Scott Wilhelm wrote: James Risner wrote: Conversations like these are mind numbing. Table variance is a problem We agree. I'm just saying it sucks so bad when people take the stance of "only I'm right and anyone who disagrees is wrong".
It doesn't work that way. Local GM set the rules interpretations. Table variance is all but impossible to eliminate. Would I like them to answer more questions? Sure. Do I expect it? No
James Risner wrote: Scott Wilhelm wrote: James Risner wrote: Conversations like these are mind numbing. Table variance is a problem We agree. I'm just saying it sucks so bad when people take the stance of "only I'm right and anyone who disagrees is wrong".
It doesn't work that way. Local GM set the rules interpretations. Table variance is all but impossible to eliminate. Would I like them to answer more questions? Sure. Do I expect it? No James, I know! I'm having an argument with someone like that, now: impervious to evidence, doing almost everything he's accusing me of, outrageous!
Nefreet wrote: Scott Wilhelm wrote: I don't think there is any such thing as conservative character build that nobody will find some legal problem with. I said "spectrum". There is a spectrum of interpretations regarding any combination of rules elements ranging from the conservative to the optimal. This is true in many facets of life, and Pathfinder is no different.
Scott Wilhelm wrote: People can always find problems with everything. Although I believe that to be a false statement, you can still better prepare your characters for the occasion jerk GM. I'll use my Ranger and his Constrictor Snake companion as an example, since he's probably my most corner case character. Although the PC itself is rather mundane, I built the Snake to have Improved Unarmed Strike, Snake Style, and Improved Grapple. As you may have seen here in this forum, some GMs don't like the idea of a Snake taking the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, regardless of its Intelligence. When I run across GMs such as that, I pull out version #2 of my Snake. She's got mundane feats like Toughness and Dodge, which no GM could have a problem with. After I'm done playing that scenario, out comes version #1 for the next game. I come prepared to play the way I built the character, but can compromise when I meet a GM that says "no". The character is still useful, and I still have fun playing.
Scott Wilhelm wrote: Everyone I've seen play PFS uses the rules aggressively to try to create powerful characters. I'm going to go out on a limb and claim that your anecdotal evidence needs a larger sample size. You've been luckier than I have been. No PFS GM I've seen would have allowed me to retrain my character, nor I think my animal companion if I ever had one.
And mundane?
How about someone who makes up a new kind of attack for a shield just to nerf your shield?
I had a GM tell me that I couldn't take my Move Action after taking a standard action.
This is basic stuff I've had GMs rule against. I take precautions, too. Like when a GM ruled that my grappling character couldn't Tie Up someone because I didn't specify that I had rope in my hands, I said, "Fine, then I will use my Robe of Infinite Twine and pull out the rope I need as a Swift Action."
You yourself have had this happen to you that you have started working out precautions. I'm glad they are working for you, but I don't think anyone's safe from haters.
Aelryinth,
You aren't bringing new evidence, and you have made it abundantly clear that you are not examining my evidence. You are making up new rules and accusing me of doing it. actually, you've been doing nearly everything you've accused me of doing. Now you're starting to call me names.
I guess I must be ignoring your evidence because I really don't see much in the way of evidence you brought to support your claims.
I guess it is evidence that the fact that the Klar's shield bash attack is slashing makes it the only shield that does slashing on it's shield bash attack is in fact evidence in your favor. But that alone does not make your case. My evidence just far outweighs yours. And it's been a while since I have seen you back anything you've said with a quote from the rules.
You haven't offered any evidence that "text trumps table." Repetition isn't proof.
You've accused me of disregarding quotes from the rules on the grounds that I don't like them, but then you do the exact same thing, calling the Klar a spiked shield when it clearly doesn't say that it is, dismissing it at bad editing. That's not for us to decide.
You don't get to pick and choose your rules when you are making a RAW argument. You have to look at them all. When they seem to contradict, you have to work with the idea that they don't contradict and see if there is an interpretation where they do work.
You have offered no evidence that a Klar is sometimes a weapon and sometimes a shield in some way that makes it different from other shields. You are aware that all shields are weapons that can be used as shields?
You haven't brought the evidence, and your last, shrill post is starting to make me think you are impervious to evidence.
