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

Darksol the Painbringer's page

1,948 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 1,948 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


@ SiouL

The FAQ says otherwise:

Power Attack FAQ wrote:

Power Attack: If I am using a two-handed weapon with one hand (such as a lance while mounted), do still I get the +50% damage for using a two-handed weapon?

Yes.

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

Bolded the relevant text.

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


Kazaan did expose something from the RAW though.

The Merciful property says this:

Merciful wrote:
The weapon deals an extra 1d6 points of damage, and all damage it deals is nonlethal damage. On command, the weapon suppresses this ability until told to resume it (allowing it to deal lethal damage, but without any bonus damage from this ability).

It calls out the weapon dealing the damage, and it says all the damage the weapon deals is nonlethal.

The vicious property says the weapon creates a flash of energy, and the energy deals the damage.

RAW, the energy disruption is different from the weapon, and therefore the Vicious property would not be affected by the Merciful property, should both be tacked onto the same weapon.

Just a fun fact in Rules Lawyering...


minoritarian wrote:

With shield master and bashing you have +10 (well, +8 after making it a +1 bashing shield) worth of shield enhancements to play with. You then make it a +1 weapon and have +9 bonuses worth of weapon enhancements to play with.

You still need to buy that +1 enhancement as a weapon before making it say a Flaming Holy Bane shield. Its redundant as you use the sheild enhancements as the attack and damage bonuses but you can't enchant as a weapon with out it being a +1 weapon.

At least this is how I understand it.

I think Shimesen has the right of it. Regardless of its strength, a magic armor or weapon cannot have higher than +10 Base Price Bonuses worth of effects. Though, I don't think he's right in that you can only enchant a shield in one fashion.

Here are the 2 relevant entries:

Shield Master wrote:
You do not suffer any penalties on attack rolls made with a shield while you are wielding another weapon. Add your shield’s enhancement bonus to attack and damage rolls made with the shield as if it were a weapon enhancement bonus.
Bashing Property wrote:
A shield with this special ability is designed to perform a shield bash. A bashing shield deals damage as if it were a bashing weapon of two size categories larger (a Medium light shield thus deals 1d6 points of damage and a Medium heavy shield deals 1d8 points of damage). The shield acts as a +1 weapon when used to bash. Only light and heavy shields can have this ability.

The bolded parts above seem to catch my eye the most on this matter. In the case of Shield Master, it says that our shield enhancement bonuses are added to attacks and damage rolls made with said shields, and to treat it as if it were a weapon enhancement bonus. In the case of the Bashing property, it says the shield acts as a +1 weapon when used to bash. Although not a too compelling case, it still seems to function as a +1 weapon for all intents and purposes, since a +1(AC) Bashing Shield would have the effects of a +1 weapon in terms of hit points and hardness increase, as well as the enhancement bonuses to hit and damage.

Shield Master especially has me convinced that once you take that feat, it counts as both a magic weapon and a magic shield (though its effects, such as hit points and hardness, would not stack), if not the Bashing property alone, which basically treats it as a +1 shield and +1 weapon for all intents and purposes.

But for some odd reason, it just doesn't seem right...(And before it's said, no, it's not because I feel it's overpowered. I just feel that there's something I'm missing from making it legal.)


Elbedor wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

You read too literally into his statement. And for the record, his statement is correct.

Shield Spikes are created as an add-on to a shield, the same way a shield can or can be specially designed to be a thrown weapon (in addition to other properties). Once it's created in that manner, RAW, it cannot be changed. It's no different than creating a +1 Adamantine Falchion, realize you want a Greatsword, and want to make it a +1 Adamantine Greatsword instead. Unless the GM wants to handwave it, by the book that's how it works.

If you want proof, look at the tables. A table refers to a Shield and a Spiked Shield as separate items, and as such they should fall under the same disrepute as any other weapon; when made by multiple special materials, only the most prevalent material grants its effects. But when looking up Shield Spikes specifically, they are in the "Extra" column on the Armor table, and call out for "additional" costs and weight,...

I'm not sure you caught my point here. I'm not talking about adding spikes at some later point. I'm talking about creating a spiked shield outright. The suggestion was that the shield and the spikes were made out of the same material. This isn't true. Maybe I'm missing something, but I only see one entry for weight with regards to Shield Spikes. And we know from several other entries that steel weighs more than wood.

If a wooden spiked shield had wooden spikes, then they would be lighter than the steel spikes on a steel spiked shield. But the spikes in both cases add the same weight...meaning they're constructed of the same material...ie Steel. Which shows that a shield made out of one material can have spikes made out of another material.

Or is someone suggesting that Armor Spikes added to Hide armor are constructed of Hide? :P

I agree in that the items aren't made of the same material; wooden spikes wouldn't really be too piercing, unless they were, say, rose thorns, and even that's not exactly wood.

Though my point still stands; if it's made out of two materials, especially in the case of special materials, only the most prevalent is calculated. Throwing on metal spikes onto a light or heavy shield is going to be taxing to determine its HP/Thickness, and it's only treated as such for special effects related to material as well as ease of calculation.


Let's say I have a Spiked Heavy Shield that I want to use to impale faces onto it and make it a nice decorative piece. However, I also want it to be good at its job, which is to impale faces onto it. But it falls into its own problem; it's a shield. It is both a defensive item and a weapon item.

So let's say I managed to amass enough money to put up to a +10 Base Price Bonus worth of Enhancement Bonus/Special Abilities of any kind onto it. I have the Shield Master feat, so I'll want to put on a +5 AC, which would allow me to apply that Enhancement Bonus to AC to any attack and weapon damage rolls I make with it. Pretty cool, right? (And of course, the Bashing property.) However, I looked at some of the Weapon properties, and they are pretty cool.

But I already spent a +6 bonus total on the Shield (which is worth it), and there are a couple of things that are murky. So here is my question: With the Bashing Property and/or Shield Master feat usable on my character, do I still have to put a +1 Hit/Damage Enhancement on my shield, leaving me with +3 Base Price Bonus worth of special abilities I can throw on my shield, or can I go into it from the get-go and use the remaining +4 Base Price Bonus worth of special abilities?


xanthemann wrote:

I may have overlooked a similar statement to the one I am about to make, but trying to read the whole thread is taking a toll on my brain at this late hour.

A loop hole, if you choose to think of it as such, is to craft the shield as a weapon from the start and then pick up a feat that allows you to use your weapon as a shield (I forget which feat it is considering the extreme number of feats that exist).
That's the two cents from the peanut gallery.

RAW, you cannot do the bolded part. When creating a shield, it already has stats to be used for bashing, depending on how it's made.

If it's made without spikes, it deals 1D3 base Bludgeoning damage. When made with spikes, it deals 1D4 base Piercing damage, assuming you use it to bash an enemy, or turn it into a magic weapon, and only in those cases is it to be treated as a weapon.

For all other cases, it is a shield/armor item, and it follows those rules.

It's not like a character can't use a shield to bash, but they lose the AC bonus it grants when they do. There is a feat that allows you to retain the shield's AC bonus when you use it to bash (Improved Shield Bash); I believe that is what you were referring to.

I do thank you for bringing it up, as it does raise another point, which I will make into a separate thread.


Elbedor wrote:
Robert A Matthews wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:

Now, as I recall, you still need the +300 for Masterwork Shield Spikes.

Neat thing about Shield Spikes, is they can be a different material than the shield.

So, you could have a Mithral Heavy Shield, with Adamantine Shield Spikes.

YMMW on that. I see nothing in the rules to indicate that the spikes and the shield are separate items. I've always run shield spikes as a modification to the shield, making it the same item. If it's one item, you can't make it out of two separate materials.

