Shield spikes no longer stack with shield enchantment's bashing property?

[Aelryinth]

Ignore the ruling on spiked shields and let Bashing stack. I'm going to.

Just be aware it's not the 'official' rule now.

==Aeryinth

[James Risner]

Imbicatus wrote:

The answer in that thread is referring to Improved Natural attack and Strong Jaw.

Both use exactly the same words to describe a scenario with a "+1 size" effect not stacking with a "+2 size" effect. So please explain to me how it isn't identical? Especially considering the FAQ covered both scenarios and used a response that didn't use INA/Strong Jaw but rather "one size vs two sizes" language.

[blackbloodtroll]

Aelryinth wrote:

Ignore the ruling on spiked shields and let Bashing stack. I'm going to.

Just be aware it's not the 'official' rule now.

==Aeryinth

PFS, has not the option, to ignore a rule.

[Nefreet]

Indeed. I will be following the FAQ at my tables.

The only character I have that could be affected by this is my 10th level Warpriest and his +1 Bashing Klar. Initially I thought Bashing would have stacked with Sacred Weapon, and ran it that way for several levels, but I've been conservative about its application lately since nobody knows which effect applies first.

It's either: 1d10 Sacred Weapon increased two steps to 3d8, or 1d6 increased two steps to 2d6. The third and fourth options (1d3 increased to 1d6, or 1d6 decreased to 1d4 and increased to 1d8) are both surpassed by the 1d10 Sacred Weapon anyways.

So I've just been running it as 1d10 to avoid any arguments, and using the Bashing enchantment to treat the Klar as a magic weapon. As an off-hand weapon that's not too shabby. 2d8 when enlarged.

But the Klar practically needs its own FAQ entry, and should probably be left out of this discussion.

[N N 959]

blackbloodtroll wrote:

Aelryinth wrote:

Ignore the ruling on spiked shields and let Bashing stack. I'm going to.

Just be aware it's not the 'official' rule now.

==Aeryinth

PFS, has not the option, to ignore a rule.

People ignore rules all the time in PFS. Per RAW, the GM is suppose to roll the duration for any spells and keep it secret from the players.. Never...ever...have I seen a GM do this. Per RAW, the GM is suppose to roll init separate for an animal companion. A ton of GMs ignore this. Per the rules, a person can Take 20 when looking for a trap. At Paizocon '13, a GM refused to allow us to Take 20 when looking for traps under the rational that after the first roll, the character was convinced there was no trap. Per RAW, each character rolls init and acts on that init. In PbP, a ton of GMs use a "group" init. Per PFS rules, GMs are not allowed to change stat blocks. But fudging a dice roll has the exact same effect.

If GMs choose to treat spiked shields as a weapon in its own right, I will not bat an eye.

[Ravingdork]

N N 959 wrote:

People ignore rules all the time in PFS. Per RAW, the GM is suppose to roll the duration for any spells and keep it secret from the players.. Never...ever...have I seen a GM do this. Per RAW, the GM is suppose to roll init separate for an animal companion. A ton of GMs ignore this. Per the rules, a person can Take 20 when looking for a trap. At Paizocon '13, a GM refused to allow us to Take 20 when looking for traps under the rational that after the first roll, the character was convinced there was no trap. Per RAW, each character rolls init and acts on that init. In PbP, a ton of GMs use a "group" init. Per PFS rules, GMs are not allowed to change stat blocks. But fudging a dice roll has the exact same effect.

I too have observed this deviancy in PFS.

[Rushley son of Halum]

N N 959 wrote:

blackbloodtroll wrote:

Aelryinth wrote:

Ignore the ruling on spiked shields and let Bashing stack. I'm going to.

Just be aware it's not the 'official' rule now.

==Aeryinth

PFS, has not the option, to ignore a rule.

People ignore rules all the time in PFS. Per RAW, the GM is suppose to roll the duration for any spells and keep it secret from the players.. Never...ever...have I seen a GM do this. Per RAW, the GM is suppose to roll init separate for an animal companion. A ton of GMs ignore this. Per the rules, a person can Take 20 when looking for a trap. At Paizocon '13, a GM refused to allow us to Take 20 when looking for traps under the rational that after the first roll, the character was convinced there was no trap. Per RAW, each character rolls init and acts on that init. In PbP, a ton of GMs use a "group" init. Per PFS rules, GMs are not allowed to change stat blocks. But fudging a dice roll has the exact same effect.

If GMs choose to treat spiked shields as a weapon in its own right, I will not bat an eye.

The take 20 thing makes sense. If you already rolled then your character has looked and believes it to be fine. You'd need an in character reason not to trust your own skills.

Group init though? I don't even know how that would possibly work.

[Komoda]

Because when one's life is on the line, everyone has 100% confidence in the first try of all their abilities.

[N N 959]

Rushley son of Halum wrote:

The take 20 thing makes sense. If you already rolled then your character has looked and believes it to be fine. You'd need an in character reason not to trust your own skills.

Group init though? I don't even know how that would possibly work.

It actually doesn't make sense. When you make a single skill check it is not done under the context that you've done a thorough job. When you search a room for 3 seconds (the move action to make a Perception check), and you don't find your keys, are you convinced your keys are not in the room? When you scan a forest--once--looking for a bird in the trees and you don't see one, are you convinced one is not there? Such was the logic imposed upon the players by this GM.

Group init is where either all the PCs take their actions or all the NPCs take their action before the other side. It's done under the auspices of speeding up PbP.