Scott Wilhelm wrote: I take precautions, too. Like when a GM ruled that my grappling character couldn't Tie Up someone because I didn't specify that I had rope in my hands Just FYI, that's actually a thing.
Normally the process is Grapple => Pin => Tie Up
Between the latter two stages you should have a move action free to pull out your rope.
Yeah, my character has Expert Captor, which allows her to skip the Pin Phase. That particular GM had it in his head that Grapple builds suck, so when he saw what I found in Knights of the Inner Sea, he started fishing for ways to nerf my character.
Of course, that's another problem with your advice to keep the PFS characters conservative to protect against table variation, and it's not our problem; it's Paizo's. PFS exists as a marketing platform for Paizo products. Indeed, one of the basic rules in PFS is that you have to own the book that has the fancy character options you want to use. In other words, you have to own the Advanced Player's Guide if you want to be an Alchemist, and you have to own Ultimate Equipment if you want to put the Bashing Enchantment on your shield.
But if players can't rely on the bashing enchantment to work the way they expect it to, then there is not much point in buying Ultimate Equipment in the first place. It sure spoils my fun having a game master following me from table to table throughout the store trying to get other GMs to lawyer my character out of existence, and it if stores realize that PFS GMs are bullying paying customers out of the store, they will not be as highly motivated to host PFS or carry Paizo Products. The store where that happened to me in is feeling lukewarm about PFS anyway, and he can always make more room for MTG players.
PRD wrote:
Bashing: A shield with this special ability is designed to perform a shield bash. A bashing shield deals damage as if it were a 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.
Moderate transmutation; CL 8th; Craft Magic Arms and Armor, bull's strength; Price +1 bonus.
So it looks like neither the klar nor the spiked shields can have the bashing ability.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Nevan Oaks wrote: PRD wrote:
Bashing: A shield with this special ability is designed to perform a shield bash. A bashing shield deals damage as if it were a 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.
Moderate transmutation; CL 8th; Craft Magic Arms and Armor, bull's strength; Price +1 bonus.
So it looks like neither the klar nor the spiked shields can have the bashing ability. But doesn't a Klar say it counts a Light shield?
Nevan Oaks wrote: PRD wrote:
Bashing: A shield with this special ability is designed to perform a shield bash. A bashing shield deals damage as if it were a 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.
Moderate transmutation; CL 8th; Craft Magic Arms and Armor, bull's strength; Price +1 bonus.
So it looks like neither the klar nor the spiked shields can have the bashing ability. The Bashing Enchantment does indeed look like it does work on the Klar.
The Klar counts as a Light Shield, and the Bashing Enchantment works on Light Shields, just as Starbuck_II pointed out.
Because it doesn't count as a "Spiked Shield," the Klar doesn't even have the spikes-not-stacking-with-Bashing problem-because-of-virtual-size-increases-not-stacking. Now, I do believe that Shield Spikes DO stack with the Bashing Enchantment, but even if it doesn't--which it does--the Bashing Enchantment will still stack with the Klar because the Klar does not, according to Ultimate Equipment, count as a spiked shield.
And even if Aelryinth's contention that the Klar's 1d6 Slashing attack is not a shield bash--it is, but even if it weren't--then the Bashing Enchantment will still stack with the 1d6 Slashing Klar attack. Look at the description of Bashing again and see what it really does.
Ultimate Equipment, Bashing Enchantment wrote: A bashing shield deals damage as if it were a weapon of two size categories larger Even if that 1d6 Slashing weren't Bashing damage, it is still "damage deal[t] by a shield," so the Bashing Enchantment will increase the base damage of the Klar from 1d6 to 2d6.
The case against spiked shields is better, but I maintain, due to my understanding of the RAW, that Shield Spikes do stack with the Bashing Enchantment. But this post is long enough.
Scott Wilhelm wrote: Nevan Oaks wrote: PRD wrote:
Bashing: A shield with this special ability is designed to perform a shield bash. A bashing shield deals damage as if it were a 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.
Moderate transmutation; CL 8th; Craft Magic Arms and Armor, bull's strength; Price +1 bonus.
So it looks like neither the klar nor the spiked shields can have the bashing ability. The Bashing Enchantment does indeed look like it does work on the Klar.
