|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Why not, I'll play a little part in the charade here...
This golden blade has an ornate crossguard with a pommel, fashioned entirely out of ebon steel, an edge whose size would require those of mortal strength to wield with two hands. It is indestructible and can emanate energy waves to attack enemies far while also able to cut enemies nearby.
The sword has a mirrored foil, whose blade is silver and has the same ornate crossguard pommel design, fashioned out of gold.
Pax Veritas wrote:
The answer comes from your observation: The thrill you receive comes from new things (which is actually axiomatic compared to a "Back in my day" approach that I thought this would take). Each example that you show that gives you the thrill involves new campaigns, new characters, and/or new players.
I would highly suggest you play a new (yet similar) system. In fact, this would be the perfect time you pick up the Pathfinder Unchained book and create a campaign based purely on the rules in that book. It'll be new, which means excitement and thrill for you and your other gamer friends.
Well, the ability does say "he can cast this spell as a standard action". It isn't exactly sky-is-blue, 100% airtight and unarguable reasoning. :)
It is, when you actually read the full description. Here's enough to demonstrate what the entry specifies:
Summon Monster wrote:
Starting at 1st level, a summoner can cast summon monster I as a spell-like ability a number of times per day equal to 3 + his Charisma modifier. Drawing upon this ability uses up the same power as the summoner uses to call his eidolon. As a result, he can only use this ability when his eidolon is not summoned. He can cast this spell as a standard action and the creatures remain for 1 minute per level (instead of 1 round per level).
The paragraph structure regarding "spell" refers to the class feature the Summoner gets; it can't refer to the actual Summon Monster spell, because it's only referenced for the effects of the feature, for starters (it doesn't grant him actual uses of the spell), and the intent shows the adjusted benefits of this class feature because this ability cannot work in conjunction with their Eidolon class feature.
The entry does further state that the class feature counts as being on his spell list for the purposes of feats and other requirements that need it.
There is a FAQ regarding swapping handiness on weapons, and the FAQ says a general rule is one re-grip and one re-lease is a fair ruling (though GM still gets final say). To be honest, that is a lot of stuff going on with you there; releasing the Shield, growing Claws, and applying the Shield would be overstepping those boundaries set in the FAQ.
Rays are not wielded like a standard weapon, whereas Flame Blade and Produce Flame are; neither are Unarmed Strikes or Natural Weapons, but they are cited as separate entities that would receive the benefit.
Additionally, it would require that the 'weapon' be wielded in a hand that wears Deliquescent Gloves; since you can't wield a Ray, much less have it in your hand, it wouldn't apply
Although the FAQ elaborates that Rays and Weapon-Like Spells would count as weapons for effects that are dependant upon such, Rays would be excluded from the benefits of Deliquescent Gloves simply because it's not something wielded, whereas Flame Blade and Produce Flame are. If there was a Ray that can be wielded, then there would be a case for it, but until that's proven, I err on the side of RAW.
To redact what the Deliquescent Gloves RAW is:
Deliquescent Gloves wrote:
If the wearer uses that hand to wield a weapon
Are you wielding a bow when you make attacks with it? Yes? Then attacks you make with it gain the Corrosive property. End of discussion. The RAW doesn't give a flying #^!& if the weapon is melee or ranged, it cares if the hand(s) wearing the Deliquescent Gloves is wielding a weapon or not. Also consider the wording of Flame Blade, in that it says you "wield this blade-like beam as if it were a scimitar".
Quite frankly, I could instead substitute the Flame Blade spell for any weapon-like object, like a cooking pot or a table; people would argue that it's Improvised Weapons, meaning they're not actual weapons, so they wouldn't benefit from the Gloves, and that argument is just plain stupid.
Lastly, look at this FAQ:
Rays FAQ wrote:
I would constitute the benefit of Deliquescent Gloves would be an effect that affects weapons (since it gives the weapon you wield the Corrosive property, and affects only weapons), meaning the Deliquescent Gloves by way of this FAQ, would apply to Flame Blade.
I'd rule that it would apply to both scenarios, as the benefit applies you're using the hands to wield a weapon. Though many people will argue that since they're not actual weapons (and only lets you wield them like one), it wouldn't be applicable, and it's a fair interpretation, but it's not one I'd go with.
Again, it took a FAQ to reach that conclusion; before that FAQ, you ran into tables that ruled Flurry only functioned at Monk level BAB, and others which calculated the other BAB into the class feature.
You can spout that this instance is identical to that one all you like; quite frankly, there are rules that are identical to one other (for example, Wildblooded for Sorcerers is an Archetype, but would follow rules very similar to that of Sub-Domains), and yet they are still given the shaft otherwise (because Wildblooded is an Archetype, and not a Sub-Bloodline, you can't stack that with Crossblooded), whereas other things (i.e. Sub-Domains) that are similar in scenario and function aren't treated that way.
That is why I said YMMV, because the sort of things I and TGMaxMaxer brought up will be real issues when it comes to table variations, both in home games and in PFS; and unless FAQ'd like the Flurry BAB issue was, will result in people interpreting the rules differently from others (just like the Monk Flurry issue, which was solved by FAQ).
It took a FAQ to answer that, and that's because people thought Flurry overwrote a character's entire BAB, and it doesn't, because it only treats the BAB he acquires from his Monk Levels as equal to his Monk Level, not the entire BAB itself.
Comparing Class Features to BAB is quite a stretch to say the least. It's not unreasonable, but there would be suspect table variation at the minimum, so YMMV.