This means a wooden shield has wooden spikes? That's rather...underwhelming. That's like saying a steel sword and a wooden sword are equally dangerous. I'm not sure this is true.

I've only ever known shield spikes to be metal fixtures on a shield (whether wooden or steel). Which means you could pay the extra cost for special materials to replace the steel material regardless of what the shield itself is made of. But maybe that's just how I'm used to playing it.

You read too literally into his statement. And for the record, his statement is correct.

Shield Spikes are created as an add-on to a shield, the same way a shield can or can be specially designed to be a thrown weapon (in addition to other properties). Once it's created in that manner, RAW, it cannot be changed. It's no different than creating a +1 Adamantine Falchion, realize you want a Greatsword, and want to make it a +1 Adamantine Greatsword instead. Unless the GM wants to handwave it, by the book that's how it works.

If you want proof, look at the tables. A table refers to a Shield and a Spiked Shield as separate items, and as such they should fall under the same disrepute as any other weapon; when made by multiple special materials, only the most prevalent material grants its effects. But when looking up Shield Spikes specifically, they are in the "Extra" column on the Armor table, and call out for "additional" costs and weight, and while this can be a basis for making them their own item, the "additional" subject means that the default application of the item is to be used on the item for which it was designed for.


Nefreet wrote:

It's not an AP, it's a scenario from Season 2.

I don't want to keep referencing it, because it's a big spoiler.

But its very existence is still more weight than not.

That's a much bigger clarification. If it were in a published AP, it would practically be indisputable evidence. The factor that it's PFS-Only subtracts from the RAW situation on the matter, given PFS and its extensive amounts of houseruling and other little gimmicks. Anyway...

Re-reading the RAW, it specifies the energy disruption itself dealing the damage, meaning it wouldn't make sense to have it follow the same damage as the weapon being wielded. As others have stated though, it doesn't specify a type. I doubt it would be Negative Energy, because it would've included a clause regarding Undead or Constructs or what have you if that were the case.

To be honest, it would make the most sense to label it as Force Damagel it's a type of energy, and there's practically nothing that has resistance towards it. It's not the most fitting, but it makes sense mechanics-wise.


I'll FAQ too, though if it's a published AP, even if it's used for PFS, it still has value outside of their PFS houseruling in terms of getting a definitive answer.

If it's Barbarian DR and his DR works against the damage he takes from the Vicious property, then the answer is that the damage type is the same as the type being dealt by the weapon that's enchanted.


Nefreet wrote:
Maezer wrote:
I am curious as to where you have seen shields spikes enchanted separate from the shield.

You're the second person to ask that in this thread. Does the existence of their separate entries in the CRB not mean the same thing to you as it does for me?

I see them as two clearly distinct items. Separate, with their own cost, and their own weight.

I can't be wrong on that, right? It's just people not cracking open their Core book and looking for themselves, right?

Correct.

A Shield is a piece of equipment that can be enchanted as a Weapon as well, especially considering this clause:

Light and Heavy Shields wrote:
Used this way, a light or heavy shield is a martial bludgeoning weapon. For the purpose of penalties on attack rolls, treat a light shield as a light weapon and a heavy shield as a one-handed weapon. If you use your shield as a weapon, you lose its Armor Class bonus until your next turn. An enhancement bonus on a shield does not improve the effectiveness of a shield bash made with it, but the shield can be made into a magic weapon in its own right.

From this bolded clause, we gather that RAW, the Masterwork quality placed on the Shield does not grant it a +1 to hit, and there's no work-around to make it a Masterwork Weapon, since it is a Shield first, the bashing section saying you only treat it as a weapon for making attacks. It goes on to say, however, that regardless of this, a shield can be enchanted as if it were a weapon, and can become a magic weapon in addition to being a magic shield.

The item being enchanted must be of Masterwork quality; that's the only requirement. Is the Shield of Masterwork quality? Then it can be enchanted as either a weapon and/or a shield.

But take a good look at the Armor/Shields table. See where the Shield Spikes entry is located? It's listed as "extras," citing an additional gold cost and an additional weight value, meaning these values are applicable to a shield.

In addition, the Shield Spikes entry has this to say:

Shield Spikes wrote:

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

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.

The first bolded part tells us that, like the table above, the spikes are simply added onto the shield. I'm not sure about you, but to me, applying appendages (metal or otherwise) to a pre-created shapely figure is no easy task such as drawing or sheathing a weapon, and requires materials and labor, given in said table.

The second bolded part is the same clause as with any standard shield, but the difference is that the shield is spiked.

So yes, a standard shield and a spiked shield (both light and heavy) are indeed two separate items. However, I believe it is important to point out that one can't put on or take off spikes like the snap of fingers. It takes time, labor, money, materials, etc.


Do you know what type of DR he uses in comparison to the weapon type he is using, as that would greatly help narrow the answer down.


I'm not sure if it's relevant, but here's what it generally looks like. On a more related note, it does have a blade at the bottom...I'm guessing that's what you make attacks with?

If it's 6 pounds, I'd have to say it's about 2 of each; 2 lbs of shield, 2 pounds of spikes, and 2 pounds of stabby goodness, all rolled up into one.


Remy Balster wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

Again though, Fire Shield calls out for when you're making attacks against a creature while it's active, Wall of Fire calls out for when you're passing through its area of effect, in which case RAW would dictate it means the creature's space. If making attacks into squares that go into or beyond a Wall of Fire's effects count as passing through its area of effect, then I'll concede (and I'll agree that RAI it makes sense).

RAW says otherwise though.

How do you determine that bolded part?

For what it is worth, I'm genuinely asking how you make that determination. I really don't care about being right or wrong, and am trying to follow your logic.

How I make that conclusion is with the context of the ability. "creatures who are passing through" can mean multiple things in a literal sense, but in the game, it refers to a creature's square, since a creature isn't moving into the squares it's making attacks in. With that logic in mind, its square is never crossing into or through the area of effect that Wall of Fire is being placed on, and the proxy for which damage takes place is never triggered. The problem is, you don't believe that's the case (even though that's how the game is to be ran), and that's why we're having this kind of discussion.

Granted, common sense RAI would disagree, and if pressed I personally would agree that a Wall of Fire would damage a creature whom is reaching into a square that is beyond a Wall of Fire, assuming there is no other way around it through which the creature can attack without fear of harm (after all, if a creature is smart enough, it should ignore dangerous flames sprouting infront of it). And that's on top of the already fairly generous assumption that the Wall of Fire is opaque and grants Total Concealment from the creature making the attack into the square that may or may not contain the PC.

But RAW, that's how it runs. There are already effects that specify if a creature attacks you, and that effect even makes a claim that attacks made with a weapon that has the Reach property doesn't apply to that proxy. If that's the more sensible interpretation for it, go with it. It's not like I'm saying there's no other way, I'm just telling you how the book sells it.


Alexandros Satorum wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
The Heartseeker property can be applicable to unarmed attacks since it would allow her unarmed strikes to ignore concealment effects; the Courageous property has no elements applicable to unarmed attacks, and therefore would not be a property usable with AoMF.
That is totally unjustified, I do not even know what kind of argument it could be.

Slight Derail:
Not sure if you ignored it or glossed over it, but I already showed the argument:
Amulet of Mighty Fists wrote:
Alternatively, this amulet can grant melee weapon special abilities, so long as they can be applied to unarmed attacks.

I could be even more stupid about this and say that since you can't put weapon special abilities on unarmed strikes, you can't put any weapon special abilities on an AOMF, but I know better. The intent is that the property being placed has relevance to unarmed attacks.