The Klar counts as a Light Shield, and the Bashing Enchantment works on Light Shields, just as Starbuck_II pointed out.
Because it doesn't count as a "Spiked Shield," the Klar doesn't even have the spikes-not-stacking-with-Bashing problem-because-of-virtual-size-increases-not-stacking. Now, I do believe that Shield Spikes DO stack with the Bashing Enchantment, but even if it doesn't--which it does--the Bashing Enchantment will still stack with the Klar because the Klar does not, according to Ultimate Equipment, count as a spiked shield.
And even if Aelryinth's contention that the Klar's 1d6 Slashing attack is not a shield bash--it is, but even if it weren't--then the Bashing Enchantment will still stack with the 1d6 Slashing Klar attack. Look at the description of Bashing again and see what it really does.
Ultimate Equipment, Bashing Enchantment wrote: A bashing shield deals damage as if it were a weapon of two size categories larger Even if that 1d6 Slashing weren't Bashing damage, it is still "damage deal[t] by a shield," so the Bashing Enchantment will increase the base damage of the Klar from 1d6 to 2d6.
The case against spiked shields is better, but I maintain, due to my understanding of the RAW, that Shield Spikes do stack with the Bashing Enchantment. But this post is long enough. Oh, lord, more conjured 'evidence' and selective editing of clear rules.
"A Bashing Shield deals damage as if it were two sizes larger."
A Klar blade is not a shield bash. Therefore, Bashing has no effect on it. "Bashing Shield". You are selectively editing to accommodate yourself again.
Bashing works fine if you use the Klar to shield bash. I've never disputed that. If you use the blade...nope, that's not a shield bash. It's amazing how you can contradict yourself within ONE SENTENCE. Truly.
And I'm sorry, Scott, but I've addressed every single point of evidence you have. Your 'dismissal' of me effectively means you don't have any viable counter-arguments, and you have lost, and you've entered the realm of 'divine fiat' to uniformly declare yourself correct...which is the classic fallback of an indefensible position.
Your 'evidence' amounts to pointing at the weapon damage table for a Klar, and saying that justifies every single thing you are saying.
Your 'evidence' involves completely ignoring the fact the Klar is a light spiked shield, going all the way back to its original incarnation. If it's not, it's just a shield. With a blade sticking out of it.
Your 'evidence' involves ignoring ALL the rules for shield bashing, spiked and not spiked.
Your 'evidence' involves inserting a rule for the d6 slashing damage that is NOT THERE, and expecting us to 'read into it'.
Your evidence ignores TWENTY YEARS of editing notes that 'text trumps tables.'
Your evidence involves ignoring the description of, and descriptive text, of the Klar.
Your evidence thus involves ignoring and/or rewriting the RAW at least SIX TIMES to make sense.
Mine involves noting the Klar has a secondary blade attached to it, and can be used as a light spiked shield to bash with instead, which accommodates EVERY SINGLE PEICE OF TEXT ON THE KLAR, AND THE RULES REGARDING SHIELD BASHING.
Evidence. Pfeh.
----------
So, stop it, man. Stop inventing new rules out of the blue. Stop ignoring what is clearly written and calling it 'evidence', when you don't HAVE any evidence. You have a highly skewed interpretation of one line of a weapon table, and you then ignore every single other item which says you are wrong.
Rules interact, they don't stand alone without specific citing they are exceptions. An example is the whole Spiked shield argument.
For the simple purpose of changing a bashing shield's damage to Piercing at a higher damage level, there's very specific rules and cites, all part of shield bashing, instructions quite clear on what to do and the damage dealt.
Yet the Klar, with no rules, no guidelines, no exceptions clearly called out, spelled out, delineated, is supposed to be an exception to ALL of these things, because you can point at the weapon table, and 'there's nothing that says it doesn't work this way.'
I'm sorry, you are flat out wrong.
The rules say what you can do, NOT that you can do anything if they don't say you can't. And there are no rules that say a Klar is a d6 slashing weapon when used to bash. There are rules that say its a light spiked shield, which has rules when used to bash.
You are feeding rules into the system, and ignoring what is already present.
I find it hilarious that the game goes to so much length to define what happens when you bash, when you spike a shield, how the damage changes when you do, and you think that one line on a weapon table obviates ALL those text rules. Just because.
