Tels |
James Risner wrote:Rynjin wrote:I don't like it. =(Many won't like it, but it is something that has has a lot of people on both sides. It does shut down my INA + Strong Jaw Druid. But I'm on board with I was running the rules incorrectly to this point.This isn't one I necessarily disagree with, but it does make me kinda sad.
I wanted to swing 6d8 punches or whatever.
Shouldn't affect INA though, should it? It increases the die by 1 step, not increases the size, technically.
Unfortunately, it does.
Size increases and effective size increases: How does damage work if I have various effects that change my actual size, my effective size, and my damage dice?
As per the rules on size changes, size changes do not stack, so if you have multiple size changing effects (for instance an effect that increases your size by one step and another that increases your size by two steps), only the largest applies. The same is true of effective size increases (which includes “deal damage as if they were one size category larger than they actually are,” “your damage die type increases by one step,” and similar language). They don’t stack with each other, just take the biggest one. However, you can have one of each and they do work together (for example, enlarge person increasing your actual size to Large and a bashing shield increasing your shield’s effective size by two steps, for a total of 2d6 damage).
It specifically mentions language that says it increases by 1 step, even if it doesn't call out size.
Tels |
3 people marked this as a favorite. |
What I would like to see, is, ultimately, dice progression split into three categories: Physical changes, Effective changes, and Base Increases.
Monk/Warpriest/Brawler and effects like Improved Natural Attack would be base damage die increases. These effects are permanent, can't be taken back. The increase the actual damage die of the weapon and are not artifial applications.
Enlarge Person, Polymorph, XXXX Form spells etc, would all be Physical changes. They change the size of the creature, physically making them larger.
Lead Blades, Animal Aspect, Strong Jaw, these all changes the Effective size of the creature. No physical change actually occurs, but the damage die still progresses.
I would like to see a full list of abilities that interact with damage die progression and see them all classified under a chart so people can easily reference it. I would, hopefully, like to see something like the Spiked shield errat'd so it falls under a Base Increase, and Bashing falling under an Effective increase so that a Shield user still sees some benefit of spells like Enlarge Person.
Nefreet |
blackbloodtroll wrote:I want to know, specifically, if this effects Spiked Shields.
Especially, Bashing Spiked Shields.
I feel I should repeat:
I really want this to be specifically addressed.
+1
I'm really going to be surprised if shield spikes don't stack with Lead Blades.
They don't, as pointed out a few posts above.
N N 959 |
While I can see why two spells wouldn't stack, there's no IC logical reason why shield spikes wouldn't be affected by Lead Blades. The spikes are physical devices which cause the shield to do more damage and LB increases the mass and density of the entire shield and spikes. As someone posted earlier, I would appreciate the PDT addressing this specifically.
I've never seen a GM deny the combination of spikes and LB or even begin to think they wouldn't work together.
N N 959 |
I don't have a problem with things like Bashing and Lead Blades not stacking from a rules perspective. But something like LB working on Spiked Armor (because the damage is an actual die) but not on a Spiked Shield (because it's described as a relative increase) should be re-examined.
What I don't like about this FAQ is that the basis for the non-stacking is the OOC mechanic as opposed to the IC source. I explained this in an earlier post, it's like saying anything that adds a positive to your attack don't stack, but things that subtract from your opponents AC stack.
claudekennilol |
Many of the Pregens have errors.
Lem has a potion of Expeditious Retreat. Amiri has 2 Traits from the same category.
I'm sure the authors appreciate your view of them as being infallible, but they're just as human (and prone to errors) as you or I.
That's not my point, my point is that there is already printed material relying on the lack of a rule that this just contradicted. It wasn't wrong or a misprint before whereas now it is. There was also a lot more proofreading that went into into the ACG pregens than the original pregens (that also haven't been updated to "today's" standards).
Overall, I agree with this new FAQ, I just feel that INA is somehow different than everything else this is addressing and should simply modify the creature's base attack die instead of being treated as "a size-increasing effect".
Rynjin |
That's an opinion that obviously divided the community.
I was equally as opposed to the idea that they stacked as others were in support of it.
I even remember a PFS player who basically quit because he couldn't have it his way.
It's truly fascinating.
I don't see how anyone can disagree that it doesn't make sense. "This magical effect cannot change the damage of these spikes because...reasons".
Whether you like it or not is a different matter.
Nefreet |
I don't see why Shield Spikes and Bashing, stacking, makes sense.
It's not a matter of liking it.
Spikes make the shield a piercing weapon, and by doing so, a more effective weapon.
Bashing makes the shield into a better *bashing* weapon.
Impact, if anything, makes more sense to enchant on a Spiked Shield.
And by then you'd have the same damage increase as Bashing anyways.