How exactly does the Courageous property tie in to unarmed attacks? It enhances Morale Bonuses the character is affected by, as well as the Morale Bonus to Saves V.S. Fear, but both of these effects have nothing applicable to unarmed strikes.

Please keep on topic. If you want to debate what can and cannot go into an Amulet of Mighty Fists, make a thread for it. I'll be happy to talk about it, but not here.


Diego Rossi wrote:
I see a fair bit of people supporting the idea that wield mean wear when you speak of spiked gauntlets or armor spikes.

Wielding a weapon means it's drawn out and ready to attack with. In those cases, if the Spiked Gauntlets or Armor Spikes are equipped and the character can make attacks with it while it's in hand, barring abilities/effects that would prevent the character from making the attack (such as the Dazed condition), they are considered wielding the weapon.

A character with IUS is constantly wielding an Unarmed Strike, and they can't unequip it or break it or whatever. Abstracting from a Spiked Gauntlet to simply a Gauntlet, the Gauntlet weapon follows all of the rules for Unarmed Strike, aside that the default damage is Lethal instead of Non-Lethal (and the -4 penalty applies to Non-Lethal attacks). It also doesn't threaten like the Unarmed Strike does, unless the character has IUS. A Gauntlet can be enhanced like a weapon, but it still only improves Unarmed Strikes made with limbs that said gauntlet is applied to. (And before you ask, the reason why Monks don't simply use gauntlets is because the damage dice on a gauntlet replaces the damage dice Monks get with their damage dice feature.

Those weapons do not follow the same rules as your traditional Greatsword or Earthbreaker, because they are completely different types of weapons altogether. You're comparing apples to oranges, and don't get me started on the pineapples that are shields, because you can very well make a +X[AC] Bashing Courageous Shield, use its AC, and still receive its 'passive' benefits.

Now can we please stay back on topic as to what the Courageous Property and its capabilities are, instead of talking about Minmaxer theories that are irrelevant?


Simple question.

Let's say I have Wall of Fire. It has a duration of Concentration + X Rounds/level. If I cast it, and I quit concentrating on it, can I later concentrate on it to halt its duration expenditure each round (assuming it's still active) or can I no longer concentrate on it and just have to let it run its course?


fretgod99 wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
@ fretgod99: The Fire Shield analogy would make sense if it had the same area and proximity of Wall of Fire. It does not. In addition, the sentence only specifies "melee weapons with reach." If it meant melee weapons with the reach property, you would have a case; however, all Large-sized weapons have a reach of 10 feet, so a Large or larger creature would still not be affected, since say, a Large Club, is a melee weapon with reach.

That's not true. The Large Club does not have reach. The Large Creature wielding the Large Club has reach. We can get pedantic if we want and really parse the language: The spell calls out melee weapons with reach, not creatures with reach using melee weapons. Ultimately it turns on if you think "reach weapon" means something distinct from "weapon with reach".

Again though, my post wasn't meant to be determinative. I think there's an argument that could be made based off of Fire Shield, though it'd admittedly be a fairly weak one. I just thought it was an interesting point. Beyond that, as I noted, it can actually be argued either way (1. It's a relevant analogy and the logic should apply to Wall of Fire et al. as well; 2. Whether it's an apt analogy or not is irrelevant because Fire Shield specifically calls out these effects when the other spells to which you're trying to draw the analogy do not).

And in any event, this doesn't really provide any assistance in answering whether you could ready an attack to sunder the weapon of an opponent that attacks you if that opponent is outside of your threatened area.

I suppose you're right, since a creature's reach is determined by its size, not the weapon's size, and the Reach property on weapons simply alters it. Enlarge Person is proof of this. Very well, I'll concede that point.

Again though, Fire Shield calls out for when you're making attacks against a creature while it's active, Wall of Fire calls out for when you're passing through its area of effect, in which case RAW would dictate it means the creature's space. If making attacks into squares that go into or beyond a Wall of Fire's effects count as passing through its area of effect, then I'll concede (and I'll agree that RAI it makes sense).

RAW says otherwise though.


Thymus Vulgaris wrote:

I'm just saying that from what I've seen (and admittedly I started skimming the thread because I'm not really here to discuss balance issues) half the arguments kept going back to the barbarian and his furious courageous weapon being OP.

If you have a buffer in the party you probably wouldn't even bother with that ioun stone. When my party's monk wanted to upgrade her amulet of mighty fists, I suggested she went for courageous because I play a bard. She went for heartseeker instead because she figured ignoring concealment would be more handy than getting a simple +1 when I was already buffing her and everyone else in the party with +6 attack, +5 damage, +1d6 sonic most of the time.

*shrug*

Remember that AoMF property limitations:

Amulet of Mighty Fists wrote:
Alternatively, this amulet can grant melee weapon special abilities, so long as they can be applied to unarmed attacks.

The Heartseeker property can be applicable to unarmed attacks since it would allow her unarmed strikes to ignore concealment effects; the Courageous property has no elements applicable to unarmed attacks, and therefore would not be a property usable with AoMF.

Back on topic...

Remy is correct, the Furious property only enhances the base weapon's property, making it 2 higher than what it normally is while raging. Greater Magic Weapon only increases it to being a +X enhancement modifier, where X is dependant upon caster level.

@ Diego Rossi: Your math seems a little off. Having somebody spend 112,000 gold to double the effects of that ioun stone makes no sense, nor is it in line with what's already written for RAW in that matter:

Magic Item Creation wrote:

Multiple Similar Abilities: For items with multiple similar abilities that don't take up space on a character's body, use the following formula: Calculate the price of the single most costly ability, then add 75% of the value of the next most costly ability, plus 1/2 the value of any other abilities.

Multiple Different Abilities: Abilities such as an attack roll bonus or saving throw bonus and a spell-like function are not similar, and their values are simply added together to determine the cost. For items that take up a space on a character's body, each additional power not only has no discount but instead has a 50% increase in price.

So to clarify, there is only one conclusion here: since it's the same exact effect as before, you're only calculating 200% of the total value of the base effect (that is, doubling the original cost). Since it's a slotless item, there is no 50% increase to the additional power, as the 50% increase only applies to slotted items.

That being said, your calculations should be 56,000 gold, not the ridiculous 112,000.

In addition, it only amplifies the effects of Morale Bonuses being applied equivalent to half of the modifier, and it would require that effect (or an effect similar to it) for it to function. After all, if a character has no Morale Bonuses, the second part of the ability is useless. If you're not throwing in the pre-requisites (Rage spell/class feature, Bard/Wizard spells) and/or the costs for those pre-requisites (specific class/party members, specific items), of course it's going to seem overpowered, because you're cheating yourself out of things that are required in the first place to have it function.

**EDIT** Not to mention spending that kind of money in comparison to a PC's WBL means they're weaker in other areas. It's when you ignore the WBL guidelines that it becomes a problem, and that causes a lot more problems than a Barbarian who can rage better. What about a Wizard who has so high of DC's that creatures need 20 to succeed, and has literally zero chance to run out of spell slots? Much worse than a Barbarian who may or may not be slightly better at killing things.


Atarlost wrote:

Falchion to Nodachi is a whopping 0.65 average damage after crits. It's not worth retraining.

Dancing is an effect for people that won't be holding a weapon. It's not for you.

Considering he gets an increased damage dice that's easier to max out and scales better in the long run, count as both Slashing and Piercing for damage reduction purposes, and still retains the other great benefits of the Falchion, it only becomes not worthwhile if he invests in (Greater) Penetrating Strikes, since it reduces all damage reduction points by 10 (and DR/- by 5), and even that's debatable since upgrading to 2D8 or more via Impact property (and/or Enlarge Person) in comparison to at best 3D4 is a great bargain, even more so when he decides to get a Colossal-sized Dancing Falchion cleaving faces.

