Warpriest Sacred weapon on a Bashing Shield

[dragonhunterq]

shield spikes wrote:

as if the shield were designed for a creature one size category larger than you

bashing wrote:

deals damage as if it were a weapon of two size categories larger

FAQ wrote:

(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)

How much more specific do you need? do they need to spell out every single interaction on every single item?

I don't mean that to sound as snarky as it does, but I really don't see how that can be much clearer.

[Chess Pwn]

Scott Wilhelm wrote:

dragonhunterq wrote:

FAQ

"if you have multiple size changing effects ...only the largest applies. The same is true of effective size increases"

That is not an "FAQ answering the question 'does bashing stack with spiked shield' "

That is the generally-worded FAQ I was referring to. I've already conceded that it makes the case for practical purposes. But it does not make the case specifically and directly.

Am I missing something here? Does the question specifically mention Shield Spikes? Does the FAQ specifically mention Shield Spikes?

That is not an "FAQ answering the question 'does bashing stack with Lead Blades' "

That is the generally-worded FAQ I was referring to. I've already conceded that it makes the case for practical purposes. But it does not make the case specifically and directly.

Am I missing something here? Does the question specifically mention Lead Blades? Does the FAQ specifically mention Lead Blades?

[James Risner]

Scott Wilhelm wrote:

I remember a more generally-worded FAQ about Virtual Size Increases stacking

There is the matter of the NPC Codex.

That FAQ was a reply to this FAQ request with 107 posts and as a result directly created the general FAQ answer.

They created the whole thing over spiked shield and bashing among other things and they specifically wrote the FAQ to be very general to cover all possibilities.

Yep people keep arguing that it doesn't cover their scenario so it doesn't' count. You can't win. If it covered just spiked shields, the strong jaw people would complain it doesn't cover them.

[dragonhunterq]

Does it need to?
This does the job more than adequately.
does it use the 'as if' terminology? if yes it does not stack. simples!

If you require a specific FAQ for every single interaction and they chose to accommodate you...well I doubt they would have time to produce anything new.

[Scott Wilhelm]

Del_Taco_Eater wrote:

James Risner wrote:

Clap-backs?

Clap back means responding to an insult or quip with one of your own.

Most fights make better stories than memories. I'm glad you found the writing enjoyable. I don't start with insults, as a rule: I try never to deal in insults, but I'm often attacked.

It really gets in the way of finding the truth. I really try to ignore everything except for the real evidence, the Rules as Written, but I am usually more likely to perseverate an argument if the person who disagrees with me is rude. It weakens your argument to be rude. When you go for the insults, it tells me that you don't have a real argument to make.

I also consider it completely irrelevant if the majority of posters disagree with me. Any RAW-based evidence outweighs a world of people who can't prove what they are saying: repetition isn't proof.

And when that majority is being rude, it destroys the tiny bit of credibility that being in the majority has. I can I look at any angry mob in the eyes and say, "Maybe the majority of people actually agree with me. Maybe it just that I am the only one with the courage to stand up to online bullies like you!"

As a rule, I expect to be spoken to like someone who is giving his best advice in good faith. Doing otherwise mostly just gives me ammunition.

[James Risner]

Scott Wilhelm wrote:

Any RAW-based evidence

repetition isn't proof.

This becomes a very frustrating problem when someone refuses to accept the interpretation of RAW that the developers use especially when a FAQ directly upholds that interpretation.

[Scott Wilhelm]

James Risner wrote:

Scott Wilhelm wrote:

I remember a more generally-worded FAQ about Virtual Size Increases stacking

There is the matter of the NPC Codex.

That FAQ was a reply to this FAQ request with 107 posts and as a result directly created the general FAQ answer.

They created the whole thing over spiked shield and bashing among other things and they specifically wrote the FAQ to be very general to cover all possibilities.

Yep people keep arguing that it doesn't cover their scenario so it doesn't' count. You can't win. If it covered just spiked shields, the strong jaw people would complain it doesn't cover them.

Well, shoot: that's all you had to say! Did you ever link to that Official Rules Post when we argued about this before? If you did, I managed to miss it every time! Sorry in advance!

[Del_Taco_Eater]

I have been granted a vision of the future. We are given an FAQ explaining why a kar so mysteriously does 1d6 slashing damage. It's because (and I quote):

"The blade affixed to the klar turn the klar into a martial piercing weapon and increase the damage dealt by a shield bash as if the klar were designed for a creature two size category larger than you."