Actually, that RAW says your Warpriest level becomes your Fighter level. A Warpriest 3 would count as a Fighter 3 for his bonus feats; his actual fighter levels aren't factored in, meaning he wouldn't be able to qualify for Weapon Specialization at all. This is supported by the factor that there are several abilities which are class-level dependant having a clause that states [random class] levels stack with [other random class] levels for the purposes of [random class feature].
That language is missing here, meaning a Warpriest 3/Fighter 2 would still treat his bonus feats as a Fighter 3 for the purposes of qualifying for those bonus feats.
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
It's honestly a trade-off, and it varies on which is more important: a +1 Shield Enhancement (that has an extra size of damage dice), or a few gold for an attachment (that changes the damage type to something a lot more unimportant).
Bear Burning Ashes wrote:
Honestly, I'd take his post with a grain of salt, because you can notice several rules inconsistencies with his post in regards to other rules he cites. A prime example towards the end is him saying that Spikes on a Shield are their own weapons, whereas the RAW treats Shield Spikes as an add-on subject to a Shield, and when combined, becomes its own item.
I only reference that post because, since he designed the Klar, he specifically points out that there is a Blade on the item, which is what the 1D6 One-Handed Martial Slashing Damage entry relates to: The fact that it has a blade, and that blade is not a part of the Klar's Shield Bash capabilities. Remember, the Bashing property only adjusts Shield Bash damage, not just all damage altogether.
The RAW description actually makes no such distinction in relations to the entry the Klar has, since the hardcover book cites it as a "Light Shield with Armor Spikes," meaning the description would say the Klar is actually a combination of the Light Shield entry and the Armor Spikes entry. (i.e. you have a 1D6 Martial Light Piercing weapon attached to a Light Shield that bashes for 1D3 Bludgeoning.)
That being said, the Klar is all sorts of messed up, and it needs Errata/Official Clarification badly, since the RAW doesn't match up to the RAI that James Jacobs says it should emulate, and several people are stipulating that the Klar entry is the Shield Bash damage (when James Jacobs' post outright says Bashing wouldn't apply to the Blade of the Klar).
As to why you can't give a +1 enhancement to attacks with a shield, it's because the rules say you can't, simple as that, plain as day. From the PRD:
Masterwork Weapons wrote:
Even though some types of armor and shields can be used as weapons, you can't create a masterwork version of such an item that confers an enhancement bonus on attack rolls. Instead, masterwork armor and shields have lessened armor check penalties.
The rules specifically say that Masterwork Shields must reduce armor check penalties, so you aren't allowed an option to grant a +1 enhancement bonus to attacks, no exceptions allowed. (This rule would also mean a subject like the Klar, which is a shield that has a weapon attached, cannot receive a +1 enhancement bonus to attacks.)
As for how you arm yourself with two shields, there aren't really restrictions for putting them on or off, all that's mentioned is that a move action is needed to 'ready' (read: equip) them; this is supported by the factor that the table doesn't make a footnote of it requiring help to don, as Full-Plate or Half-Plate would, meaning you don't need to have hands free to equip them. Even so, I'm sure Quickdraw Shields would provide further ability to do so, since it states you can draw a weapon (and don a shield) simultaneously, versus where you normally don just a shield. This same argument applies for removing them.
Again, the Magic Shield "slot" is a major misnomer, and simply shows an iteration of "Same X doesn't stack," similar to how the Staggered condition needlessly revisits the ability to take Swift, Free, and Immediate Actions. Although it's mentioned as a slot in Core, this sort of thing isn't reflected in future books (which, if there was a reason for there to be a slot, would be listed, and thus is what the original purpose of slots were supposed to intend).
As for the Klar, you said that it's a Martial One-Handed weapon that Shield Bashes for Slashing Damage. The description says that it's a Light Shield with Armor Spikes, and James Jacobs refers to the Blade on the Weapon not receiving Shield Enhancement benefits like Bashing in one of his posts (can refer you to it if you really need it, but I'm lazy about it currently). To further clarify, the actual Klar entry on the weapons table is the Blade's attack, and is a Martial One-Handed weapon that deals 1D6 Slashing damage; it has other uses (like other shields) in that it is a Light Shield with Armor Spikes (possibly meant to read Shield Spikes), so it deals 1D3 Bludgeoning Shield Bashes, or 1D6 Piercing from Armor Spikes attached to it (or a 1D4 Piercing Shield Bash, if meant to read Shield Spikes).
I think the Shield itself being a magic slot is a major oversight in the rules. Any sort of subject that one could cheese out from using two shields (HURR DURR, DOUBLE SHIELD AC!) would be overran by other written rules in the Core. For example, the Double Shield AC cheese cannot possibly be done, even if the Shield wasn't a slotted item, because Same-type bonuses don't stack (and Shield bonuses aren't a stat that can stack infinitely). Another example is Bashing (with extra thanks to the new FAQ) wouldn't cause you to Bash as if 4 sizes larger because size increases and effective size increases don't stack with themselves (though a size and an effective size increase would); just as well, the extra size increases only apply to the item in question, not the character, meaning no double-dipping. The same would be applicable to a character trying to use two +5 AC/+5 Hit Defending Shields, as untyped bonuses from the same source (in this case, the Defending property) wouldn't stack. Though you can certainly make a +5 AC/+5 Hit Defending and a +5 AC/+5 Hit Guardian combo, granting +11 AC and +5 Saves, while granting +5 to Hit and Damage as well because Shield Master.
But ultimately yes, Shields as Weapons have extra rules, because they encompass both an armor-type item, and a weapon item, at the same time.