That's precisely why I didn't say for him to put the Dancing property on his main weapon, because he wouldn't be holding it, defeating the purpose of having a primary weapon. According to his claims, he cannot enhance his primary sword, though it scales with him (I smell 3.X's Weapons of Legacy at work), so he wants to spend money either on other items (it's probably a better solution at this point), or to make his secondary weapon (which used to be his primary weapon) more useful in combat.

Having a Dancing Secondary Weapon making full attacks using your base attack bonus and dealing decent damage while you make full attacks in conjunction makes for the best use of any secondary weapon, period. Is it going to be as strong as you swinging it yourself? No. But it's still increased DPR, and makes for great pre-combat "buffing," so to speak.


For the Nodachi, I'd refer you to the Retraining Rules from Ultimate Campaign, as it allows you to retrain all kinds of things into something more desirable. Assuming your GM will allow it, of course... For retraining a single feat, it costs 10 X number of days listed X level. Since you are 11th level, it will cost 550 gold and take 5 days to change out a single one of your feats. Also, don't forget that you can switch out Fighter Bonus feats every 4 levels, meaning the next time you level up, you can take one of the Falchion feats and switch it to a Nodachi feat, assuming you took Weapon Focus/Specialization feats with Fighter Bonus Feats.

You'll need Improved Iron Will for the Defiant's extra usage per day effect to work, since Improved Iron Will gives you the reroll. It's otherwise a very strong +2 property, since it also makes sure you don't drop weapons while stunned and such, and I believe it gives you a bonus on stabilize checks too...

Again, if you are going to make it a secondary weapon, give it the Dancing and Called properties, so you can technically use both that and your main weapon at the same time (or a bow).

A +4 property is difficult to save up for, if not simply obtain in the first place. If you were going to buy properties, I'd save up for the Dancing property first, since applying the Called property next makes it cost that much more to get the Dancing property later.


To be honest, you should be using the Nodachi if you can. It deals 1D10 damage, so it scales better. It has the same 18-20/X2 threat range, the Brace weapon property, and counts as both slashing and piercing damage.

Getting that off my chest, I would refer you to my Two-Handed Fighter guide; specifically, what are some great Secondary Weapon properties.

If you are going to be using the previously purchased Falchion as a back-up/secondary assisting weapon, the best thing you can do is put the Called and Dancing properties on it, and ramp its Enhancement Modifier up to +5 afterward, assuming you somehow can't enhance your primary Falchion anyway. On a surprise round, or before the first round of combat begins, loose the Dancing Weapon, and then proceed to combat. When you get into position to attack, it can make full attacks right away along with you, and if you're good enough, you can shoot enemies running away or pecking at your squishies while the Dancing Weapon cuts up some mooks infront of you. Though it only lasts a few rounds, it falls to the ground, allowing you to bring it back into your hands as a Swift Action, and loosing it again in that same round, making full attacks as soon as you loose it.

Buying elemental or elemental burst properties is a waste of money, considering many creatures by your level will have immunities/resistances to them, making them less worthwhile. In addition, there are more useful properties to buy, and for cheaper. The Courageous and Defiant weapon properties are great starters, and synergize with Improved Iron Will (assuming you've taken that feat, though I suggest you do, since you're a Fighter).


Ssalarn wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:


Har har har. But I'll compare prices:

+2 Strength belt, 4K.
+2 Constitution belt, 4K.
+2 Headband, 4K.

It's actually cheaper to buy stat items than it is the weapon, and that's including Strength/Con belt costs 10K.

However, it's not an either/or proposition. You can benefit from the listed items and the Courageous bonuses. When you start applying the cost differeneces to take those three items, combine them into one item, and then make them slotless, the equation starts changing a lot.

You've got (10,000 x 1.5) for the physical stats + (18,000 x 1.5) for the save x 1.5 for the ability to multiply additional abilities means that that combo is worth closer to 63,000 gp, or over a +5 enhancement bonus.

**EDIT** I'm actually probably shorting the formula as well. Since the tables only give estimates for ability bonuses of the enhancement type, we should probably be multiplying the 10k for the STR/CON bonuses by 2 instead of 1.5, which would actually put us at 70,500, just shy of +6 range.

I never said you couldn't, or that it wasn't. Of course they stack, because they are separate entities, but it's quite obvious you're overlooking the situation. There's a couple factors you're forgetting: PC Wealth, and other items.

PC WBL is only so much. In the lower levels, you're looking at a PC spending all of his money, tops, to get a +1 Furious Courageous weapon.

In addition, what about his armor? Or a shield? What about stat enhancing belts, useful potions, etc.? If he's sending all of his money to his weapon, he's either getting a little help from his party members covering his overexcession of funds (which, isn't wrong for a party to do, but isn't something one accounts for in WBL; the same is also true for a party member with a craft feat crafting items for their party members. But I am rambling.)

Or the more believable conclusion is that he's gimping himself in other areas, several of those areas, of which, cut off several accesses to this supposed "overpowered" status.

I'll also point out that by the time he gets an effective +4 weapon (minimum) for this to become a supposed "major problem," it will either still be a major cutoff for his funds, reducing his other item availability, or it will be at a point to where the encounter results are determined by the results of initiative with the min-maxing spellcasters, in which case the benefits of the Martial employing the Courageous Weapon of Doom and Sadness are pointless, since by the time Mr. Martial can accomplish something, Mr. Spellcaster would have already trivialized/beaten the encounter.

I mean come on, there are boots that allow you to always land on your feet for falling, take minimum fall damage, and negate difficult terrain penalties for movement. All for the cost of 3,500 gold (1,750 to craft). There are several low cost/great effect items out there, and the Courageous property is simply one of the fold. (After all, there are plenty of traps in this game already, with the Rogue/Fighter classes, the Vital Strike/Devastating Strike and Crane Style feat chains, and the horridness that is Prone Shooter, there's no reason to add more; Paizo does that for us already, why help them with it?)


Majuba wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
After all, what's the difference between a true warrior and a shallow-hearted fool? A true warrior fights to his last breath to eliminate the enemy, and is victorious in his conquest. The fool, on the other hand, thinks he is capable of defeating an enemy who is obviously stronger than he is, and gets slaughtered like cannon-fodder.

Those who feel a +1 weapon bonus can provide +3 Str, +3 Con, +3 Will, and an additional +3 Attack, +3 Damage, +3 Saves, +3 Checks in conjuction with a single spell (good hope) reminds me far more of the fool you describe than the true warrior.

Robert: +1, furious, courageous gives +2 Str/Con/Will (18k)

Har har har. But I'll compare prices:

+2 Strength belt, 4K.
+2 Constitution belt, 4K.
+2 Headband, 4K.

It's actually cheaper to buy stat items than it is the weapon, and that's including Strength/Con belt costs 10K.

In addition, it requires a +4/6 Enhancement Bonus weapon to reach +2/+3 to your benefits that you cite, something which is practically unheard of, and by the time you reach the endgame where it can apply, the bonuses aren't that big of a deal since combat is generally resolved in the first round (thank you Spellcasters for trivializing late game encounters far more than a +1 property that increases pre-combat buffs, in an encounter that ends before it begins).

I still don't see the complaint, when the time it gets "too good" is when it becomes pointless to have, and the time where it just comes online makes it at best slightly better than applying a +1 enhancement bonus to your weapon; and even that is subjective due to party/character composition.


Mojorat wrote:

This has nothing to do with martials having nice things. If it didn't have tht last line as soon as the party bard casts heroism or inspires courage your weapon would stop helping.