===Aelryinth
How can they stack Scott, if as some of the arguments in this post point out a spiked shield is an item in its own right then a spiked light shield is not a light shield and by the RAW bashing can't be add to it at all.
If a spiked light shield is a light shield with spikes added then bashing can be added but can not be stacked with shield spikes per the stacking rules.
I don't see another way to look at the RAW, but if there is please point me to the relevant text. I do have to agree it does look as though the klar is a candidate for bashing as posted on the PDR.
"PRD wrote:
Klar
Price 12 gp
Type martial
The traditional form of this tribal weapon is a short metal blade bound to the skull of a large horned lizard, but a skilled smith can craft one entirely out of metal. A traditional klar counts as a light wooden shield with armor spikes; a metal klar counts as a light steel shield with armor spikes.
Though not sure what to make of the armor spikes, seem it would be a typo but I can't say for sure.
He's trying to say it stacks with the slashing blade, and using the blade constitutes a shield bash. Unfortunately, the shield bash rules are VERY clear on such things, and the Klar has no language making it an exception. So the slashing attack is NOT a shield bash.
THe light wooden shield with armor spikes is a typo; in the original book that introduced the Klar, it was a spiked shield. Blame a bad editor. Nobody takes that line seriously.
You can't put armor spikes on a shield. There are no rules for it. If you take that as RAW like he's throwing out, then Klars don't exist since they can't, under the rules, and self-destruct in internal contradiction.
the Bashing Enhancement can be put on a Klar. It won't stack with the fact it's a light spiked shield, so you'd just get a d6 piercing bash. The d6 slashing attack is not a shield bash, so Bashing won't affect it.
==Aelryinth
Nevan Oaks wrote: How can they stack Scott, if as some of the arguments in this post point out a spiked shield is an item in its own right then a spiked light shield is not a light shield and by the RAW bashing can't be add to it at all.
If a spiked light shield is a light shield with spikes added then bashing can be added but can not be stacked with shield spikes per the stacking rules.
I don't see another way to look at the RAW, but if there is please point me to the relevant text. I do have to agree it does look as though the klar is a candidate for bashing as posted on the PDR.
"PRD wrote:
Klar
Price 12 gp
Type martial
The traditional form of this tribal weapon is a short metal blade bound to the skull of a large horned lizard, but a skilled smith can craft one entirely out of metal. A traditional klar counts as a light wooden shield with armor spikes; a metal klar counts as a light steel shield with armor spikes.
Though not sure what to make of the armor spikes, seem it would be a typo but I can't say for sure.
You can't trust Aelryinth to report faithfully upon or even understand my posts. He can't tell you what I've been saying. You should read what I wrote for yourself.
But I'll explain again.
Nevan Oaks wrote: Though not sure what to make of the armor spikes, seem it would be a typo but I can't say for sure. It won't take long, because you've just about hit the nail on the head right there. I am confident of "what to make of the armor spikes."
I assert that while a GM may run his own campaign as he sees fit, in Pathfinder Society we must go by RAW, even if it does turn out later to have been a typo. We cannot suppose that that they made a mistake. In every possible case, we have to assume that all the rules are correct and leave it up to Paizo to correct their mistakes as and when they find them.
While I do still believe--because of official rules sources as I have explained earlier on this thread--that the Bashing Enchantment does indeed stack with Shield Spikes, that doesn't matter for the Klar, because the Klar doesn't have Shield Spikes, it has Armor Spikes, as you observed.
It is Shield Spikes that make a shield a Spiked Shield. Armor Spikes are a different item. The Klar doesn't have Shield Spikes, so it's not a Spiked Shield: it's that simple.
So even if, as people have been arguing, that Shield Spikes don't stack with Bashing, Bashing will still stack with the Klar because as you pointed out, the Klar doesn't have Shield Spikes but rather Armor Spikes.
And even if, as Aelryinth asserts, that a melee attack with a Klar is not a Shield Bash, making the Klar the only shield in Pathfinder that can make a regular melee attack that is not a shield bash, Bashing still augments the Klar because
Ultimate Equipment, Bashing Enchantment wrote: A bashing shield deals damage as if it were a weapon of two size categories larger And even if the Klar's 1d6 Slashing attack were not a Shield Bash, it is still damage dealt by the shield, and therefore augmented by the Bashing Enchantment.
