the Quick Draw feat allow me to don and remove said shields as a Free Action, meaning I can hold a shield in one of my Light Shield hands, leaving a hand free to cast spells, all the while being able to put it back on as a Free Action in the same round. Although it adds an additional Armor Check Penalty, this can be fixed by using Darkwood as the material. I can also make them Throwing Quickdraw Light Shields, making me effective at both melee and range, using Dexterity for Attack and Damage rolls, since a Shield still qualifies as being a Melee Weapon for the purposes of the Agile property.

So at 20th level with Pounce, I can Rage (Free Action), Unequip Light Shield (Free Action), Take out Lesser Quicken Metamagic Rod via Gloves of Storing (Free Action), cast Quickened Haste via Metamagic Rod (Swift Action), return the Lesser Quicken Metamagic Rod back into the glove (Free Action), Don the unequipped Shield (Free Action), and get a Charging Full Attack (Full Round Action) all in a single round. (Against Casters, I can probably substitute Haste for Silence, as that's another spell I get access to, so I can shut them down on the spot.)

Driver 325 yards wrote:

This question is truly a tough one. It's one of those question that come down to why not for me. Since there is no real good why not, it begs the question why not and why even waste time arguing with those who say no.

PFS maybe. But I bet that if you just sat down at your PFS table and played the combo as if it worked, the result would be so underwhelming that you would never be challenged on it.

PFS Character Derail:
You'd be surprised when it comes down to PFS. I can actually fight a lot with 2 +1 Bashing Agile Quickdraw Light Shields. At ~11th level with TWF, Haste (Archetype allows me to cast Haste as a spell), Shield Master (thank you Ranger for ignoring pre-reqs!), I have access to 7 attacks, all with (at worst) Power Attack penalties and at their standard iteratives.

When each of my attacks deal 2D6 + Power Attack (+6/+3), + 8 Dexterity Modifier (Since I get access to Urban Barbarian Rage at that level, a +4 Dexterity equates to an extra +2 to Attack, Damage, AC, Reflex Saves, and Acrobatics checks), it becomes absolutely ridiculous when I'm consistently hitting with 3-4 attacks in a given turn with that kind of damage, and having a pretty high AC (and Touch AC), as well as Reflex Saves.

Thanks everybody for your input. With most of the community backing me up, I'm positive that I won't have an issue fleshing out this kind of build.

HectorVivis wrote:

I'm not really sure, but I don't see anything that contradict this combo.

The "still reduce" seems to be linked to how a off-hand attack works. Double-slice modifies it so here you go, with a Dex-powered killing machine.

I mean, that's the problem. RAW, it seems like you either add your full Strength modifier to attacks (since Agile uses [Half] Dexterity in place of the otherwise apparent Strength modifier), or you have the Half Dexterity. (One crazy interpretation is you use Full Strength and Half Dexterity, but I'm not that ridiculous.)

But is that really RAI? It seems more like the Agile property is reflecting to simulate the standard mechanics of main-hand/off-hand weapons, and Double Slice is a feat that adjusts this formula regarding off-hand, since, as HectorVivis mentioned, the language says it's "still reduced," implying it's simply reinstating main-hand/off-hand weapon rules.

At the same time though, both are specific exceptions to a general rule, so the bigger question is which one takes precedence?

3 people marked this as FAQ candidate.

Self-explanatory question.

I am revisiting my Two-Shield Martial build that takes 10 levels into a Witchguard Infiltrator Ranger and 10 levels into an Invulnerable Urban Barbarian. I realized that with a 20 point buy, I can build 20 Dexterity (in your face TWF pre-reqs! Plus higher AC, Reflex Saves, you name it!), retain a 13 Strength for Power Attack, 13 Constitution, and 14 Wisdom for spellcasting (and so I'm not a drooling bag of pus when it comes to being controlled). Intelligence is at 8 and Charisma is at 7, but eh, not everybody can be super-smart and pretty or charming.

However, when I originally made my Two-Shield Martial, he would end up taking Double Slice so he gets full Strength damage to his off-hand shield. This is where a problem is posed...