On the martials thing if it worked the way some people are insisting an amf with couragous on an amf woukd be the neck item for every pc I have.

Because it basically makee it the most cost efficient wonderous item for benefits in the game. It breaks muktiple game ruled badly.

Or it can add a small bonus to saves vs fear.

It does seem powerful, but look at this clause:

Amulet of Mighty Fists wrote:
Alternatively, this amulet can grant melee weapon special abilities, so long as they can be applied to unarmed attacks.

The Courageous property can not conceivably be applicable to unarmed attacks, so it is not eligible to put on it.

I would also ask that you go to the official FAQ thread I made regarding the Courageous property, as this thread is about discussing whether a weapon you aren't actively using (but drawn/worn and ready to use) grants you its benefits.


Claxon wrote:

I think it boils down like this:

If you were to ask a laymen to read the ability of the Courageous property they would likely read it as applying to all morale bonuses, not just bonuses to fear.

Once you understand how this can be taken advantage of by having strong knowledge of the rules of Pathfinder it is exploitable, particularly for barbarians. Because of this it seems better to interpret the statement as only applying to morale bonuses against fear. Especially when considering the cost. This interpretation would also relegate this weapon enhancement to uselessness (which isn't an argument for or against).

To be quite honest, having a bonus on Fear effects is silly anyway, since there are several ways to be immune to Fear effects, and having an effect that expands this when many martials get Fear immunity (I mean, it's practically a requirement, since Casters don't have to fear anything these days) makes the property a complete joke.

I'll expand a point I made on the previously-discussed thread: Being Courageous isn't just about having the nuts to do something, it's also about rising up to the challenge, and succeeding. It's not unreasonable to assume the property, which flavorfully calls out that it "fortifies morale," helps in both respects.

After all, what's the difference between a true warrior and a shallow-hearted fool? A true warrior fights to his last breath to eliminate the enemy, and is victorious in his conquest. The fool, on the other hand, thinks he is capable of defeating an enemy who is obviously stronger than he is, and gets slaughtered like cannon-fodder.

It's good to know the weapon helps you in being a shallow-hearted fool who's not afraid to throw his life away and accomplish nothing, instead of being a true warrior who rises to the challenge and slays the enemies who lay waste to him and his comrades. The former isn't courageous, it's just outright stupid.


Remy Balster wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Uh oh, I knew this was going to happen...I can answer the questions though.

Haha, yeah... I don't like unanswered questions. By RAW there doesn't seem to be one.

For example:

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
1. No; you only take damage if your space passes through the wall of fire. Since reach in this case is not a part of your space, it doesn't make the creature take damage, though at the same time the reacher does not have line of sight to the target; he may attempt to attack a square and hope to hit the creature, but the creature is, for all intents and purposes, granted Total Concealment from the attack, unless the creature can see directly through the opaque Wall of Fire with a spell such as True Seeing.

This seems like a reasonable assertion... but it assumes the answer, instead of answers the question.

Wall of Fire wrote:
In addition, the wall deals 2d6 points of fire damage + 1 point of fire damage per caster level (maximum +20) to any creature passing through it.

The spell simply states that any creature passing through it takes damage... it doesn't specify that it requires the space of the creature to move through it, simply any creature that passes through it.

Which is ultimately the question at hand.

Does a creature pass through it when it uses a natural reach attack? Is there even a RAW answer?

RAI, it makes sense to allow damage to be dealt in such as case, though only in cases of natural reach, and I wouldn't really condemn it. Most creatures with average intelligence would find a way around the wall instead of charging/attacking blindly into it, unless of course they had strong enough resistances and/or immunity.

RAW, the damage only applies when your space moves into/through the Wall of Fire, hence the terminology "creature passing through it." When making an attack a creature isn't moving into the squares which it can reach to carry out that attack, hence why the RAW would view it that way. I'm pretty certain if the game wanted to damage natural reachers as well, it would've included a clause for such a situation, but of course that is not the case. Now that I think about it, the game should make a discrepancy between natural reach attacks and reach weapon attackers.

@ fretgod99: The Fire Shield analogy would make sense if it had the same area and proximity of Wall of Fire. It does not. In addition, the sentence only specifies "melee weapons with reach." If it meant melee weapons with the reach property, you would have a case; however, all Large-sized weapons have a reach of 10 feet, so a Large or larger creature would still not be affected, since say, a Large Club, is a melee weapon with reach.


43 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite.

Self-explanatory title, created due to discussion from this thread here.

Several posters have argued this property and its capabilities. Here is the complete entry for reference.

Courageous wrote:

This special ability can only be added to a melee weapon.

A courageous weapon fortifies the wielder's courage and morale in battle. The wielder gains a morale bonus on saving throws against fear equal to the weapon's enhancement bonus. In addition, any morale bonus the wielder gains from any other source is increased by half the weapon's enhancement bonus (minimum 1).

(Emphasis Mine)

Although a couple things posters agree on are that it only works on melee weapons, and that it grants a morale bonus on saving throws against fear effects equal to the weapon's enhancement bonus. However, afterward, that is where the discrepancy lies; the bolded part has led some people to interpret that it only increases morale bonuses to saving throws, whereas others interpret it to mean any effect that grants a morale bonus.

Only one interpretation is correct. The real question is which one; to determine it, I found it best to make a thread and have it FAQ'd so the PDT (that is, Pathfinder Design Team) will clarify it.

For the purposes of the FAQ, I will phrase it thusly:

Courageous Weapon Property: Does the phrase 'any morale bonus the wielder gains from any other source' refer to saving throws only, or does it affect all kinds of morale bonuses?

Until they weigh in, this thread will serve as a host for discussion involving this predicament. Please hit the FAQ button on this post so it can get resolved!


Uh oh, I knew this was going to happen...I can answer the questions though.

1. No; you only take damage if your space passes through the wall of fire. Since reach in this case is not a part of your space, it doesn't make the creature take damage, though at the same time the reacher does not have line of sight to the target; he may attempt to attack a square and hope to hit the creature, but the creature is, for all intents and purposes, granted Total Concealment from the attack, unless the creature can see directly through the opaque Wall of Fire with a spell such as True Seeing.

2. RAW, the reacher can attack into the shield, assuming it is one of the types of creatures that is affected by the spell, though the best form of intent is to treat the reacher making an attack against a caster affected by Anti-Life Shell as not having line of effect, meaning he simply cannot make the attack because the square he's reaching into cannot be affected by his being, the same way a spell cannot affect the spaces of an Anti-Magic Field.

3. A creature makes attacks from their space, and the range of which the attacks the creature can make equates to their reach. In other words, unless you're affecting the space in which they occupy, you're not affecting the creature.


King of Vrock wrote:
Rage about martials not getting nice stuff all you want, you're still reading it out of context.

Not my fault you'd gimp your Martials so bad in your games.

You still haven't shown me the RAW that says the morale bonus from other sources increase only affects saves, and you never will, because it doesn't exist.

At this point, the thread is hijacked thanks to the Courageous property discrepancy, so I will make a thread specific to this.


King of Vrock wrote:

#1 the ability is called Courageous.

#2 The first sentance describing the effect in game mechanics says what it does. It gives the enhancement bonus of the weapon as a morale bonus to saves vs fear.
#3 The second sentance describing the game mechanics says "in addition" (referring to the first sentance) if you get another morale bonus to saves vs fear from another source that happens to be higher you get to add half the enhancement bonus of the weapon instead of having them overlap as is normal for stacking bonuses.

You are reading the second sentance of the ability out of context. Its a good, focused weapon ability when you focus on its theme; courage/fear.

