|
This item follows general PFRPG rules. The ruling you seek is from the Pathfinder Design Team. There is nothing PFS-specific about this item, therefore Mike Brock will almost certainly not issue a ruling on it.
In the meantime, this player should continue to abide by the GM ruling. If you want to accommodate him further, then feel free to consult other experienced GMs or VOs in your area.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
You almost certainly won't get a developer to chime in. But that's OK, because it doesn't matter. The kind of player who demands direct intervention from a developer before he accepts a rule, is the kind of player who will continue to disagree even after he gets it.
I would like to know where Mike Brock is, and just where/how far I can throw my shield to when I am there.
Seriously though, can anyone link me to rules about throwing shields that might be any different from "It's a thrown weapon"? Now I am quite curious. Surely it is a standard action to throw your shield, like any thrown weapon....
OP, you have it the wrong way around.
Your player needs to get an official ruling to say he can do what he says. I saw the previous posts and you have got it right as was pointed out by many others.
The GMs word is final not the players word.
Me, I'd tell him to suck it up or go.
|
Seriously though, can anyone link me to rules about throwing shields that might be any different from "It's a thrown weapon"? Now I am quite curious. Surely it is a standard action to throw your shield, like any thrown weapon....
http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/ultimateCombat/combat/gladiatorWeapons.h tml#_throwing-shield
The part that causes consternation is.:
This shield is designed for throwing and has specially designed straps that allow you to unclasp and throw it as a free action. Tower shields cannot be throwing shields. Neither a shield’s enhancement bonus to AC nor its shield spikes apply on your attack or damage rolls. A throwing shield can’t be disarmed.
People are reading that as "throwing the shield is a free action." Combined with quickdraw and light shields (and worse, a blinkback belt) that's theoretically infinite attacks. Clearly not the intention, but people WILL try to find holes.
Flagged for movement to rules forum.
Not very polite, but Cardinal Chunder has the essence of it. You can inform him that you have presented his case, and should the PDT or campaign management choose to make a ruling counter to common sense, you will let him know.
|
That's a terrible argument. The whip is the only reach weapon that can also target adjacent squares and it only costs 1 gold! Why would something so cheap allow you such a unique benefit?
Yes, your comparison argument is a terrible one. The whip only allows you to attack targets in adjacent squares. It doesn't change anything about the attack other than who you may attack. That's hardly game breaking.
Allowing a shield, for a pittance, to have unlimited attacks as FREE actions? That is entirely game breaking.
As to the larger point: just use this rule from the CRB on Free Actions. The text in the CRB is sufficient to justifiably say "no" - I mean, you could allow him one free action for an attack, I suppose. But, this text certainly gives the GM the right to limit it:
Free Action: Free actions consume a very small amount of time and effort. You can perform one or more free actions while taking another action normally. However, there are reasonable limits on what you can really do for free, as decided by the GM.
|
|
This shield is designed for throwing and has specially designed straps that allow you to unclasp and throw it as a free action. Tower shields cannot be throwing shields. Neither a shield’s enhancement bonus to AC nor its shield spikes apply on your attack or damage rolls. A throwing shield can’t be disarmed.People are reading that as "throwing the shield is a free action."What other way is there to read that?
Other way - "It doesn't take any additional actions to unclasp this shield when making an attack with your shield as a thrown weapon."
Yes, it could have been worded better but this is one of those situations where the intent is clear.
since we as PFS GMs are supposed to adhere to RAW that is what I will be doing when I run games.
While I applaud your dedication to the rules, consider that at your table my level 4 character with quickdraw, a throwing shield, and a blinkback belt now automatically kills every enemy within 100' on his first turn.
I'll eventually roll enough 20s to kill everything within the maximum range of the shield (100').
(If your interpretation is that I need to equip my shield before throwing it, I'll use a quickdraw throwing shield.)
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
I know where Mike is. Avoiding this thread because it's not PFS specific.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The title of this thread really drew my attention.