If I am going to swap to Dexterity and use Agile Light Shields with Weapon Finesse, I no longer have a good Strength score to swap to, and even though half (+5 Modifier is still +2, compared to the +1 Strength I would have) is still better, my off-hand attacks really suffer in the static damage department, something which I can't afford, since your statistic modifier is probably going to be your second-strongest modifier (Power Attack being ahead of it, though usually not the case for off-hand attacks).

Reviewing the Double Slice text:

Double Slice wrote:
Add your Strength bonus to damage rolls made with your off-hand weapon.

It says here you add your full Strength modifier to off-hand damage.

Reviewing the Agile property text:

Agile wrote:

This enhancement can only be placed on a melee weapon which is usable with the Weapon Finesse feat.

Agile weapons are unusually well balanced and responsive. A wielder with the Weapon Finesse feat can choose to apply her Dexterity modifier to damage rolls with the weapon in place of her Strength modifier. This modifier to damage is not increased for two-handed weapons, but is still reduced for off-hand weapons.

The bolded part makes this tricky. It first says you use your Dexterity modifier in place of your Strength modifier. With Double Slice, this would mean that you would have your full Dexterity modifier in place, since it's used in place of your Strength modifier, which is now normally at 100% for off-hand attacks. It then says the new modifier retains being reduced for off-hand weapons.

Would the language of Double Slice circumvent the reduced effectiveness via the Agile Property, or does this equate to being either Full Strength or Half Dexterity?

...I thought it was a description of a phone case...

In either event, as a combined item, Spiked Shields simply can't and don't work the same way a Double weapon does.

I did say that Armor Spikes may be an exception, since Armor itself cannot be made into a weapon (without some other outside help, of course). However, Spiked Shields don't share that same language, despite its similarities:

Spiked Shield wrote:
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.

Comparing, the bolded part is the key difference; it specifically refers to the shield being spiked, not the spikes on the shield themselves in the case of Armor Spikes.

That being said, I am overlooking the balancing factor of WBL, though by the endgame, WBL goes out the window, more-or-less.

Shield Martial, in this case, refers to, as you put it, "dude who uses a shield as a weapon." Mine, however, uses 2 shields. (Re-reading it, I can probably go to being Dexterity-based and have Agile Light Shields with Weapon Finesse, though not getting full Dexterity on my off-hand really bites.) He can also cast spells as a 9th level Ranger with access to Haste, Rage as a Barbarian with Pounce while raging as a Capstone, Evasion, and he maintains being full BAB.

On the contrary. Since movement is not restricted to a simple up-down-left-right pattern (except for around structural corners, as Dragonriderje explained), he can diagonal in that space and save himself an AoO.

Of course, if the PC in question used Acrobatics, he can avoid either attack of opportunity entirely and still have the movement to complete his action.

Cascade wrote:

2 levels of alchemist...

Extra arm discovery - use a shield (+2 shields are pretty cheap)
Also benefit from extra strength, natural armor, occasional bombs, occasional works wonders.

Delayed Fighter level progression, lower BAB, and lacking endgame features may not be worth the 2 level dip. Maybe in PFS it is, but not in a real game that goes up to 20th level.

Double Weapons still follow the same +10 Base Price Bonus rule. However, for the purposes of magic items, each haft is enchanted separately. Neither haft has higher than a +11 Base Price Bonus, much less would you count the item as having a +20 Base Price Bonus for sundering terms.

You might have a case when it comes to Armor Spikes, though I will point out that the rules for Armor Spikes follow the same route that Shield Spikes tread; they are treated and calculated as riders to another standard purchase, meaning they aren't actually weapons in and of themselves.

Relevant text:

Spiked Armor wrote:
You can outfit your armor with spikes, which can deal damage in a grapple or as a separate attack.
Armor Spikes wrote:
Armor spikes deal extra piercing damage (see “spiked armor” on Table: Weapons) on a successful grapple attack. The spikes count as a martial weapon. If you are not proficient with them, you take a –4 penalty on grapple checks when you try to use them. You can also make a regular melee attack (or off-hand attack) with the spikes, and they count as a light weapon in this case. (You can't also make an attack with armor spikes if you have already made an attack with another off-hand weapon, and vice versa.) An enhancement bonus to a suit of armor does not improve the spikes' effectiveness, but the spikes can be made into magic weapons in their own right.