It does not refer to the first sentence. Isn't "addition," something that, you know, add on to? As in the product does more than just the first part, it does the second part too?

Let's take a pencil. It has lead. It can write on paper. In addition, it has an eraser. What can you tell me about the pencil?

-It has lead.
-It can write on paper.
-It has an eraser.

Let's do the same thing with the Courageous property:

It fortifies the wielder's courage and morale in battle. It gives a morale bonus on saving throws against fear equal to the weapon's enhancement bonus. In addition, any morale bonus the wielder gains from any other source is increased by half the weapon's enhancement bonus. What can you tell me about the Courageous property?

-It fortifies the wielder's courage and morale in battle.
-It gives a morale bonus on saving throws against fear equal to the weapon's enhancement bonus.
-Any morale bonus the wielder gains from any other source is increased by half the weapon's enhancement bonus.

Being Courageous doesn't equate to simply being brave enough to go up and fight, it also involves being powerful enough to rise to the challenge, and succeed, the biggest difference between a true warrior and a blind fool.


King of Vrock wrote:
Wow, you really read that to give half the enhancement bonus of the weapon to ALL morale bonuses? The weapon property is called courageous, I think its pretty damn obvious that its sole purpose is to boost saves vs fear. It's only a +1 property afterall.

How else is there to read it? The first sentence says it fortifies courage and morale in battle; flavor text, not important. The second sentence says it gives its enhancement bonus on saves versus fear effects as a Morale Bonus. That's all we gather from this sentence.

The third sentence says it gives half of its enhancement bonus to any morale bonus the wielder gains from any other source.

That's the RAW of it. It's been shown so many times on this thread, I don't know how you miss it; or better yet, it just proves your ignorance. I mean, if you're this ridiculous when it comes to this property, imagine how stupid you would be when you come across players at your table who take Fate's Favored.

There's a bunch of low cost stuff that accomplishes a lot, and you're not comparing it to other +1 properties, or even the +1 Enhancement Bonus itself that the player could've otherwise gotten, and at the lower levels it's equal in power. By the time you're hitting +4 or higher Enhancement Bonus weapons, the increased powerscaling from that property won't make a huge difference, so I don't see the problem. It's like the Crane Wing feat all over again...

King of Vrock wrote:

No what its saying is if you get a morale bonus to saves vs fear that's higher than the one your weapon provides, you get half the weapon's enhancement bonus on TOP of the other morale bonus to saves vs fear.

So you could get both the bard's morale bonus from inspire courage and half your enhancement bonus, or the morale bonus from heroe's feast or the Fighter's bravery bonus and still get half your weapon on top of it.

Show me where in the RAW, or even a FAQ/Errata, that the bolded part exists. Until you can show me where it is, instead of imposing IT'S TOO GOOD, MARTIALS ARE HAVING NICE THINGS, WE NEED TO STEP IN AND RUIN IT SO MARTIALS CAN'T HAVE NICE THINGS, you'll just have to deal with the little powercreep that Martials (the ones that technically don't even need it) are getting. I mean, it's not like the NPCs and monsters can't use this property, right?

I'd also like to point out that the Fighter's Bravery feature is not a Morale Bonus, and therefore is not increased by a Courageous weapon. Are you sure you know the weapon special ability the way you claim to?


Compare what the Dragoon archetype says versus the Brawler archetype, and you'll notice a difference:

Dragoon (Spear Training) wrote:
At 5th level, a dragoon must select weapon training with the spear group. The dragoon’s weapon training bonus with spears improves by +1 on attack rolls and +2 on damage rolls for every four levels beyond 5th (to a maximum of +4 on attack rolls and +8 on damage rolls at 17th level).
Brawler (Close Combatant) wrote:
At 3rd level, a brawler gains a +1 bonus on attack rolls and a +3 bonus on damage rolls with weapons in the close weapon group. Both of these bonuses increase by +1 for every four levels beyond 3rd (to a maximum of +5 on attack rolls and +7 on damage rolls at 19th level).

The Spear Training calls out as functioning just like Weapon Training, being forced to select a specific group for the ability to function with, and calls out the benefits of the feature as a "weapon training bonus," subjects which are abstract in the Close Combatant ability, which instead cites a specific group to which a listed benefit is granted, and it doesn't call this benefit out as a "weapon training bonus".


James Risner wrote:
They write a rule that helps saves vs fear. They extend it to help all morale bonuses to saves (not just fear) and you read it to help all morale bonuses to everything under the sun without so much as any text to say so?

This bolded part makes no sense. FrodoOf9Fingers quoted the entire Courageous entry, and if you noticed, the "help all morale bonuses" is its own sentence, involving an entirely different subject, verb, predicate, etc. There is no "extension" involved. Although the words "In addition" may express that point, it's fairly obvious the intent is that following sentence is to be done in conjunction with the first point, hence its wording.

I'll also point out that the sentence you claim we are exaggerating upon makes zero mention of saving throws. How are we to extrapolate that it involves only saving throws when there is no language present to simulate that point? And you're the one saying we're exaggerating the ability's listed benefits? I suggest you check and see if you're a pot or not, because calling the kettle black so far isn't really doing you any favors.

@ Mojorat: It's only overpowered if you're dealing with Morale bonuses; for some characters, such as the Barbarian, or a group that has a Bard with Inspire Courage (which, ironically enough, has a noun similar to that of the property being used), this is going to be really good for a +1, but compare it to another +1 Weapon Enhancement; it normally gives +1 to Hit and Damage, and since it only increases based off of half of the weapon's Enhancement Bonus, in the lower levels it will increase by this same amount, and until you're reaching a +4 Enhancement weapon, it'll stay that way, which won't be for quite a while.

And remember, for others who don't have Morale Bonuses, this ability is crap. I sure wouldn't use it as a Fighter if I didn't have a Bard in my Party, especially if I have the Bravery feature (which sucks anyway, since everyone knows gaining Fear Immunity is a very common thing).

This property is about as fickle as, say, the Fate's Favored trait from UCamp; for characters who have little to no Luck Bonuses, it's crap. For those who have a lot, it's practically the best Trait in the game. It all depends on who your character is.

@HectorVivis: Wielding a weapon, as far as I'm concerned, means it's in hand and you're able to make attacks with it. In the case of the Spiked Gauntlet, it's worn and you're able to make attacks with it.

Certain abilities do require attack rolls to function (Guardian, Defending properties, for example), but they are listed exceptions to an otherwise general rule, since most people believed they didn't have to make attack rolls from these properties in order to get their benefits, while some people did, hence why there is a FAQ to clarify how those properties are supposed to be ran.


James Risner wrote:
Doomed Hero wrote:
Anzyr wrote:

I don't see why they can't just write the rules they intend to write.

+1

I'm sure they do write the rules they intend to write. We just read them in the best light possible. We read extra features, power, and benefits they didn't write.

If they closed all these routes off, the rule books would be double the page count.

If we can't or won't understand this fact, then we shouldn't complain when they tell us something written doesn't mean what we dreamed it meant.

Some rules are that simple, others aren't. This one is of the former, as evidenced by my proposed change.

Also, your bolded part makes no sense, especially considering how it actually is written, compared to how the rules were supposed to be intended. Take a good look at it for a moment:

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

As this is written, taken directly from the book as-is, it doesn't matter if the Morale Bonus goes only to Saves, because it affects any kind of Morale Bonus. It also doesn't matter what source the Morale Bonus comes from (as long as it's not the Morale Bonus to Saves V.S. Fear granted from the weapon), if it's a Morale Bonus, it's increased. No questions asked. How would anyone in their right mind interpret it to mean any other thing; just because they're skeptical? I'm skeptical of Rogues and Fighters even being important in the game, as well as many other people, but nonetheless, they're in the game.