Considering James Jacobs, the person who invented the Klar, states that properties such as Bashing would not affect the blade on the Klar (and yet it would still affect the Klar itself), would lead your silly interpretation to mean nothing, especially when it denotes itself as a "Light Shield with Armor Spikes." (Which ironically enough, would supersede the table entry the Klar is listed as, if we take the precedent that Feats present to us, in that Description > Table.)
I would also re-read this part from the feat:
Shield Master wrote:
You do not suffer any penalties on attack rolls made with a shield while you are wielding another weapon.
RAW, this would mean that any penalties thrown at you mean nothing, but the intent behind this is that it removes TWF penalties anyway. So even without your Two-Weapon Warrior features, a dual-shield attacker would be able to TWF without penalty as long as they have this feat.
Also keep in mind that you can enhance your shield both as an armor piece, and as a weapon. So you could tack on +5 (AC) Bashing with +5 (Hit) Defending on a given shield, granting you a solid +11 Shield AC (including Enhancements and Defending), while still maintaining a +5 Enhancement Bonus to Hit and Damage. It makes Shields much more expensive to enhance compared to other weapons, but it makes their potential that much more powerful than other weapons.
Cheese, although often improperly used to show disgust about a subject, is to be properly used as something that is used unintentionally, against the rules, or both. Things that are "new" or "interesting" mean nothing if they go against the purpose of the rules. A lot of times, things that are allowed by RAW, but don't follow the RAI, are subjects that would fall under the category of "cheese".
Tangent to something earlier in the thread:
Paizo devs work very hard to create balanced and interesting rules. They understand that chaotic rules with no balance and no structure will ruin the game and Pathfinder would die.
I find this to be a giant misnomer on your part. Paizo Devs do create rules that are interesting, sure, however that's once in a great while; if you take a look at a lot of the threads on here, they involve a lot of imbalances that Paizo essentially says "Yup, that's how it is, suck it up," whether vocally (Dev posts, Errata, or FAQ answers), or non-vocally (such as what RAW would allow to happen, and it being unchecked). They actually created imbalance with several of the things they changed, that were actually much easier to fix (and it still would have kept the unique, interesting feel the content provided). And that doesn't just apply to things that they change, but with the things that they publish, the imbalance only grows and grows, the structures gets bigger (and thusly more fragile, since there are more parts associated),
Granted, no system is perfect, and they have tried to shore up some of these issues with their Unchained spin-off, and by constructing their own rules chassis, but when the original Pathfinder game was built with the same chassis that D&D 3.X used, the same issues that would plague D&D 3.X, such as the content bloat, the Caster/Martial disparities, Rogues sucking, Paladin Alignment issues, etc. would also plague Pathfinder. It's like putting two of the same species of monkey in a cage that contains a petri dish containing parasites and expecting the parasites to only affect one of the monkeys because it has a different name with several features that are different (and many features the same).
Bran Towerfall wrote:
With the bolded parts showing extreme levels of Chaos, as well as touches of Evil due to how he handled slaying the BBEG (he desecrated the enemy's body, as well as his own with the blood of Evil), that would call for an alignment change of either axis (probably to Neutral Good, or Lawful Neutral, or True Neutral), meaning he should've lost his Paladin powers right then and there.
To be quite honest, if it continues much further, I anticipate this "Paladin" will become an "Anti-Paladin," and his demonic appearance would be side-effects of the Abyssal Eldritch Heritage feat chains.
Apparently armor spikes are carried in the off-hand, if I recall the FAQ discussions correctly. :P
Two-Handed Weapons and Armor Spikes wrote:
This FAQ only clarifies that you need to actually have a hand available to make attacks with the Armor Spikes for TWF, not that you're "carrying them" in that hand. Although a fair interpretation derived from this, if we weren't to treat Armor Spikes as being attached to the armor you wear, you'd have to drop the Armor Spikes in your hand in order to make attacks with a Two-Handed Weapon. This sort of arguments files back to the "My limbs are like detachable parts" argument, which is a bunch of BS, because last I checked, Spikes on Armors or Shields are affixed to the item, usually through procedures from metallurgy, primarily through welding the spike to the specified area.
Might I also add, that is one of the stupidest (and perhaps most non-sensible) Pathfinder FAQs to-date, and ranks up there amidst the likes of the Crane Wing/Riposte nerf and Wildblooded/Crossblooded FAQs.
I didn't realize that I could carry my arms, my hands, my legs, and my feet as if they were object separate from my body like several of the posters on this thread are saying that I can apparently do. What am I, some construct whose limbs can be taken off and put back on again? Or am I an organic humanoid whose limbs, if they are cut off, can only be replaced with spells/abilities like Regeneration?
Carrying, at least in this case, refers to an object separate from the character, whether it be a coinpurse, a rock, whatever. In fact, you can have those items in your other hand while wielding a Scimitar in the other, and you won't invalidate the feat. It is when the object is a shield or a weapon that the feat becomes invalidated.
One could try to cheese it and say that Improvised Weapons would not fall under this category, but the intent of the feat is that whenever you make use of an object that is a shield or weapon, or an object of a separate category that is being used as a shield or weapon, the feat becomes invalidated.
I never really thought about it this way. Then again, there aren't many Immediate Action abilities that allow stuff like this. In that case, it wouldn't matter if the reduced damage from the feat is Damage Reduction or not; as long as the check is successful, the move is executed.
Of course, since the Grab ability specifies an action to be taken (and instead of it simply being an additional effect to the attack, such as a Magus using Spellstrike with Shocking Grasp), it couldn't be taken.