Saying you NEED[ED] an official ruling from the Mike Brock struck me as completely nutty.
I am not intending to be offensive, though I certainly understand if it is taken that way.
It just seems very presumptuous to demand that someone - who likely has a full day of work lined up, which probably includes a back log of similar requests, Gencon around the corner, scenarios to approve, Venture Officers to communicate with, and I can't imagine what other items in his list of "to-do's" for the day that may never get done - should drop everything and answer a single, fairly simply, GM level type question.
I'm not usually one to chastise people, and I'm not trying to cause any trouble, but maybe not every individual rule problem/player problem needs to be immediately taken to the highest level for resolution.
You don't see the mid-management guy go to the CEO of his company asking what he should do about one of the guys on the mid-managers team. Instead, either the mid-manager handles it (you can do that you are the GM) or he goes to the next rung up (maybe talk with your VC, or other local GM's).
Sorry, the title bothered me, and the entitlement bothered me. Take my comments with a grain of salt.
|
OP, you have it the wrong way around.
Your player needs to get an official ruling to say he can do what he says. I saw the previous posts and you have got it right as was pointed out by many others.
The GMs word is final not the players word.
Me, I'd tell him to suck it up or go.
Maybe not in those exact words, but yes, this.
It is not your job to get an official ruling for him. If he cares so little that he isnt willing to do it himself, he obviously doesnt care enough to want to play his character the way he wants.
Until he does somehow get a dev or Mike to side with him on this and make a clear post about it, then your word is law. Tell him he can abide by it or find another table to sit at.
While I applaud your dedication to the rules, consider that at your table my level 4 character with quickdraw, a throwing shield, and a blinkback belt now automatically kills every enemy within 100' on his first turn.
Quickdraw the shield as a free action, throw it as a free action, it returns to the belt immediately. I quickdraw the shield as a free action, throw it as a free action, it returns to the belt immediately...
I'll eventually roll enough 20s to kill everything within the maximum range of the shield (100').
Please note that you only get one immediate action a round, so once per shield, could the blinkback belt bring the shield back.
That said, I agree with the interpretation that the free action refers to unclasping and readying the shield for throwing, it does not provide extra attacks.
I made a previous thread about a player abusing throwing shields to gain additional attacks.
I've explained to him that while they are society legal and the text is a bit confusing, the throwing shield does not actually grant additional free attacks. It simply allows you to throw is as a free action which can be used as part of a normal attack.
He has built characters around this this misconception.
He wants to have an official word from above in order to fully accept my ruling. He has accepted my ruling for now but he does not want this issue to be put at rest until word of god says otherwise. I have volunteered to consult the campaign organizers on his behalf.
Rule Zero, you are correct.
|
|
Why doesn't this bit from the CRB solves this problem for him?
"Free Action: Free actions consume a very small amount of time and effort. You can perform one or more free actions while taking another action normally. However, there are reasonable limits on what you can really do for free, as decided by the GM."
So, as GM, you can let him have his fun with his one free attack with his shield, and then say 1 free attack is more than reasonable, and that's all he gets. If he complains at that point, at least you have attempted to meet him part way, right?
If the larger question is getting a free attack per round, that's the equivalent of having haste cast on you (agreed that it should be more than 50 gp), but is one free attack per round really going to break the game?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but this behavior is a harbinger of things to come. Many of us have had a huge amount of time and energy wasted by dealing with this sort of personality, either at our tables or our events. In my experience, if not corrected immediately and forcefully, it always leads to that person being asked to leave the table or the group. Maybe not this week, it may take 6 months, but in my experience every player who has gone down this path of pushing the rules in such an immature way, has escalated to the point where we had to ask them to leave.
YMMV, of course...perhaps you can salvage the situation, if you have the time and enthusiasm and dedication.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The player is incorrect, the item is badly written, and the GM's ruling stands unless the player is willing to pursue this himself.