Rynjin |
I don't see why Shield Spikes and Bashing, stacking, makes sense.
It's not a matter of liking it.
Spikes make the shield a piercing weapon, and by doing so, a more effective weapon.
Bashing makes the shield into a better *bashing* weapon.
Impact, if anything, makes more sense to enchant on a Spiked Shield.
And by then you'd have the same damage increase as Bashing anyways.
And it makes the shield bash harder, which pushes the spikes in deeper.
N N 959 |
I don't see why Shield Spikes and Bashing, stacking, makes sense.
It's not a matter of liking it.
Spikes make the shield a piercing weapon, and by doing so, a more effective weapon.
Bashing makes the shield into a better *bashing* weapon.
Impact, if anything, makes more sense to enchant on a Spiked Shield.
And by then you'd have the same damage increase as Bashing anyways.
I think the the whole FAQ needs to be reexamined. I'm going to reiterate what I've said two times now, historically, things didn't stack for reasons that characters were aware of IC e.g. two divine bonuses don't stack, but a competence bonus and a luck bonus both stack. Intuitively, two clerics know that their Blesses are divine bonuses and wont stack. Intuitively, the bard knows that her song is a a competence bonus and won't stack with another bard song, but will stack with a Bless. And how would characters know IC, that Lead Blades and Bashing won't stack?
This FAQ says things don't stack for OOC reasons. A character has no concept that shield spikes increase the damage by making it an "effectively" larger weapon any more than they know armor spikes are doing 1d6. Yes LB works on armor spikes and not shield spikes? As Rynjin suggests, there's no in-game logic to make sense of this because the FAQ focuses on OOC wording...not the nature/source of the benefit.
If you have two shields and they both have Lead Blades on them. Why would the one with spikes not do more damage? The FAQS should seek to reduce the conceptual disjunction, not increase them.
As someone else suggested, at the least, they need to create a third category for physical things that increase damage and make that stack with actual increase and magical increase. This gives Paizo more flexibility in the future.
claudekennilol |
Nefreet wrote:I don't see why Shield Spikes and Bashing, stacking, makes sense.
It's not a matter of liking it.
Spikes make the shield a piercing weapon, and by doing so, a more effective weapon.
Bashing makes the shield into a better *bashing* weapon.
Impact, if anything, makes more sense to enchant on a Spiked Shield.
And by then you'd have the same damage increase as Bashing anyways.
I think the the whole FAQ needs to be reexamined. I'm going to reiterate what I've said two times now, historically, things didn't stack for reasons that characters were aware of IC e.g. two divine bonuses don't stack, but a competence bonus and a luck bonus both stack. Intuitively, two clerics know that their Blesses are divine bonuses and wont stack. Intuitively, the bard knows that her song is a a competence bonus and won't stack with another bard song, but will stack with a Bless. And how would characters know IC, that Lead Blades and Bashing won't stack?
This FAQ says things don't stack for OOC reasons. A character has no concept that shield spikes increase the damage by making it an "effectively" larger weapon any more than they know armor spikes are doing 1d6. Yes LB works on armor spikes and not shield spikes? As Rynjin suggests, there's no in-game logic to make sense of this because the FAQ focuses on OOC wording...not the nature/source of the benefit.
If you have two shields and they both have Lead Blades on them. Why would the one with spikes not do more damage? The FAQS should seek to reduce the conceptual disjunction, not increase them.As someone else suggested, at the least, they need to create a third category for physical things that increase damage and make that stack with actual increase and magical increase. This gives Paizo more flexibility in the future.
Exactly, there's no reason at all for a spell that makes things hit harder to not work on a shield spike.
chbgraphicarts |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
FAQ:
FAQ wrote:Size increases and effective size increases: How does damage work if I have various effects that change my actual size, my effective size, and my damage dice?
As per the rules on size changes, size changes do not stack, so if you have multiple size changing effects (for instance an effect that increases your size by one step and another that increases your size by two steps), only the largest applies. The same is true of effective size increases (which includes “deal damage as if they were one size category larger than they actually are,” “your damage die type increases by one step,” and similar language). They don’t stack with each other, just take the biggest one. However, you can have one of each and they do work together (for example, enlarge person increasing your actual size to Large and a bashing shield increasing your shield’s effective size by two steps, for a total of 2d6 damage).
Just putting it out there, that this is how my group and I have always ruled it. Nice to see that there's official clarification, though.
Nefreet |
Nefreet wrote:Because they ARE different and doing different thing?To what end?
If Shield Spikes get a pass, then why not Improved Natural Attack?
Why not Eidolon Evolutions?
It's really simplest to lump everything together, under one FAQ.
I don't see this difference.
Can you elaborate?
They seem to be using the same language, and have the same effect.