One could assume that being moved from the square provokes AoOs, but there is an interesting tidbit from the feat:
Roll With It wrote:
This involuntary movement
Ahpook The Destroyer wrote:
This is the same sort of cheese that players have tried to execute using Two-Handed Weapons in conjunction with Crane Riposte. (FYI, there was a FAQ released stating that regripping and releasing a hand on a Two-Handed Weapon is a free action [which means not outside your turn, so no Crane Riposte], and you are allowed to do each of those once per turn, meaning you could still get Crane Wing benefits; unfortunately, the feat nerfs ruined this concept.) Trying to manipulate the amount of hands necessary to do so is a more fine cut here, because you're trying to cheese Off-Hand attacks with an actual hand-in-weapon method, which I can guarantee you is not going to work.
Here is the TWF FAQ regarding the attack rotation you can make. When it comes to standard iteratives, you can make an attack with your main-hand, and an attack in your off-hand (assuming BAB +6), using different weapons, and it does not constitute TWF. You can mix and match which order you take these attacks, but since you are BAB +6, you only ever get 2 attacks. It is only by getting attacks from beyond your standard BAB, do you have you specify the main-hand/off-hand weapons, which weapon attack goes first (and that they must all be taken first before you can take the attacks in your off-hand).
That being said, reviewing the Dervish Dance feat text:
Dervish Dance wrote:
When wielding a scimitar with one hand, you can use your Dexterity modifier instead of your Strength modifier on melee attack and damage rolls. You treat the scimitar as a one-handed piercing weapon for all feats and class abilities that require such a weapon (such as a duelist’s precise strike ability). The scimitar must be for a creature of your size. You cannot use this feat if you are carrying a weapon or shield in your off hand.
The feat text specifies that you can only gain the feat benefits if the following circumstances apply - if your Scimitar is properly sized for you, and if you aren't carrying a weapon or shield in your other hand. (It says off hand, but that sort of phrasing is only important for TWF purposes.) Since TWF is considered a simultaneous act (you must specify your main-hand and off-hand weapons before you can take the TWF option, you would have you draw your offhand weapon before you take the TWF option, meaning you wouldn't receive the benefits of Dervish Dance.
That being said, if there are weapons that aren't carried (such as a Natural Claw or Unarmed Strike) in your off-hand, it circumvents the cited limitation, and it receives Dexterity to Attack/Damage benefits.
Sammy T wrote:
Remember that Damage Reduction is an actual game term with given effects, and only when the damage is negated by Damage Reduction itself (and not a pseudosynonymous form of damage reduction like Incorporeality), does it negate rider effects. Also keep in mind that it works only on most special effects, not all of them. (Though Mark Seifter's post does imply that special effects that provide combat maneuvers would apply to a Grab ability.) With all that said, if the feat specified Damage Reduction (the game term), the Grab would not be applicable if the Goblin was able to negate the damage.
However, since the feat makes no such distinction, the Goblin's screwed (it's a Goblin, what else did you expect to happen?).
This makes sense from a purely mathematical point of view, but as Rub-Eta points out, there are rules that would categorize subjects like Swift and Immediate Actions as effects that would fall under the same duration as Free Actions; there are also rules that have different interpretations regarding Full Round Actions, specifically Meta-Magic Spells (Full-Round Action) V.S. Summon Spells (1-Round Cast Time), in that one is completed within the round, and the other doesn't complete until the following round. The factor that there are differing time executions between the two subjects (that are technically supposed to equate to the same thing) provides more than enough evidence as to differing durations being a result of not properly quantifying how long each action actually takes.
Additionally, PF is abstract of realism. Realistically speaking, not everyone can accomplish the same tasks in the same exact amount of time. In this case, not every single character finishes spellcasting such as a basic Vanish spell in the 3.25 seconds that you claim always happens, no matter the circumstance. It also doesn't take into consideration the implications of conditions that limit your ability to complete actions. Staggered is a prime example of a condition that limits your ability to perform actions (which also means you're technically cutting down on the time you have within the round). From that token, this realism also takes into account the time estimation for each action that you believe applies, which PF is abstract from, as provided with conditions like Nauseated. The only reason a time stamp is listed for Rounds total is for spell effects whose duration is Minutes/Hours per level, whose duration if Rounds were not given a timestamp, would be unclear as to how long they would actually last.
K-kun the Insane wrote:
Summon Shadow wrote:
Unlike a normal shadow, this shadow's alignment matches that of the shadowdancer, and the creature cannot create spawn. The summoned shadow receives a +4 bonus on Will saves made to halve the damage from positive channeled energy and the shadow cannot be turned or commanded. This shadow serves as a companion to the shadowdancer and can communicate intelligibly with the shadowdancer.
I wouldn't mind a Shadow if it didn't basically cause an epidemic and upset the flow of life and death (which is what Pharasma would be most hateful about). She won't take you as seriously as you want her to if you take this route I'd imagine, primarily because you're using the very thing she despises to carry out her will. Possibly fitting, but since this Shadow would not upset the flows of life and death, I don't see anything that Pharasma would say "It's either me or that stupid ugly mutt of a pet you have."
To be quite honest, I'd think about finding ways of turning it into a Shadow Demon instead. Perhaps demonstrating to Pharasma a means to transmute that which she finds perversive into a subject less repulsive (and also less defiant of the flow of souls).
Vials of Resurrection, by the book would only be useful for use on characters who have died and want to/should be brought back to life. If the plan is, if a character dies, and then are revived by the potion, then they suffer 'adverse' effects, you need to establish what it is exactly you want changed in addition to that.