Again, you might have a case, but conflicting RAW, similar (though very slightly different) item conception, and table information work against your interpretation. The same can be said for my argument, though it is less conflicting than yours.

Yes, they do stack, and for all intents and purposes for magic enhancements, the Bashing property fulfills all of the duties required for a +1 Weapon; it has the increased hit points, hardness, and adds that amount to attack and damage rolls as an Enhancement Bonus. Ergo, I can have a +5 (AC) Bashing Shield that can have up to +4 in Weapon Special Abilities.

Here's the relevant text for Shield Master:

Shield Master wrote:
Add your shield’s enhancement bonus to attack and damage rolls made with the shield as if it were a weapon enhancement bonus.

The Shield's Armor Enhancement Bonus doesn't get turned into a functional Weapon Enhancement, nor does it fully function as a +X Weapon in this manner. You simply add your Shield's Armor Enhancement Bonus to your attack and damage rolls as if it were an enhancement bonus to a weapon (i.e. it counts as an Enhancement Bonus for all intents and purposes of stacking and the like). A better argument you'd have is if you had a +5 Defiant [Humanoid (Human)] shield, and you calculated as having an Enhancement Bonus 2 higher than the shield's current enhancement bonus, that you'd get +7 to attack and damage rolls against Humans instead of +5.

It is not a functioning enhancement bonus like the Bashing property is, since it doesn't increase hardness or hit points of the shield in question. You also double-dip on the supposed "Weapon Enhancement" you get from Shield Master, since, in order to get +5 from the Defending, you need a +5 Weapon Enhancement, which isn't derived until you "transmute" it from the Shield Master bonuses.


@boring7: You brought up how shield spikes could just be slipped on and off like a phone case. I thoroughly explained in both game rules and physics how it simply doesn't work that way. If that wasn't what you were discussing, then I apologize, but all signs pointed that way to me.

If that errata comes to pass, Shield Martials are going down the toilet, and fast. The entire point of going a Shield Martial was to have an almost-impenetrable defense with an equally-competent offense compared to that of any other melee worth his salt. And the Shield Martial I developed gets 3rd level Ranger spells, including access to Haste when he wants, Barbarian Rage, and retains full BAB. Unfortunately, he doesn't really come online until 11th level.

At any rate, the source link doesn't work, and D20 site isn't exactly an official place to look for updated content (they are a tad slow on rules errata/FAQs, as they have explained in a thread previously), so I'm not too worried until it's actually shown in the PRD or in the official FAQ.

boring7 wrote:
If it helps, think of the "weapon" side of a shield bash as a slip-cover that gets put on your shield. No matter what the shield has on it, (spikes, mirrors, a picture of a dragon, a picture of your mother, a picture of your dragon's mother) the "weapon" is a completely separate entity, a thin coating of Latex (and possibly studs, spikes, or french ticklers) that goes over the shield.

No, it doesn't, because it doesn't make any sense, both mechanically and realistically.

Mechanically, Shields and Spiked Shields are classified as two completely separate items in the Weapon Table. This is also true for Gauntlets and Spiked Gauntlets, as well as a Dagger and a Punching Dagger. The examples can go on, but you see the point (hopefully).

In addition, the Armor table says for Shield Spikes that it costs "+10 GP," and lists "+5 lbs." for weight, whereas other subjects simply say "9 GP," and "6 lbs." Any rational human being would tell you that the former is a rider cost (that is, in addition to something else) that cannot be purchased separately. Anyone saying otherwise didn't read or interpret it correctly, since the spikes themselves cannot be made into weapons or armor in their own right, as they have no statistics to cover that, they simply alter an existing item to serve as a (better) weapon.

Realistically, simply treating shield spikes as a "slip-cover" reduces their lasting function that they are supposed to have. Taking a good look at this rendition of a three dimensional Spiked Tower Shield, it visibly shows us how the spikes and studs are melded into the actual shield. Even if they are not welded onto metal like the studs are, they are, at the very least, screwed into the wooden sockets that were drilled in. Trying to treat it like a phone's battery case is not valid, given the technological discrepancy, as well as the exclusive purpose of the subjects. Not a valid in-game example, but it still serves the point of realism, since this concept can be transitioned to a Spiked Light Shield or Spiked Heavy Shield.