Quote: And even if, as Aelryinth has quoted to me numerous times, and I've ignored it, that a melee attack with a Klar is not a Shield Bash, making the Klar's slashing blade a weapon attached to the shield exactly as it is described, Bashing still does not augment the Klar because
Ultimate Equipment, Bashing Enchantment wrote:
A bashing shield deals damage as if it were a weapon of two size categories larger
And since the Klar's 1d6 Slashing attack is not a Shield Bash, it therefore is not augmented by the Bashing Enchantment since it is not damage caused by the shield.
================
Fixed that key part for you, Scott.
Nevan, you now have a few choices.
1) Going by the UE, Klars do not exist, because you can't have a shield with Armor Spikes. Klars implode from unsupportable definition of themselves.
2) Ignoring the self-contradiction and impossibleness of UE, ruling that the Klar counts as a normal shield when used to bash, since Armor Spikes don't modify a shield bash. Which is basically a crazy accommodation to bad editing of the RAW.
3) Going back to the original definition of the Klar in the book where it was introduced, and yes, it is indeed a light spiked shield. Oops, editor!
I've already pointed out the six ways that the d6 slashing is not a bash, and shields only do bashing attacks when used as weapons. Scott is simply ignoring them as he has no counter-argument to the holes in his position, and the fact he'd have to effectively re-write both the Klar and bashing rules to be correct.
==Aelryinth
Scott Wilhelm wrote: While I do still believe--because of official rules sources as I have explained earlier on this thread--that the Bashing Enchantment does indeed stack with Shield Spikes, that doesn't matter for the Klar, because the Klar doesn't have Shield Spikes, it has Armor Spikes, as you observed. I'm going to poke my head in one last time just to point something out here, and is precisely the sort of argument I was making here (that basically everyone on my side of the spectrum would share):
You're saying the Bashing Enchantment, something which increases the effective size of a weapon by 2 categories, stacks with Shield Spikes, something which increases the effective size of a weapon by 1 category, according to their descriptions. We agree that's what each subject does, right?
Now, the official FAQ says things that increase the effective size of a weapon (of which both fall under, according to examples given from the FAQ) do not stack with themselves. It doesn't matter what the source of those things are, whether it's a magic property, a mundane weapon quality, etc., because there is no listed exception within the FAQ that provides such a claim.
So, the only two ways you're reaching the conclusion of "Shield Spikes + Bashing = Okay," is by either ignoring one or both of the associated items descriptions (which is betraying the RAW of the two subjects in question), or by ignoring the official FAQ (which all PFS GMs have to follow).
In either case, you're going against the rules of the game (doubly true in PFS cases), which means no matter what way you look at it, it's incorrect, and telling others that it is correct, well...they're gonna have a bad time, and that's being generous.
And to the Klar; you say it's a Light Shield with Armor Spikes that deals 1D6 Slashing, correct? How are you getting Slashing Damage, if the item, based solely on the description, is an amalgamation of the Light Shield (whose base damage is 1D3 Bludgeoning), and Armor Spikes (1D6 Piercing)?
The only way you could get the 1D6 Slashing is from what's listed in the Table, and that's not discussed or even alluded to, in any such way in the item's actual description, according to the PRD. I mean, you could try to say that the Armor Spikes part of the Klar is what makes it 1D6, but if you use the Armor Spike's damage, then you're using the damage from an item you don't Shield Bash with, for starters. There's numerous other problems (How is the Armor Spike's damage type going to Slashing? Does that really emulate an Armor Spike with that sort of change, or doesn't it become its own separate beast that's undefined in the description? etc.), so your claim that it's a 1D6 Slashing Shield Bash is, at the very least, a stretch that not everyone can connect to (myself included). Giving the PFS GMs the benefit of the doubt, I'm sure they're sensible human beings, and I'm certain several, if not many of them, would share the same concerns I've displayed here.
The other alternative, saying that it's a Spiked Light Shield instead of a Light Shield with Armor Spikes, leads to the same snafu I explained above, in that you're either betraying the rules of one (or both) item/property description(s), or you're betraying the FAQ (which the PFS GMs are required to enforce).