However, let's cut the player some slack. I mean, a plain reading of the item with no ulterior motives or malicious intent really does say that throwing it is a free action. It's not like the player has to be some kind of moustache-twirling villain to come to the conclusion he's come to.
Yes, we're all in agreement that "the rule means something other than what it plainly says because what it plainly says is broken". But everyone, please keep in mind that 99% of the time when a player is met with a GM who says "the rule means something other than what it plainly says because what it plainly says is broken", the GM is wrong and the rules really do mean what they say. The fact that it's actually true this time that the text doesn't mean what it says is the exception, by far. So let's maybe be a little slower with the "like it or leave" ultimatums against a player who's doing nothing wrong in his approach to the rules, eh?
What other way is there to read that?This shield is designed for throwing and has specially designed straps that allow you to unclasp and throw it as a free action. Tower shields cannot be throwing shields. Neither a shield’s enhancement bonus to AC nor its shield spikes apply on your attack or damage rolls. A throwing shield can’t be disarmed.People are reading that as "throwing the shield is a free action."
How about this:
"Throw" is not an attack, so you can throw the shield to the ground or throw it to a friend or just throw it around the battlefield, but you can't throw it at someone and make an attack roll against them.
When reading the (yes, poorly written) text, you have three choices:
1) If you apply the adverbial phrase "as a free action" to "throw", then it doesn't modify "unclasp"--and we don't know what kind of action is it to unclasp the shield. ("Removing a shield from your arm and dropping it is only a move action," so I'd go with that.) In this case, the player will never get to use this trick as part of a full attack action, so it will stop being useful around level 6.
2) If the phrase modifies "unclasp", then "throw" is a standard action, as already defined under the thrown weapons rules. ("Throwing a light or one-handed weapon is a standard action, while throwing a two-handed weapon is a full-round action.")
3) If the phrase modifies both verbs, then you have to treat "unclasp and throw" as a combined action that can never be separated. So you could never throw the shield unless you started with it clasped--if you pick it up from the ground, you have to put it back on before you can unclasp and throw it. Also, for the first time I've ever seen, we now have two actions combined into a single free action.
Of these three options, number 2 makes the most sense.
However, if you are going to go with number 3 and read it at "throw the shield as an attack as a free action", then don't forget that this shield is an exotic weapon--you need a feat to use it. Also, you still take the penalties for taking an extra attack with a second weapon, and you can't use a two-handed weapon for your other attack (per the armor spikes ruling).
The text seems to very clearly state that throwing the shield as a weapon is a free action; thus, you could theoretically toss the shield at someone, move into melee range, and attack with a melee weapon.
The silliness with the Blinkback belt has already been debunked. I don't see what the big deal is here. It's a nice opener for a flashy fighter type.
|
|
The text seems to very clearly state that throwing the shield as a weapon is a free action; thus, you could theoretically toss the shield at someone, move into melee range, and attack with a melee weapon.
The silliness with the Blinkback belt has already been debunked. I don't see what the big deal is here. It's a nice opener for a flashy fighter type.
How has it been debunked. The blinkback belt takes no action.
|
|
Andrew, see my post above. Quickdraw shield only works to move the shield from your arm to your back and vice versa. Blinkback belt only works for items hung on the belt.
My theory is that the shield seemed balanced when they wrote it. For 50 gp, you get an add on that lets you sacrifice some of your AC to make a free ranged throwing attack. (and it takes three move actions (move to shield, retrieve shield, don shield to get it back)
They didn't think about how that interacted with other rules elements and could be exploited to get endless free attacks.
I feel like this is weapon cords all over again, and the only way to fix it is to get an errata in the same way that we did for weapon cords.
My preferred errata would be a ruling that if you have nothing in the hand wielding the shield, and are using a one handed weapon, it gives you an additional throwing attack similar to two-weapon fighting.
|
|
Further:
This light shield is specially crafted with a series of straps to allow a character proficient in shields to ready or stow it on his or her back quickly and easily. .... If you have the Quick Draw feat, you may don or put away a quickdraw shield as a free action.