Increasing damage as if X size categories larger.
Rynjin |
To what end?
If Shield Spikes get a pass, then why not Improved Natural Attack?
Why not Eidolon Evolutions?
It's really simplest to lump everything together, under one FAQ.
The simplest solution is not always the BEST soution.
WHat would have been much better is making a clear distinction between how:
-Magical actual size increases (EX Enlarge Person and Animal Growth)
-Magical effective size increases (Ex. Lead Blades and Strong Jaw)
-Non-magical dice increases (Ex. Improved Natural Attack)
-Non-magical effective size increases (Bashing shields)
All interact with each other.
As-is the intuitive way for all this to work would be all three of these stacking...there's no real logic to them not. They're not a bonus, and all three are from different sources that do slightly different things.
Enlarge Person increases your size, Strong Jaw increases your effective size, and Improved Natural Attack increases the size of your DICE.
Logically, from both a mechanical perspective and an IC one, these things are three separate bonuses that apply to three separate, slightly different things, and thus should stack just as a Morale bonus to attack should stack with a Competence, Insight, Sacred, or whatever else bonus to attack.
Saying "The latter three are all the same thing" may be the simplest answer, but it is not the BEST answer that makes the most sense any way you slice it.
N N 959 |
graystone wrote:Nefreet wrote:Because they ARE different and doing different thing?To what end?
If Shield Spikes get a pass, then why not Improved Natural Attack?
Why not Eidolon Evolutions?
It's really simplest to lump everything together, under one FAQ.
I don't see this difference.
Can you elaborate?
They seem to be using the same language, and have the same effect.
Increasing damage as if X size categories larger.
To repeat myself, "as if the actual weapon were one size larger" or any permutation of that is a meta-concept. Lead Blades explicitly says it increase density and mass. The OOC way we handle that is to use the next bigger game die, but that is meta-data. There's no such thing as a game-die to the IC game world.
Again, it's like saying anything that improves your attack by +1 doesn't stack with other things that increase your attack by +1. The game doesn't do that because the type of the bonus determines the stacking, not the benefit.
Here, the devs are targeting the meta-data mechanic. It's like saying anything that uses a d8 doesn't stack. What? How does that make sense in-game?
I get why they did this. They don't want these benefits stacking up to the roof and they don't want to go back and type all the bonuses like they've done with straight modifiers or change the nature of the benefit e.g. give shield spikes an actual damage die like armor spikes. I also think the language of some of these benefits makes it problematic even if they did spikes.
But I'm not sure how you can legitimately say you think armor spikes should benefit from a buff, but not shield spikes?
N N 959 |
I'm for the change. I like that it is simple, as complex things slow games down. Especially when there are "it works for this thing but not this identical thing" like some want with Spiked Shield etc.
I wish everyone could get on board and quit rocking the boat. ;-)
Inconsistency in game logic and how rules are applied actually causes more problems than simplified rules, especially when the simplified rules result in contradictory and counter-intuitive outcomes.
Nefreet |
We're just seeing this through different paradigms, then.
I see no problem with this FAQ, and it's how I've always run things already (as others have stated).
You say they're 3 different "things", I say they're the same.
You say it's not equivalent to bonus types, and I see a similarity.
Since we're both stating the same arguments, I don't think this discussion can go any further.
Edit: Ninja'd by a few comments.
N N 959 |
We're just seeing this through different paradigms, then.
I see no problem with this FAQ, and it's how I've always run things already (as others have stated).
You say they're 3 different "things", I say they're the same.
You say it's not equivalent to bonus types, and I see a similarity.
Since we're both stating the same arguments, I don't think this discussion can go any further.
Please give some rationale about how a spell that increases mass and density works on armor spikes but not shield spikes (especially since you'll be swinging the shield spikes and not the armor)?
Nefreet |
To repeat myself, "as if the actual weapon were one size larger" or any permutation of that is a meta-concept. Lead Blades explicitly says it increase density and mass. The OOC way we handle that is to use the next bigger game die, but that is meta-data. There's no such thing as a game-die to the IC game world.
"Bonus types" are also meta.
Nefreet |
Nefreet wrote:Please give some rationale about how a spell that increases mass and density works on armor spikes but not shield spikes (especially since you'll be swinging the shield spikes and not the armor)?We're just seeing this through different paradigms, then.
I see no problem with this FAQ, and it's how I've always run things already (as others have stated).
You say they're 3 different "things", I say they're the same.
You say it's not equivalent to bonus types, and I see a similarity.
Since we're both stating the same arguments, I don't think this discussion can go any further.
I did that exact thing earlier in this thread, actually.