Now I pop my head back out, as I've made my (and the rest of my side's) case (and in a more civil manner, since I was a little "heated" in the previous interactions, which I apologize for).
Scott Wilhelm wrote: in Pathfinder Society we must go by RAW, even if it does turn out later to have been a typo. We must go by RAW but what is RAW isn't dictated by you, unless you are on the Dev team and you have a consensus.
James Risner wrote: Scott Wilhelm wrote: in Pathfinder Society we must go by RAW, even if it does turn out later to have been a typo. We must go by RAW but what is RAW isn't dictated by you, unless you are on the Dev team and you have a consensus. Of course it's not dictated by me. That's why I am backing everything I say by quotations from the RAW, and I am reading it as literally as possible. I am not the author of a single piece of text that I have said is the RAW.
Aelryinth, on the other hand is precisely dictating RAW. He is dismissing whole sections of the text as typos, and now he's trying to argue that the Klar doesn't exist by RAW! He's re-wording the text of the rules and now even editing my own words!
James, between Aelryinth and me, I'm not the one who needs lectures about not dictating the RAW.
Nevan Oaks, look at Aelryinth's last post, and look at my post before that, and you will see what I mean about how Aelryinth cannot be trusted to represent what I have to say.
Aelryinth, you do not represent me. You do not understand me. You have no right to speak for me. Knock it off.
Darksol the Painbringer wrote: You're saying the Bashing Enchantment, something which increases the effective size of a weapon by 2 categories, stacks with Shield Spikes, Yes
Darksol the Painbringer wrote: something which increases the effective size of a weapon by 1 category, No.
Darksol the Painbringer wrote: So, the only two ways you're reaching the conclusion of "Shield Spikes + Bashing = Okay," is by either ignoring one or both of the associated items descriptions (which is betraying the RAW of the two subjects in question), or by ignoring the official FAQ (which all PFS GMs have to follow). False: I have found a 3rd way.
Darksol the Painbringer wrote: In either case, you're going against the rules of the game I am not "going" anywhere. I am expressing an opinion contrary to yours and backing it with official rules sources.
I have already explained why I back this position earlier on this thread, but I am willing to revisit it, but at the moment, I am focused on another topic on this thread, and will have to revisit this topic later.
Please forgive the delay.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Let's please lock this thread.
Scott Wilhelm wrote: Of course it's not dictated by me. That's why I am backing everything I say by quotations from the RAW. Actually you are. Any that says you are wrong is also.
There is no "one true RAW", many times rules need interpretation. This is one of those times and the RAW has multiple interpretations.
Nefreet, why are you trying to spoil the thread by locking it?
Scott Wilhelm wrote: Darksol the Painbringer wrote: You're saying the Bashing Enchantment, something which increases the effective size of a weapon by 2 categories, stacks with Shield Spikes, Yes While you obviously think you have some reason in the rules to ignore the fact that bashing spiked shields were answered, I think this hurts your case.
We know via an FAQ that spiked shield and bashing doesn't stack.
Starbuck_II wrote: Nefreet, why are you trying to spoil the thread by locking it? Because this thread needs locked.
Starbuck_II wrote: Nefreet, why are you trying to spoil the thread by locking it? It's not me you need to look at.
Without quoting examples, which I just stopped myself from doing after I'd copied three, go back and read some of this back and forth.
It's dismissive and insulting. Use of quotation marks and bolding to communicate tone. Saying so-and-so can't be trusted, or that someone has an agenda.
This thread is done.
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
let's all just become shield champions brawlers and end this dicussion.
what happens when a Shield Champion Brawler uses a spiked shield?
Darkholme wrote: Core Rules, P152: Shield Bashing wrote: You can bash an opponent with a shield, using it as an off-hand weapon. Used this way, a shield is a martial bludgeoning weapon.
I think they took that out of the Core Rules... at least I can no longer see it in the PRD...
Scott Wilhelm can't read the RAW, and his own rules counter what the RAW says SIX DIFFERENT WAYS.
Yet, he's 'right'.
Yeah, I think we can pretty much say his arguments have skipped reason and gone to petulance. Locking the thread is a good idea. He's communicating misinformation and screaming he's right as he does so, with nothing to back it.