As for a general example, a lot of change results from Transmutation spells. If you're thinking more physiological changes, your best bet are spells like Beast Shape, Undead Anatomy, Form of the Dragon, Plant Shape, and Elemental Body, as they deal with the caster taking the form (and if it says so, the listed abilities) of the subject they transform into. Perhaps having a character receive the benefits of the 1st rank of these abilities at first and then slowly progressing to the final rank may be the best bet.
Although there aren't any spells that allow you to emulate things like Demons, Devils, or Daemons (that's the proper spelling, though I have no idea why Demons and Daemons are separate entities), a lot of that stuff delves with rituals and circumstances that lead characters to directly turn into those creatures (i.e. Shadow draining all the strength of a character turns him into a Shadow ~1D4 rounds later), and is something you should look into if you're looking for a more direct conversion.
Another alternative is to look at the Reincarnation spell, modify it to suit your needs, and just roll with that. Ultimately, pick your poison from here and I'm sure your game will last just fine.
Vestigial Arm wrote:
The arm does not give the alchemist any extra attacks or actions per round, though the arm can wield a weapon and make attacks as part of the alchemist’s attack routine (using two-weapon fighting).
So this would allow you to TWF with the limb, but it doesn't grant you the ability to utilize Multi-Weapon Fighting. Or, you can just have that extra hand hold a shield and gain Shield AC. That being said, if you have more than two limbs, you qualify for Multi-Weapon Fighting instead. Double Slice would, by RAW, only affect one off-hand, the same way Improved/Greater TWF would only affect one off-hand attack. Since your plan is to only use two weapons anyway, that's not an issue.
Scott Wilhelm wrote:
You're ignoring the entire precedent of spikes described in the game. Look at Spiked Pits (both the trap and the spell), those deal Piercing Damage. Look at weapons like Rapiers those deal Piercing Damage. You compare anything that has a sharp pointy end, and it has Piercing Damage listed. There is no RAW given that grants the Klar exception to that precedent. This is exactly what I mean when I say you're pulling stuff out of your rear, because you're making up some ridiculous precedent that goes against everything else that's similar in the game, and saying it's right just because you essentially think all fingers are thumbs.
You're trying to assume that a Klar is just a shield. Given the illustration of what a typical Klar looks like, that metal blade at the bottom certainly looks like something you'd cut with, but given that it's jutting out from the absolute bottom of the item, I doubt you could effectively bash an enemy with a slashing weapon. Even James Jacobs, the inventor behind the Klar, mentions there being a Blade that Bashing would not affect.
James Jacobs wrote:
The bashing quality enhances your shield bash attack with a klar, but does nothing for the klar's blade. Likewise, adding bashing to a shield with spikes does nothing to the shield spike damage, since bashing is a shield magic quality and spikes are not shields, but are in fact weapons."
The fact that he mentions "the klar's blade" not being affected by the Bashing property, which I'm certain is part of the Klar that you say applies to Shield Bashes, is more than proof enough that the Klar's entry is treated as a separate weapon entirely from it being a Shield that you bash with. If that's not enough proof, then nothing will ever convince you of your viewpoint, in which case I'm done with this circle of dizziness.
Doh. That's a silly predicament. I guess this is one of the nice things spellcasters can't have (which is a switch for a change).
Scott Wilhelm wrote:
I'm going to take a tip from your book, and say that's an invalid argument because we're talking about a fantasy game here, real life physics don't apply. Of course, that's if I were you.
You can try to design a unique shield to do what you said you could do, but the book is abstract of unique base details that allow you to do what you say it can do. If the book says it deals Bludgeoning damage, it deals Bludgeoning damage. If the book says that it turns into a Piercing weapon, that means it overrides it being a Bludgeoning weapon. So RAW, you can't do Bludgeoning and/or Piercing damage with a Spiked Shield, especially when there are feats that you have to take to be able to change the damage type of a given weapon in the weapons table.
You also have yet to justify how a Klar, which is supposed to be a Light Shield, (AKA it's a Light Weapon in the Weapon table,) bashes as a One-Handed Weapon. Armor Spikes nor Shield Spikes cause that designation increase (it's only an effective size boost, not an actual size boost), and nothing else in the description makes any mention of it being a One-Handed Weapon. The only other conclusion I can come up with here is you're just pulling stuff out of your rear again.
I second this. The full entry from the Sylph's Air Affinity trait:
Air Affinity wrote:
Sylph sorcerers with the elemental (air) bloodline treat their Charisma score as 2 points higher for all sorcerer spells and class abilities. Sylph spellcasters with the Air domain use their domain powers and spells at +1 caster level.
The Sylph's abilities specify that only Sorcerers that have the Elemental (Air) bloodline treat their Charisma modifier as 1 higher; this makes sense, because this ability would not apply if I were to, for example, take the Eldritch Heritage feat chain for the Elemental (Air) Bloodline and acquire those abilities.
That being said, it's not unreasonable to treat it affecting any character that has the bloodline, and this is especially true given that Bloodragers did not exist when the ARG was created. Normally an errata would be needed, but since this doesn't include ACG material (because it wasn't a thing when this was released), it only makes sense that it's not listed, because it would include a Core book further down the chronological release date, which wasn't feasible at the time the ARG was created.
In addition, I'm curious as to why you would make a Sylph Sorcerer and not take the Sage bloodline (which allows you to have Intelligence for your mainstat instead of Charisma for all of your Sorcerer-related class features). You could take the Crossblooded archetype and take both Elemental (Air) and the Sage Bloodlines, getting the benefit of both your Air Affinity and your racial Intelligence boost affecting your spells and your other class abilities.