N N 959 |
Divine, competence, insight, luck... are not meta. They are labels for the in-game phenomenon. The characters can fathom that they are getting benefiting from something divine, getting lucky, have more insight, feel more competent.
A caster has no concept that Lead Blades makes the weapon act as if the damage die were one larger. What the caster notes is the density and mass increase. Why would that not work on shield spikes if it works on armor spikes?
N N 959 |
N N 959 wrote:I did that exact thing earlier in this thread, actually.Nefreet wrote:Please give some rationale about how a spell that increases mass and density works on armor spikes but not shield spikes (especially since you'll be swinging the shield spikes and not the armor)?We're just seeing this through different paradigms, then.
I see no problem with this FAQ, and it's how I've always run things already (as others have stated).
You say they're 3 different "things", I say they're the same.
You say it's not equivalent to bonus types, and I see a similarity.
Since we're both stating the same arguments, I don't think this discussion can go any further.
Link?
Rynjin |
Just a few posts up, really.
But that rationale doesn't really make any sense.
Bashing makes the shield bash harder.
Spikes make the shield spikier (thus making it deal more damage).
Together you are driving spikes into someone with greater force than normal, resulting in more damage.
Would you rather be stabbed in the head with a thumbtack, or have a chisel driven by a hammer whacked into your skull? Because that's essentially what Bashing and Spikes adds up to.
N N 959 |
I don't see why Shield Spikes and Bashing, stacking, makes sense.
It's not a matter of liking it.
Spikes make the shield a piercing weapon, and by doing so, a more effective weapon.
Bashing makes the shield into a better *bashing* weapon.
Impact, if anything, makes more sense to enchant on a Spiked Shield.
And by then you'd have the same damage increase as Bashing anyways.
This did not answer my question at all. In fact, when you said this:
Impact, if anything, makes more sense to enchant on a Spiked Shield.
You're actually agreeing with me. Lead Blades and Impact are essentially the same thing.
For the record, I have not been debating whether Bashing stacks with shield spikes, but logically, I don't see how/why it wouldn't. I'm bashing you with a shield. Now I'm bashing you with something that has iron spikes on it. How does that not cause more damage?
Let's take a step back and clarify what this discussion is about, at least for me. I am not bothered with the fact that LB, Impact, Bashing, Shillelagh, etc, don't stack with one another. While I think the switch to a meta-game rationale is a mistake, my objections would be withdrawn if the PDT actually typed out the bonuses and it had the same result. But this just saves them time.
My problem is the contradiction of armor spikes working and not shield spikes simple because of how shield spike damage was implemented OOC. These kinds of rules contradictions undermine the game for me, regardless of any statistical impact. It makes the game more of a math/literary exercise rather than a continuity of experience. This is art that heavily relies on a simulated reality. The art should not slap us in the face and confound us.
I'm not bothered at all that Bashing and Lead Blades doesn't stack. It's magic and there's no truth that is insulted. Ruling that shield spikes do not benefit from something that increases their mass and density is....for lack of a better phrase....is just plain silly.
I hope the PDT is going to address this and exempt spikes and anything that is a physical implement. As far as INA, I don't have an opinion at the moment. I can certainly see how that might be more problematic from a fairness perspective. Animals/Animal companions/Natural attacks can become extremely effective.
James Risner Owner - D20 Hobbies |
N N 959 |
I'm not sure the goal of the Anti-FAQ crew. I guess if they keep this issue alive long enough they hope it will be reversed? I doubt that. There are too many people content, and not nearly enough people spitting fire mad (if any.)
I don't think there is an "anti-FAQ" crew in these threads. I don't see anyone arguing that LB and Bashing should stack. What many of us are advocating is that they be a little more precise with how they are ruling. And I'll bet dollars to donuts that despite this FAQ, most GMs are still going to let Lead Blades stack with shield spikes.
Rynjin |
I'm not sure the goal of the Anti-FAQ crew. I guess if they keep this issue alive long enough they hope it will be reversed? I doubt that. There are too many people content, and not nearly enough people spitting fire mad (if any.)
You obviously haven't been reading if you think anybody is "anti-FAQ" or "fire mad".
I like the general idea of the FAQ. I don't like the wonky bits.
graystone |
I'm not sure the goal of the Anti-FAQ crew. I guess if they keep this issue alive long enough they hope it will be reversed? I doubt that. There are too many people content, and not nearly enough people spitting fire mad (if any.)
Anti-FAQ? Where? I've seen people unhappy with one part of the FAQ not making sense. Wanting an exception for things like spiked shields doesn't mean I hate the idea of the FAQ or want it reversed. I'm looking for a small tweak.
If you want a FAQ that I want reversed, I'd like the SLA last FAQ gone. The 'hands" FAQ is an abomination. I can keep going. No one is saying that here about this issue.