A D10 would be more favorable, since it has a higher maximum and is easier to max out. However, the RAW is correct, since the scale originally starts from 1D6 with a Spiked Heavy Shield, increasing 2 sizes goes to 1D8, then as per a Large Longsword (AKA Greatsword), 1D8 to 2D6. The sad part is? With all of those people complaining, I never see players take the shield route. (I want to at some point and I have a killer character concept in line, but it will be a while...)

BigNorseWolf wrote:

Its the height of absurdity to say that a red dragon who can swim in lava can be damaged by a pot of hot tea

Red dragon sits in lava "ahhhhhhh"

Sips hot tea while doing it "ow ow ow thats hot!"

The sad thing is, RAW, that's exactly how it would work.

Because there is no damage type as "scalding," nor does the Dragon in question have resistance or damage reduction against a "scalding" damage type.

The worst part is, since we don't know if it's an energy type or a physical kind of damage, you can't truly say if DR/- is applicable.

I think the reason why people don't bother with those kinds of rules is because not only does it unnecessarily bog down the game (for most tables, anyway), it also has major rule inconsistencies, as we have stumbled upon here with these rules for cooking and deserts...

Thomas Long 175 wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

@ Xavram5: I'm a level 10 Mobile Fighter using a Greatsword in our slightly-houseruled Evil campaign with a 16 Dexterity (14 + 2 from belt), and I'm walking around with a fairly low 30 AC total. With a +1 Mithril Full Plate (+10 AC) rocking a +5 Max Dexterity Bonus (+3 Dexterity to AC), a +1 Living Steel Buckler with Shield Focus, Greater Shield Focus, and Shield Specialization (+4 AC, +3 to CMD), as well as a Dodge feat (+1 AC), Jingasa of the Fortunate Soldier (+1 AC), and a +1 Amulet of Natural Armor, I get hit a lot more often than you think, when I'm running into creatures whom are 2 hit dice over my character level that have a +20 to-hit on their first attacks.

Honestly I wouldn't have gone Mithral fullplate so early. That 9000 gold you're not using is a hefty chunk of wealth by level. There's another ioun stone that gives you +1 AC for 5000 gold. The ring of deflection is another good investment.

It's my Legacy Armor, it didn't cost me anything to have, and I can still enhance it like any other armor. Mithril allows me to sleep in it thanks to Endurance feat, and increases MDB by 2, making it +3 (+5 thanks to Armor Training II, and I can still move my full speed and use Acrobatics). It's a heck of a lot better than Living Steel (though still good, is much cheaper to get on a Buckler), and cheaper than Adamantine by 6k, not to mention the superior defensive option if you have the Dexterity to accommodate it (all Fighters should be running with +6 Physical Perfection belts by the endgame anyway, meaning if you have even a 10 Dexterity, the +3 takes effect).

That being said, you're probably right, as I actually got that item when I was 6th level. Then again, I'm one of the 3 tanks in our group, including our Swashbuckler (who actually has more AC than I do, and can get his AC in the low 40's if he really wants), and Invulnerable Rager Barbarian (who has DR 5/-). I deal more damage than the Swashbuckler (though I don't Crit as often), and have significantly higher AC than the Barbarian (though his 2D8 Large Bastard Sword and Rage still outweigh my damaging capabilities..). When I get access to 3 attacks and my Blessing of Fervor SLA, as well Boots of Speed, I will definitely outweigh them.

@ Claxon: The difference can be even higher, with Shield Focus and Greater Shield Focus granting +2 to AC (with Shield Specialization applying a shield's base amount plus Shield Foci increase to CMD as well). Shields are great defensive items for a reason; it's the same explanation as to why the Greeks hardly wore armor, because their battle formations usually involved shields covering oncoming arrows and javelins and what have you.

@ Xavram5: I'm a level 10 Mobile Fighter using a Greatsword in our slightly-houseruled Evil campaign with a 16 Dexterity (14 + 2 from belt), and I'm walking around with a fairly low 30 AC total. With a +1 Mithril Full Plate (+10 AC) rocking a +5 Max Dexterity Bonus (+3 Dexterity to AC), a +1 Living Steel Buckler with Shield Focus, Greater Shield Focus, and Shield Specialization (+4 AC, +3 to CMD), as well as a Dodge feat (+1 AC), Jingasa of the Fortunate Soldier (+1 AC), and a +1 Amulet of Natural Armor, I get hit a lot more often than you think, when I'm running into creatures whom are 2 hit dice over my character level that have a +20 to-hit on their first attacks.