Of course, one could always think that the Artifact is actually an Intelligent Item that's claustrophobic, plus comes with a runspeed and can cast Invisibility at-will. If the PCs couldn't properly identify it (most Artifacts can't be, given their stupid-high DCs), telling them that it goes "poof" either provides false information as to what the Artifact actually does, or they think putting the item in a Bag of Holding was actaully the means to destroy the artifact. I only made it in reference to the video link, which I find is a prime example of messing with people.
At any rate...
96.) As the final blow was dealt to the BBEG, he says "You may have beaten me, but your princess is in another castle!"
93. Player: "I'm going to put this artifact in my Bag of Holding so it can stay safe and nobody will know about it."
GM: "Well, that's fantastic, a really smart decision! I'll just mark it down on my sheet over here that you have your artifact in that Bag of Holding so it doesn't draw attention-AAAAND it's gone.
GM: "The artifact in your Bag of Holding, it didn't do too well, it's gone."
Player: "What do you mean, I have the artifact!"
GM: "Not anymore you don't. Poof!"
There are three written sources for the Klar. Two call it a spiked shield and one calls it armor spikes.
The other sources don't matter when the Core Books refer to the Klar separately from the sources (that I presume JJ was behind as far as design is concerned). Although he's the inventor of the item, his word's weight holds just as much as it did when Jason Nelson weighed in on the Bodyguard feat he invented. In fact, it actually weighs less because there is only one source for the Bodyguard feat, whereas there are several sources for the Klar, and the two that say "Spiked Shield" aren't in the Core Books.
One would extrapolate that when it came to the final publishings, Jason Bulmahn probably just said "Nope, I don't like those versions of the item, let's go with this one because [reasons]," meaning the intent we could gather from the Klar's other sources go out the window.
I am no longer sure the effective size increase thing even applies here. I kind of see where JJ is coming from--I'm pretty sure shield spikes are a totally separate weapon that happen to be attached to your shield, meaning you don't bash with your spikes, you bash with a shield or just make a regular weapon attack with the spikes. I'm kind of questioning everything here--starting to think an attack with shield spikes might not trigger feats like Shield slam...wow...
How would it not apply? When it comes to feats, the written description trumps what's written in the table, why would this be any different. The benefit of Spiked Shields falls under language associated with effective size increases, so it would not stack with effective size increases. The fact that it has its own listing in the table is irrelevant to the description of Shield Spikes, which specifies that it is simply a higher damage dice applied to the shield in question.
As for being able to bash or attack with the spikes of a shield, here's a generic representation of a Spiked Shield. Tell me how you're going to choose to deal Bludgeoning Damage with that while still being an effective Shield Bash. Last I checked, you need feats to be able to do stuff like that, meaning the base type is unchangable (unless the item gave you a choice anyway, such as the Morningstar).
If you refer to the RAW of Shield Spikes, it changes the item type:
Spiked Shields wrote:
These spikes turn a shield into a martial piercing weapon
So instead of a regular shield dealing Bludgeoning Damage, it turns into a Spiked Shield dealing Piercing Damage.
And the Shield Slam feat example is a poor one.
Shield Slam wrote:
Any opponents hit by your shield bash are also hit with a free bull rush attack, substituting your attack roll for the combat maneuver check (see Combat).
Even if you were to try and say that Spiked Shields don't count for it, re-read the RAW again:
Spiked Shields wrote:
attacking with a spiked shield is like making a shield bash attack.
It doesn't matter what sort of attack you make with a spiked shield, it counts as a Shield Bash. I could actually extrapolate that argument to mean a Throwing Spiked Shield would make Shield Bashes with its ranged attacks, and a regular Throwing Shield could not, and is something Scott Wilhelm would try to say is 100% legal; but I know where to draw the line when it comes to RAW V.S. RAI, and I know that's a bunch of hooey.
Needless to say, I can agree that the Klar falls under the same pretenses the Courageous Property has, in that it uses a game term to mean something else (usually the literal sense, or flavor text, in this case, it means spikes on a shield). That being said, unless a FAQ gets established for the Klar, or an Errata, it's going to stay the same ambiguous (most likely) pile of junk ever.
@ Scott Wilhelm: Cool, you must be of the interpretation that I can attack with whatever damage type I want. That means I can make my sword's base damage be Sonic instead of Slashing, because I'm attacking so fast with it. Screw getting a +1 weapon enhancement to symbolize something like that, I'm just gonna cheat the rules because it's a fantasy game.
I can only imagine your games having things like the Wish Sno-Cone Machine and Divine Protection + Oracles combos being done without any sort of repercussion because "reasons".
Silver Surfer wrote:
Yeah cheers I saw that one... I was thinking more of a 1st level domain power that wasnt part of your deity portfolio
There isn't one otherwise, primarily because Domains are one of the few class features unique (and most of them powerful) to Clerics. Flavorwise, a Deity isn't going to just give you powers unless you were to worship and revere it (and only it). Unlike deities in 3.X, that had their own pantheons of faith and several of them got along with each other, Pathfinder deities are all lone wolf types.
Scott Wilhelm wrote:
Looks who's spouting old news. I was asking you to confirm whether the entry for the Klar is the Shield Bash damage or not, because a lot of players would tell you that it isn't. Of course, if you don't believe them, then I think it's time for a FAQ/Errata thread.