This shield is designed for throwing and has specially designed straps allowing you to unclasp and throw it as a free action
So, if you throw the shield, you have now "unclasped" the straps that allow you to "ready or stow it on his or her back quickly and easily" meaning that you would now need to spend a move action to don it (reattach it to the straps), after which you could then take a free action to throw it.
And in much the same way that I would not let you wear multiple backpacks, I would not let you have unlimited throwing shields. I could see one on the back, and one on each arm. I might be talked into two on the back, but someone would need to be really persuasive.
Andrew, see my post above. Quickdraw shield only works to move the shield from your arm to your back and vice versa. Blinkback belt only works for items hung on the belt.
My theory is that the shield seemed balanced when they wrote it. For 50 gp, you get an add on that lets you sacrifice some of your AC to make a free ranged throwing attack. (and it takes three move actions (move to shield, retrieve shield, don shield to get it back)
They didn't think about how that interacted with other rules elements and could be exploited to get endless free attacks.
I think they just didn't notice the misplaced modifier. That's a very common writing error, right up there with dangling modifiers. ("As a registered nurse, your editorial was offensive." The editorial is a registered nurse? Really?)
Also, this shield was designed for Performance combat, which has a different set of rules than normal combat. I suppose a GM could just rule that if you're not using Performance combat rules, this item doesn't work at all.
Agreed with the others. Explain to your player that if he refuses to agree with your ruling that he can attempt to get a response himself, or he can deal with your ruling. OR... as the others have also stated, he can leave the group.
Personally I agree that the text clearly states the enhancement is meant to remove and prep the shield to throw as a free action, not to throw the shield as a free action. If that were the case... then why can't I throw a dagger, chakram, throwing axe, javelin... (or any other thrown weapon you can find for Pathfinder) as a free action if I have it already in hand and prepped to throw? Items that I do not even have to fumble with straps to do so!
If you want to get nitpicky about words and definitions, you could say that the shield - even as written - does not give you an attack.
someone else said something pretty similar, but the shield says you can unclasp and throw it as a free action. It does not say that you get to make a ranged attack as a free action. You will notice that other feats, items, spells, or abilities that grant an extra attack explicitly state that an extra attack is granted or allowed to be applied outside of the normal rules.
Look at flyby attack, spring attack, haste, speed enchanted weapons, two-weapon fighting, and certainly more if you want an example.
Even AOO's are very explicit in that you get one additional melee attack. It does not say "you can take a swing at someone when they walk by."
Given the items lack of clarity, You are able to unclasp and throw the weapon as a free action. I would probably use the thrown weapon miss rules on what direction the thrown item goes.
However, if you wanted to aim the thrown shield you need to do so as a standard action, or as part of a full attack action.
If someone wants to get hyper sensitive on the language used in an ability, I figure I should probably do the same.
Andrew, see my post above. Quickdraw shield only works to move the shield from your arm to your back and vice versa. Blinkback belt only works for items hung on the belt.
My theory is that the shield seemed balanced when they wrote it. For 50 gp, you get an add on that lets you sacrifice some of your AC to make a free ranged throwing attack. (and it takes three move actions (move to shield, retrieve shield, don shield to get it back)
They didn't think about how that interacted with other rules elements and could be exploited to get endless free attacks.
I feel like this is weapon cords all over again, and the only way to fix it is to get an errata in the same way that we did for weapon cords.
My preferred errata would be a ruling that if you have nothing in the hand wielding the shield, and are using a one handed weapon, it gives you an additional throwing attack similar to two-weapon fighting.
I asked a much more specific rules question about throwing shields, but it never got any replies. I have bad luck with that sometimes. This thread has some talk that is relevant to my current character concept, though. Especially when talk of quickdraw throwing shields and blinkback belts are talked about since my character will be relying on these.