Needless to say, I use the Fight Defensively option very frequently, increasing my AC to 32, increasing to 35 if I have to go Total Defense (when my full attacks just won't work in a given situation). I'm also planning to invest into Combat Expertise later down the road when I get a +4 Intelligence headband (I have a +2 Intelligence headband right now), granting me another +3 AC at the minimum, scaling up to +6 at 20th.

The best part is my offense isn't hardly compromised, with my +1 Greatsword, a +7 Strength Modifier to each attack, Leaping Attack gramting +2, Power Attack at +9 (+12 for me thanks to a magic item, though another -1 to hit), +2 from Weapon Specialization, I'm sitting at a comfortable +21 to damage on each hit. That's not including my increased Power Attack (+3), or my Divine Favor which I get 3/day from a special power with my Legacy Armor (+3), making it a whopping 2D6+27 per attack. (GM has to constantly throw DR 10/Alignment creatures at us for us to not ROFLStomp it in a single round).

My to-hit isn't bad at all either; with a +10 BAB, +1 Greatsword, +5 Strength, +2 Leaping Attack, +2 from WF and GWF (though -1 buckler), a +19 to-hit is a little above average for a character of my level. That's not throwing in my homebrew Divine Favor, racking it up to +22 without flanking (making it +24).

It's not too difficult to build up my defense or offense, and I actually went a fairly-inferior route, all things considered. I'm with Claxon though; posting your build is very important in finding out where the problems lie. For all we know, you're overlooking very crucial information that leads to your builds being "squishy".

I am also the author of a Two-Handed Fighter Guide, which you can visit for any other information you might need. Feel free to send me a private message if you have any other questions.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Aelryinth wrote:

No. You can perfectly make a shield a +5 Weapon without using spikes to do so. It is a weapon, it has its own listing.

And yes, you can build a shield with a +20 Enhancement if you want to lay out the dough. An Uber SHield is defined as a Spiked Heavy Shield +5 of Bashing with +5 Defender. If a Large Shield, 2-12 20/x2, +7 AC, +12 AC in Melee. If you have SHield Mastery, it's +5 TH/DMG even with defender going all AC.

Cost is 108,000 GP for +6/+6 of Enhancements. Having 300k to top of your shield is an impressive concentration of your wealth...

Armor is not a weapon in its own right, so enchanting it as armor without spikes doesn't work. You do need the spikes to enchant armor as a weapon.


No, you can't have a +20 item. The hard cap is +10, that's it, you can't break it unless you have a specific exception (i.e. from an Artifact power) to do so. You either have a Shield, or you have a Shield with Spikes, you can't enchant solely the Spikes, nor are they defined as a separate item in the Weapons table. (They are, however, classified as an add-on, since they add weight, gold, and extra rules to the already-existing shield you are creating/purchasing, instead of being a stand-alone item.)

That being said, you CAN apply a +5 AC Bashing shield and still be able to apply weapon special abilities, as per RAW, you only need to have a +1 Enhancement to apply a +1 property (it's not specific as to which "type" of enhancement is on the item in question), plus the Bashing weapon says it bashes (attacks) as a +1 weapon, as well as fulfills all of the other adjustments of a +1 property (increased hardness and hit points, overcomes DR/Magic, etc)., meaning for all intents and purposes, it's not fundamentally different from having a +1 weapon property altogether. (I made a thread about it here, explaining it. The relevance to this one is quite uncanny.)

I will also point out that the Defending property sacrifices the Weapon's Enhancement Bonus (+1 from Bashing, tops) to apply to your AC. Simply sacrificing it from +5 to your AC to +5 to your AC does nothing except make you have 5 less to your attack and damage rolls, since you no longer have an Enhancement Bonus to AC, you have an AC bonus that stacks with all others; it's the exact reason why it's not an Armor property, because it fundamentally changes nothing (and in the cases of Shield Master, it actually makes you worse).

Cap. Darling wrote:

I am not gonna cry bad wrong fun. But it sounds like paladins get the easy treatment in your game.