You basically said it yourself that it's bull$#!^:
Scott Wilhelm wrote:
I do not see how adding a spike to a shield constitutes any kind of size increase, and I do not believe that any reasonable interpretation of Spiked Shield could conclude that the Bashing Enchantment would not work normally on the shield on account of size increase rules. In other words, I think this interpretation is stupid.
That FAQ ain't no illusion spell buddy. It's 100% real, and a link was given to the page that shows it from an official source, and you discredited it just because you disagreed with it. Keep spouting the "I have the moral highground" argument all you like, you were the first to call things that went against you stupid and unreasonable, and that's only because you disagreed with it. Same Size bonuses from different sources don't stack, whether they're actual size increases, or effective size increases. (Obviously, Actual and Effective Size increases stack together, but you can't have Apples to Apples here, only Apples to Oranges and vice-versa.)
I mean come on, you're trying to say that the Armor Spikes on the Klar are a Shield Bash Attack. By that ruling, Armor Spikes on any object, whether they're Armor or Shields, are a Shield Bash Attack.
"I'm gonna go get Bashing on my Armor Spikes for my Full Plate now and do 2D6 Armor Spike damage with a Shield enhancement. Thanks for showing me the rules can do that!" /sarcasm
Oh, and by the way...
Scott Wilhelm wrote:
So far as we have been able to get Mark's opinion, he has backed my position, but honestly, getting his opinion isn't good enough.
Scott Wilhelm wrote:
We already gave you an official citation for something previously, and you disregarded it and essentially said that it's bull$#!^. If I gave you another one, you'd do the same thing, and this would circle ad nauseum, because it's not the way you want it to be. To that end, the effort needed to fulfill your request would be in vain, meaning the request itself becomes futile.
Scott Wilhelm wrote:
If a Klar's damage entry is supposed to be a Spiked Shield Bash, it's supposed to deal Piercing Damage, because every sort of spike in the game, whether it's Armor Spikes, Shield Spikes, or Trap Spikes, deal Piercing Damage. The Klar should be no exception to that rule, and yet it's listed as Slashing. By this logic, I could create a Spiked Pit trap with Legos and have the trap deal Bludgeoning Damage instead, but I'm sure you and I know that is ridiculous on multiple levels.
But again, if it's supposed to be a Spiked Shield Bash from a Light Spiked Shield, as the item description says, the damage dice scale follows incorrectly, especially when a Light Spiked Shield is already listed at 1D4. It also contradicts the factor that if it were to be a Shield Bash, from a Light Spiked Shield, that the Klar entry would be listed as a Light Weapon, not a One-Handed Weapon.
So when we take your interpretation, these two factors aren't resolved, and it results in either the item description being incorrect or the weapon entry being incorrect. Since you seem to be the expert on this, I'm sure you can point out which that is.
For the record, according to the books, this is what a traditional Klar looks like.
Mysterious Stranger wrote:
The answer is right in what you linked: The GM is the final arbiter of what abilities depending on form are lost or kept. That being said, it's essentially a "Expect Table Variation" answer, and although it's not a good one, it's the best RAW answer provided.
That being said, the RAI I gathered from spells like Beast Shape (which is what the Vampire's Wolf Form emulates) tells me that they only assume the form of the creature, it doesn't change their type or subtypes, meaning spells affects them as if they weren't polymorphed, which leaves the factor that they're still undead or a vampire while having the form of a wolf.
Yes, they do have to deal with the item type, because it makes a difference. Light/Heavy determines damage dice, because Light shields are (mathematically speaking) 1 size difference from Heavies. Spiked Heavy Shields equal the Klar entry's damage, which cannot be the case because Klars aren't Heavy Shields (which are a base of 1D4 without spikes), and Spiked Shields are automatically Piercing damage. Even Armor Spikes are Piercing. So why the @*$& is the Klar entry Slashing damage if it's supposed to function as either a Spiked Light Shield or Armor Spikes?!
I can sit there and say a Wizard has the Spells class feature, but that doesn't mean he automatically casts 9th level spells, which is what you're essentially proposing. He needs to have the Character Levels, Intelligence, and Caster Levels to back it up, and you're not providing the proper numbers (or source of said numbers) that equal the sum needed. To be more accurate to the situation here, you're trying to stack Intelligence Headbands to get the 19 Intelligence needed to cast 9th level spells.
So you agree it's cheese. If it's cheese, chances are, it's not intended. And if it's not intended, then it should not be happening at all. Which means your argument becomes invalid and therefore loses. I'm glad you essentially conceded right there.
mplindustries gave an official Paizo FAQ about damage dice and size/effective size scaling, and that FAQ (, which was written up by the Devs themselves,) says you can't stack size bonuses or effective size bonuses with themselves, regardless of where the source of these things come from. You're the one sitting there saying the FAQ is a bunch of bull$#!^, even though it's an official Paizo rules source (and is used to clarify rules that are unclear, whereas Errata change rules entirely).
Lastly, you're taking my stance way out of proportion. I'm not "calling the cops" on you (makes no sense, you don't get in trouble for asking the Devs a question), strawmanning, or anything of that sort. I'm proposing a challenge for you to hold up: If your interpretation was in fact correct, and that Klars do 1D6 unaltered Shield Bashes, then let's see it in PFS action. Let's pitch that idea at the Devs in their respective "Ask me" threads, and see if that's what they really intended for the Klar to do. You said it yourself you want something official (which you decided to ignore an official Paizo FAQ, and that's as official as it gets), so put it out on the field and see how it goes, because if PFS vetoes it, you can be sure that the Paizo Devs agree with it, and there you have it, conclusive proof as to how it's supposed to be ran.