Personally, I think having the "on his or her back" part shouldn't be taken literally. Is that really the only place you can stow a shield when you're not using it? If it isn't, what mechanics of a quickdraw shield make it so that specific shield can only be quickly stowed on your back. Regardless, even if "only your back" is a real restriction, part of a blinkback belt is on your lower back, so you should be able to attach a quickdraw throwing shield to your blinkback belt as a free action and then throw it as a free action as long as you have the quickdraw feat.
Note that I'm not trying to get unlimited free action thrown attacks. I just want to be able to use the shield just like most other thrown weapons.
Anyone have any thoughts on my linked question?
This shield is designed for throwing and has specially designed straps that allow you to unclasp and throw it as a free action. Tower shields cannot be throwing shields. Neither a shield’s enhancement bonus to AC nor its shield spikes apply on your attack or damage rolls. A throwing shield can’t be disarmed.People are reading that as "throwing the shield is a free action."What other way is there to read that?
I read that as: unclasp and prepare to throw something that is strapped to your arm, as a free action. When normally unstrapping a shield is a move action. All the text leading up to that point talk about the straps and buckles.
There is no reason I can think of, to assume that changing the buckles/straps would allow the throwing of said item to be any faster, merely the preparation to throw said item.
|
So, if you can make truly unlimited attacks in a round, couldn't you wind up throwing you shield faster then light?
So, if you throw your shield 590142634 times in a round, your shield's speed exceeds that of light. And this is ignoring small bits like the fact that at the point you are making that many attacks in one round, your arms probably are going to get too tired to be capable of moving, dislocate themselves, and/or break. Of course, I suppose this is bringing real life into a game where you can turn small amounts of bat droppings into high explosives, and you can literally pay a penny for someones thoughts [read material/focus components]. But still, something tells me that this doesn't work [though I am adding this to my file of silly RAW ways to end Golarion].
|
|
Flite - to hopefully put this tangent to rest.
A set of clips is attached to this segmented belt constructed of metallic links. Up to two one-handed melee weapons or up to four light melee weapons can be hung from the belt in straps or sheaths. When the wearer draws a weapon attached to this belt and throws it before the end of her next turn, the weapon teleports back to its strap or sheath immediately after the attack is resolved.
A light shield is a light weapon, a heavy shield is a one-handed weapon.
My original point was that if you allow the throwing shield to be thrown as a free action silly stuff like this can occur. Neither you nor I believe it should be so.
I would like to know where Mike Brock is, and just where/how far I can throw my shield to when I am there.
Seriously though, can anyone link me to rules about throwing shields that might be any different from "It's a thrown weapon"? Now I am quite curious. Surely it is a standard action to throw your shield, like any thrown weapon....
[emphasis mine] Just making sure people understand that this was written when the thread title mentioned "throwing a shield from Mike Brock"...
It was (an admittedly poor) attempt at lightening the mood with some grammatical humor. I humbly apologise and remove myself from this thread. [disappears]
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
[Reappears] So that's how a blinkback belt works. ;)
|
|
Except that per the rules of QuickDraw shields, what makes them work is that they are hanging from their special straps. I suppose if your gm lets you craft a QuickDraw shield strap with blink back on it, he deserves whatever he gets.
I think you are missing the point here. Which is, that if the Throwing Shield allows free action attacks, then there will eventually be someone who finds an infinite attack shenanigan, and at that point, silly things will happen.
How has it been debunked. The blinkback belt takes no action.The text seems to very clearly state that throwing the shield as a weapon is a free action; thus, you could theoretically toss the shield at someone, move into melee range, and attack with a melee weapon.
The silliness with the Blinkback belt has already been debunked. I don't see what the big deal is here. It's a nice opener for a flashy fighter type.
You don't keep a shield on your belt, and a Returning shield wouldn't return to you until the next round.