I think most Paladins have fine durability and i can see if you invest everything in defense you get hard to kill. But if you make a paladin built to prove your point i am sure that 20 guys can find a Challenge that can kill him.

The sad part is that what I listed are perfect examples of proper defensive investment without actual compromise. He isn't sacrificing a damn thing on the offensive front, because he can still Power Attack all day long, and Smite just makes the slaughterhouse even more efficient.

As was said before in this thread, Oath of Vengeance allowing you to transform 2 Lay On Hand charges into a Smite just makes taking Extra Lay On Hands, something that was normally a fairly defensive idea, also work as an offensive option. Killing 2 birds with 1 stone like that, a concept that isn't possible any other way, just made that Paladin a lot more powerful both defensively and offensively.

It's not really "my game" when it's the RAW of the Pathfinder system. (That is, the Paladin has access to all those choices that would make him essentially immortal.) It can't be my design when I'm not the one who published these options for a Paladin Class to take.

@ Silus: Yes, both Google Docs and Microsoft Word allow pictures to be uploaded and placed. They have several options related to them. However, Google Docs is more user-friendly than Microsoft Word in that regard, so that aspect I would upload to Google Docs first, then transfer it to Microsoft Word for an offline version.

I highly doubt Paragon Surge was intended to let you spam for X amount of feats or the ability to (permanently?) memorize spells when you otherwise simply wouldn't be able to.

The FAQ fixes that level of munchkinism. It's still a very powerful option. It just removed the very abusive cheese factor that would be present in all sorts of gameplay, not just organized play.

And to be fair, if you have to go one specific race with a specific spell that was non-core (didn't come until ARG released, which was a couple years and multiple books later from when Core was published) to accomplish something that is about as broken as Nature Oracle munchkinism, you weren't really going to be getting anywhere with it.

I will point out again, that even if there are really all of these "badwrongfun" options for players to choose from (9th level spellcasters are still by far better than anything a given martial or skill monkey has to offer, how Sorcerers are simply getting bad I'll never understand), [b]some players still choose those "badwrongfun" options[/url]. It's the same garbage which came from the dumpsters of the "Fighters, Rogues, and Vanilla Monks Suck" train.

If you haven't noticed, Paizo "obsoleting classes" is perhaps one of their most common tropes which is caused when the demand for new/fresh/better(/stronger) content grows and they are forced to expand the power creep, an issue they sure didn't invent. The only difference is there were no 9th level casters being obsoleted in the previous cases. In this case, now there is one (apparently, though, as stated above, they are still so much more valuable than anything that is a 6th/4th level spellcaster class or martials or skill monkeys). Why is that a big deal now?

The Epic Dungeon Master wrote:
Silus wrote:
I'll try to get something like that typed up when I can get something like Microsoft Word on my laptop for formatting purposes (Using the Mac equivalent of Notepad for all my text stuff currently). At the very least it'll make it so I have all the information down for myself and future groups, and have it in a way that I can print it out and hand it out to the players.
Might I suggest Google Docs? It's free and can be accessed anywhere as long as you know your google account.

Google Docs is great if you have a reliable internet provider, and helps with the spreading of ideas to the general public.

However, if you're in areas where you don't have internet access (or if your internet provider is shaky, like mine has been), it's important you find some way to work on it offline, something which Microsoft Word allows you to do.

I've wrote a Fighter-class guide (you can find it here) using both Microsoft Word and Google Docs; both are great programs (I find you can do more with Google Docs, though requiring internet to use it becomes a problem for somebody like me), but don't mesh too well. I typed up a lot of content that I had to redress because the systems they use are similar, but have differences that make long-term changes difficult to transfer, especially for a traditional Pathfinder Forum Guide. Transferring it from Google Docs to Microsoft Word isn't an issue. Going vice-versa, on the other hand...unless you started in Microsoft Word, transferring it will cause problems. Not to mention, I've had some formatting problems with Google Docs in the past; I learned how to fix them, but I had to research the problem to take care of it, so it's not as user-friendly.

In other words, you should pick one and you stick with it. Google Docs works better as a means to distribute it on the internet, the Microsoft Word guarantees less bugs/issues, and allows working time even when you're offline.

1 to 50 of 2,333 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email 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.