Spoiler Alert: PFS (which is a strict interpretation of RAW/RAI directly from the Devs themselves), and by extrapolation, the Devs, would say the Klar works differently from your interpretation.
Scott Wilhelm wrote:
You are way off the mark here. I'm not comparing Light/Heavy Shields, I said Wooden/Steel, which denotes material used. That has nothing to do with the factor that whether it's made of steel or wood, it's still a light shield. You can't make a Klar as a Heavy Shield, period.
And you're adding additional benefits to the Klar that aren't there by RAW. "Light Steel/Wooden Shield" does not translate to having Spikes just because the description mentions that Armor Spikes come with it. Last I checked, Armor Spikes apply to Armor, Shield Spikes apply to Shields, and there is no mix-matching allowed between the two. This is about as silly and out-of-place as putting Shield Spikes on Armor and saying "My Armor Spikes deal 1D8!" Even if that was the case, it's 1D4 as a Light Spiked Shield, which means at best with Bashing stacking (which it doesn't as per the FAQ), it deals 1D8, not the 2D6 you're asking for it to do.
Whatever the case, this is highly off-topic, and I can't make this any more simple than what I have. If you think you can get away with that sort of munchkinry, then play a PFS game where you pull that same exact combination, and see what happens. I'd also go ahead and go ask James Jacobs/Mark Seifter as to how a Klar is to be ran, I guarantee you they're going to say the same things I've said.
Scott Wilhelm wrote:
The rules say that adding shield spikes increases the damage dice as if the shield was 1 size larger than its actual size (which is what translate a 1D3 to upgrade to 1D4). Bashing increases the damage dice of the shield's bash attacks as if the weapon were 2 sizes larger than its actual size (which is what translates a 1D3 to upgrade to 1D6). Whether you want them to stack or not, or how you get them to stack is irrelevant. If they are the same effect, they will not combine, end of story. The RAW is the LAW, and in any PFS game, that's what they will tell you, and they will use that same FAQ to support their ruling, and you're going to either find another way to cheese the system, or find another playstyle that you enjoy playing. Although this kicks my Ranger/Barbarian Dual Shield Dexterity Tank Damage Hybrid build in the nuts, at least I don't have to worry about getting Spiked Shields all the time to deal the big damage.
Additionally, look at how it's addressed: It says that it "counts as a light steel/wooden shield with armor spikes." By RAW, this means that you can either bash with it for 1D3 Bludgeoning damage (and lose your AC), or you can attack with it as armor spikes for 1D6 Piercing damage. One could pull some major cheese and say that you could TWF with the single Klar, but since it's not a Double weapon, nor does it have the Double property, that's far-fetched. Regardless, this ruling disregards the explanation as to why it has its own separate entry in the weapons table though, so what is up with that?
My theory? Reviewing the other half of the description says that it's "a short blade," and since (most) swords are treated as Slashing weapons, they decided to treat it as a One-handed Martial weapon instead of a Light, and they changed the damage type from Piercing to Slashing.
Although it's theoretical work, I'm certain that's the idea they had in mind when creating this item, because it's the only logical explanation I can come up with as to why it has this funky stat block that's counterintuitive to what the description actually dictates. (And since it's an age-old thing that has already been FAQ'd to oblivion and nothing has been done about it, it just turns into an "Ask your GM" situation.)
Lord Phrofet wrote:
The answer is in the description. Look at it more closely here:
Quick Dirty Trick wrote:
On your turn, you can perform a single dirty trick combat maneuver in place of one of your melee attacks. You must choose the melee attack with the highest base attack bonus to make the dirty trick combat maneuver.
RAW, it does not specify which attack it has to be, it just has to be one with the highest BAB. Since the 3 natural attacks (assumedly) are at the highest BAB, you can choose which one to ditch.
That being said, most Bite + 2 Claw attack routines usually show Bite primary and Claws as Secondary. I'd double-check to make sure that's not the case, because it might mean you'd have to sacrifice the Bite attack no matter what.
It makes more sense to use hardcover rules over non-core ones. Here's from Ultimate Equipment.
The traditional form of this tribal weapon is a short metal blade bound to the skull of a large horned lizard, but a skilled smith can craft one entirely out of metal. A traditional klar counts as a light wooden shield with armor spikes; a metal klar counts as a light steel shield with armor spikes.
So it sounds like your original assessment is correct, and since hardcover trumps non-core as far as validity is concerned, there's no reneging out of it.
Also, there was a recent FAQ that confirmed you can't stack multiple effective size changes, so, the increase from a shield spike (which the Klar absolutely is) doesn't stack with the increase from Bashing. Likewise, if weapon damage starts below 1d6, you only go up one damage value for each size increase, rather than 2. So, 1d6 going up two sizes turns to 1d8 and then 1d10, whereas 1d8 going up one size goes to 2d6.
Can you link that FAQ?
Dune Drifter wrote:
I suppose one could rule it that way, but I don't think it's really worth the investment. Although you get killer to-hit and damage, your feats are very precious, and having to focus on multiple weapons at a time really hurts your spending cash if you want to make your weapons up to snuff in combat.
In addition to that, you're not receiving racial stat bonuses to two of your most important attributes, Strength and Charisma. Kasathas add to Dexterity and Wisdom, which sounds more like Ranged Cleric or Monk stats, as well as lacking the skill benefits and the Alter Self 1/day SLA, which increases your Strength even further, as well as other goodies.
The Kasatha might be a badass to play in the early levels, but it will lose out against other Gestalts in the long run due to the increased maintenance that comes with him (that your two classes aren't built to handle).