The intent change, as I've shown, is quite easy to implement, and hardly changes the wording size of the entry in question. So why is it not FAQ'd or Errata'd to accommodate the desired effect, if it is really that big of a deal?


+X is the mechanic effect of the enchantment applied to the weapon, the Wizard wouldn't say something like that, because the mere act of hitting in the real world isn't quantified by a +1 to hit and damage.

As far as its flavor is concerned, it depends on the weapon; an enchanted bow with an enhancement bonus makes the wielder's shots more accurate and deadly, whereas an enchanted sword with an enhancement bonus imbues the magic stored into its attacks, making it capable of penetrating the thickest of armor, as well as being able to damage those whose skins are as tough as nails. You can spin it any way you want; at the end of the day though, you're imparting that it's supposed to be something awesome and cool, but it's still just a +1 weapon.


A +1 bonus to AC while wearing armor isn't a bad way to spend a trait, though there are better ones available to you. Reactionary and Indomitable Faith are the 2 best general choice traits in the game, and can do so much more than what a mere +1 AC ever could.

A mundane effect and a magical effect stacking to me makes sense, though regardless of that JJ still says they aren't intended to stack like that. Just a word of caution, really, since some PFS GMs can be real jerks when it comes to that.

It is an attachment you can give to the shield, though doing so does make it an Exotic weapon. If you went Half Elf, you can get an Exotic Weapon Proficiency bonus feat with exchanging the Skill Focus bonus feat for it, and you can have 2 favored classes, so it is something to consider. You can also make it a Quickdraw Shield, able to be drawn and donned as a Swift Action, I believe.

Yes, it would, but if you put it on a second weapon like a Cestus (which, as far as I know, you wouldn't be able to Two-Hand the Shield, or if you could, it would be with penalties), it will cost you a lot more money, since you have to enhance it as a weapon, in addition to the costs of enhancing your shield as an armor, plus the Bashing property.


I've decided to make a threadshowing what it commonly looks/sounds like for players having problems, or how it is gaming with other players. Sure, I may know a couple, but I'm sure several other people from the community can give equally solid (if not more solid) examples.

I understand that most D&D/Pathfinder gamers are older/mature folks, or even younger players, but I do ask that we keep it clean (that is, safe for work, and/or acceptable to be posted here).

I'll start with a common verbal one: Players arguing over loot.

And a common visual one: Min-Maxers telling people how to play.

Alright Pathfinder community, dazzle me!


James Risner wrote:
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
The 'any other morale bonus' referred to in clause two cannot be a bonus to fear saves. It must be any morale bonus other than a bonus to fear saves....like the bonuses to Str and Con from Rage.

I get the whole "until it hits a FAQ or Errata I didn't hear it" concept. I do.

But it has been clarified to only refer to saves:
Herolab got a reply from Paizo

It doesn't really make sense to say it that way, and their example is very poor, especially considering it doesn't apply. As far as I'm concerned, the intent behind it still isn't very clear, nor is it really acceptable. (Yes, I'm saying this because it's yet another nice thing martials have that Paizo is taking away.)

For the Fighter's Bravery feature to be applicable, it must be a Morale Bonus. Since it is not, it doesn't apply in the example. If it were to apply, it would have to include modifiers outside of Morale, which the RAW does not specify, nor does it specify that it only affects Saves V.S. Fear.

To that end, an Errata is required, and here's how it should be written to get their proper intent across:

Courageous wrote:
A courageous weapon fortifies the wielder's bravery and morale in battle. The wielder gains a morale bonus on saving throws against fear effects equal to the weapon's enhancement bonus. In addition, any other bonus on saving throws against fear effects is increased by half the weapon's enhancement bonus (minimum 1).

Keep in mind that I believe simply not allowing it to affect all other Morale Bonuses, even though the weapon is supposed to, according to RAW, fortify the wielder's morale, goes against the entire point of it being an increase to your Morale, meaning you simply do better at everything. If it's not designed to increase other Morale bonuses, then don't say it's designed to increase Morale. That's like saying there's an effect that makes you more perceptive about people, and it instead grants you a bonus on Knowledge (Local) checks in place of say, Perception or Sense Motive. False advertising is a lot of the reason why we have these quibbles, and the factor we're not getting what we're told to be getting is a farce on its own, and is precisely why people are up in arms about this supposed change.


Correct. Slayer gives 4 per level, having a 7 Intelligence reduces this to 2; adding in Human makes it 3 per level. You'll always have a minimum of 2 per level, regardless of what class you take.

RAW, you would be right in that the Bashing makes it serve as a +1 Weapon for bashing, though since a +1 Weapon would otherwise function as useless when not making attacks (since a +1[AC] Bashing Shield already has a +1 Enhancement for hit points and hardness), the intent behind it is to treat it as a +1 Weapon for weapon special abilities as well. Outside that, increasing the damage dice as if it were 2 sizes larger is a nice feature.

Remember that the Spikes on a shield increase damage dice as if it were 1 size larger, and by RAW it wouldn't stack with the Bashing property in this regard. James Jacobs, Paizo's Creative Director, also says that the stacking of these abilities is not intended in Pathfinder. though the 3.5 FAQ says they do, which is why I suggest you ask the GM as to how they would run it.

To be honest, a Heavy Shield already gives a lot of AC, a total of +7 when it's fully enhanced, and that's not including Shield Focus, or Greater Shield Focus, not to mention adding its base benefits to your CMD via Shield Specialization (4th level Fighter). With a dip in Fighter, you get full proficiencies, meaning Mithril Full Plate/Tatami-Do is good to go, and you keep the Shield's AC when you make Shield Bashes; wearing a Defending Cestus may not be a bad idea, though by that point you might as well just put the Defending property on the shield you're using and grant yourself a total of 12 AC from that Shield, with the Shield still making attacks as a +1 Weapon (thanks to the Bashing property).

I'd also consider taking a Throwing Heavy Shield for ranged combat if you don't want to resort to using Bows like every other joe has to.

Unfortunately yes, you can only 5 foot when making a Full Attack unless you have an ability that allows you to make a movement action for free or something; there is such a thing, but it's banned in PFS. (If I am correct though, there is a Barbarian Rage Power called No Escape that can accomplish this via Attacks of Opportunity, and works perfectly with Combat Reflexes.)


@ Rapanuii:

Remember you still get a minimum of one skill point per level from your class; your Human skill points aren't affected when you dump, meaning you get a minimum of 2, 3 from Slayer levels, meaning ~1.67 skill points per level, which should be plenty if you're just going to be a damaging martial.

When you get Shield Master, remember that your Armor enhancements to your shield count as Weapon enhancements as well; in addition, the Bashing property considers the shield as a +1 Weapon when you bash, meaning you can fit any weapon properties on there when you have a +5(AC) Bashing Heavy Shield. This also means you shouldn't get any Weapon Enhancements (that is, +1 to hit and damage enhancements), since Shield Master will cover this base for you.

I'd also note that Shield Spikes and the Bashing property won't stack; Bashing increases by 2 sizes. (I'll also tell you that the Impact property won't work either, since it's the same effect.) That being said, being able to swap between Piercing and Bludgeoning damage between fights, or inbetween rounds, is still useful for overcoming DR in the early levels.

I'd try to enhance your shield's AC bonus to the maximum first, since a +5 Shield with Shield Master will allow you to overcome all forms of DR besides DR/-. Plus an extra 5 to hit and damage is pretty nice...


Mojorat wrote:

Heres the thing, When you wield a weapon you threaten with it (thats the simplest definition i can use) When the PC is wielding the glaive the spiked gauntlets do not threaten, ergo he is not wielding them.

Or how about this as a distinction. He is wearing gloves with spikes on them and the spikes are enchanted. He is not wearing a wonderous item that provides its bonuses all the time.

Basically if hes wielding the glaive the gauntlets do not function unless he is using them.

However, i agree no attack roll is required.

Sorry a better analogy came up. When he attcks witht he glaive (and i do not mean holds it but is actually trying to kill something with it) how can he recieve the benefits of the spiked gauntlets.

Straight out as far as the game rules are concerned he cannot wield two weapons in the same attack roll short of a special power.

But Gauntlets aren't like any typical weapons, where they are held in hand and stuck with like a standard object. They're designed to fit the pattern of a hand, and worn. Every other sort of weapon doesn't work that way, shields especially.

As far as I know, you can remove spikes from Armor or a Shield, but not a Gauntlet. If it's a Spiked Gauntlet, it's a spiked gauntlet, no questions asked. Regular Gauntlet costs 2 GP, Spiked Gauntlet costs 5 GP. Most removable/additional subjects have a special or +X GP, whereas these Gauntlets do not have that distinction.

Even so, he's still wearing the gauntlet, and he can still use the gauntlet to make attacks; he doesn't have to threaten to wield a weapon. By this logic, a person who is grappled can't ever be considered wielding a weapon because they do not threaten when grappled. I could even then argue that since it's a gauntlet that fits his hands, and not a weapon that he holds in his hands, its effects would take place regardless of that matter.


King of Vrock wrote:

Only the furious ability could be used when not making attacks because it specifically states how it works for skills affected by rage powers, but that's an example of the specific trumping general rule.

With courageous he still needs to make an attack with the weapon to gain the bonuses.

I want to bold this part, as according to your interpretation, only those skills are affected while raging, and nothing else. If he's not making attacks, his weapon actually functions as 2 enhancement bonus less, meaning it's actually even less durable when he's not swinging away. It doesn't really make much sense to require attack rolls for these effects to work, since they are predicated on him raging, not on him making attacks.

And on what grounds are attack rolls required for the Courageous property, other than your fear of martials actually having nice things for a change? It's not like the Defending property, where he has to allocate enhancement bonuses for the round, or that the effects take place only when he uses the weapon (to attack).

Let's take another property. Just about any property would do. What about the Defiant property in comparison to, say, the Guardian property?

Defiant wrote:
This special ability can only be placed on melee weapons. A defiant weapon helps its wielder stay alive in desperate conditions. It stays in its wielder's hand even if she is panicked, stunned, or unconscious. She adds the weapon's enhancement bonus as a bonus on checks to stabilize when dying and on saving throws to end ongoing conditions such as disease, poison, and hold person. If the wielder possesses Heroic Defiance, Heroic Recovery, Improved Great Fortitude, Improved Iron Will, or Improved Lightning Reflexes, she gains a number of additional daily uses equal to the weapon's enhancement bonus that can be used on any of these feats.
Guardian wrote:
This special ability can only be placed on melee weapons. A guardian weapon allows the wielder to transfer some or all of the weapon's enhancement bonus to his saving throws as a bonus that stacks with all others. As a free action, the wielder chooses how to allocate the weapon's enhancement bonus at the start of his turn before using the weapon. The bonus on saving throws lasts until his next turn. Only the weapon's own enhancement bonus can be sacrificed, not any enhancement bonus provided by other effects such as a greater magic weapon spell. However, the total of such effects is still diminished by the amount allocated to improving saving throws.

Notice the bolded part for the Guardian property, and how it has that same exact language for the Defending property. This phrase is clarified in the FAQ, meaning using a weapon requires attack rolls to be made. It's also important that I point out that the properties we are discussing about do not have that clause, ergo there is no attack roll requirements for utilizing their benefits.


Depending on if you have a need for skill points will determine if you can dump Intelligence and increase your Strength to an 18. After all, if you're a Slayer for 6 levels, you have 4 skills per level, followed by 2 skills per level from Fighter. With the -2, it'd be 1.5 skills per level, which you can skate by since the only thing a character absolutely has to have is Perception. And for a melee, you don't need much else besides maybe Climb/Swim in the lower levels, and Slayer skills cover that, not to mention being Human and stuff can help. If you need some more points, lowering Constitution is your best bet, since losing an AC means you take a hit's worth of damage, versus the 1 HP per level.

I'd honestly drop having 6 Fighter levels; yes, the 4 bonus feats and the Weapon Training could be nice, though at the same time you might want levels in, say, Invulnerable (Urban) Barbarian instead, since the increases in Strength and/or Constitution (or Dexterity) are a lot better to invest in. Not to mention some great rage powers help out a lot in being able to ragecycle (which being Human becomes very awesome in).

Also, take a look at what the Bashing property says in comparison to what Shield Spikes says. Whether they are intended to stack is hard to say, by rights they both increase the size as if they were X categories larger, though there has been evidence in 3.X that has allowed these effects to stack. I'd talk to your GM about how he would run this before you get into it. At worst, you'll simply just also be able to deal both Bludgeoning and Piercing damage with 2 damage dice larger.


I'd like to add that the Defending property is not much of an honest, RAW precedent, given that there had to be a FAQ written to convey the proper intent of the ability. There are similar abilities with the same exact language, and these same abilities have the same flaw as the Defending property's RAW. The Defending property is a poor example to use for a precedent rule because of this.

In addition, I'd like to point out that the FAQ refers specifically to the Defending property requiring making attacks; not all properties are required to make attack rolls to function, and given the associated properties have little to no similarities with the Defending property, it's not in the rules to restrict it.

That being said, let's take a look at the properties themselves and see what they have to say:

Courageous wrote:

This special ability can only be added to a melee weapon.

A courageous weapon fortifies the wielder's courage and morale in battle. The wielder gains a morale bonus on saving throws against fear equal to the weapon's enhancement bonus. In addition, any morale bonus the wielder gains from any other source is increased by half the weapon's enhancement bonus (minimum 1).

As far as I can tell, the Courageous property doesn't have any language to support requiring attack rolls to function. As long as it's wielded (for the case of the Spiked Gauntlet, if it's equipped onto his hand), it grants the listed benefit. No attack rolls are required to add these benefits, meaning they should still function regardless.

Furious wrote:

This special ability can only be placed on melee weapons.

A furious weapon serves as a focus for its wielder's anger. When the wielder is raging or under the effect of a rage spell, the weapon's enhancement bonus is +2 better than normal. If the wielder has a rage power that gives a skill bonus while raging (such as raging climber, raging leaper, or raging swimmer), the wielder gains an enhancement bonus to that skill whenever the weapon is wielded or held in her hand, even when she is not raging. This bonus is equal to the enhancement bonus of the weapon (and also includes the +2 if the wielder is raging.)

Again, no attack rolls required here. The only requisite for this ability to function is if it's A. placed on a melee weapon, B. the melee weapon is equipped and being wielded, and C. the wielder is raging (or under the effects of rage). Is a Spiked Gauntlet a melee weapon? Yes. It is equipped and being wielded (in this case, worn)? Yes. Is the wielder (or can the wielder start) raging? Yes. Ergo, this property works.

So by the RAW, your combination of properties works, and feel free to use it.

That being said, a lot of people are going to call it cheese, dismiss it as a method of metagaming/cheating the system, and ban you from their games for trying to make a semi-useless item only good for martial characters into something valuable, freeing up space for your main weapon, because it's not a spellcaster, or something usable by a spellcaster, the only nice things allowed in Pathfinder.

1 to 50 of 1,948 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

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