Please lock. If it repeats on another thread, I'll request the same.
==Aelrynth
James Risner wrote: Scott Wilhelm wrote: Of course it's not dictated by me. That's why I am backing everything I say by quotations from the RAW. Actually you are. Any that says you are wrong is also.
There is no "one true RAW", many times rules need interpretation. This is one of those times and the RAW has multiple interpretations. Okay, and if a PFS player can demonstrate that his character or style of play is square with the RAW, then in principle, he should be allowed to play his own way. If he is being disruptive to the table, that's another matter, but Pathfinder is a fantasy roleplaying game, it's supposed to be about creativity. Creative ways of looking at things are not supposed to be squelched without compelling reason.
I'm not saying that there is only one way of looking at things: I'm saying my way of looking at things is legal. If there were only one way of looking at the RAW, most debates would be pretty short: that's why we have discussions. So, Mr. Risner, now that you have told me that I don't have the only perspective on the RAW, I expect you to tell Aelryinth that he doesn't dictate RAW, either.
My way of looking at things should not be squelched without compelling reason either, and no one on this thread has offered much more than shrill denials, name-calling, ad hominem attacks, and strawman arguments as justification for shouting down my ideas about the Klar.
Nefreet, I am as bothered by poor behavior as you are, but you can't let online bullying squelch civilized discourse. You have to rise above it, make your voice heard, remember to stay civil yourself, but be firm in your convictions. Be firm, but don't be brittle.
James, I pride myself on being an objective interpreter of the rules. I urge you to review my earlier posts on this thread with a critical eye and share criticisms, positive, negative, and oblique. I also pride myself on being a civil and reasonable debater, and I resolve to be at least as civil as you.
Nefreet wrote: Starbuck_II wrote: Nefreet, why are you trying to spoil the thread by locking it? It's not me you need to look at.
Without quoting examples, which I just stopped myself from doing after I'd copied three, go back and read some of this back and forth.
It's dismissive and insulting. Use of quotation marks and bolding to communicate tone. Saying so-and-so can't be trusted, or that someone has an agenda.
This thread is done. Nefreet, I don't mind you naming my name. I did say that Aelryinth cannot be trusted to represent what I say.
He was presuming to speak for me, representing and framing my arguments to others as he saw fit, and I could not let his behavior go unanswered.
James Risner wrote: Scott Wilhelm wrote: Darksol the Painbringer wrote: You're saying the Bashing Enchantment, something which increases the effective size of a weapon by 2 categories, stacks with Shield Spikes, Yes While you obviously think you have some reason in the rules to ignore the fact that bashing spiked shields were answered, I think this hurts your case.
We know via an FAQ that spiked shield and bashing doesn't stack. I do. I am aware that it takes some courage to take the stand I am taking about Shield Bashing. I have been focusing on the Klar and wanted to finish with that before revisiting Shield Spikes.
But you can scroll back and review my views on Shield Spikes and Bashing.
Darksol the Painbringer wrote: And to the Klar; you say it's a Light Shield with Armor Spikes that deals 1D6 Slashing, correct? Yes.
Darksol the Painbringer wrote: How are you getting Slashing Damage, if the item, based solely on the description, is an amalgamation of the Light Shield (whose base damage is 1D3 Bludgeoning), and Armor Spikes (1D6 Piercing)?
The only way you could get the 1D6 Slashing is from what's listed in the Table,
Precisely: it's on the table.
Darksol the Painbringer wrote: and that's not discussed or even alluded to, in any such way in the item's actual description, according to the PRD. I mean, you could try to say that the Armor Spikes part of the Klar is what makes it 1D6, but if you use the Armor Spike's damage, then you're using the damage from an item you don't Shield Bash with, for starters. All of those are valid criticisms of the Klar. My stance though is that however strange these rules are, they are nevertheless rules and are binding upon players and referees. Perhaps Paizo should clean these rules up with FAQ, errata, and official rules posts, but I consider them binding until that happens.
Darksol the Painbringer wrote: There's numerous other problems (How is the Armor Spike's damage type going to Slashing? Does that really emulate an Armor Spike with that sort of change, or doesn't it become its own separate beast that's undefined in the description? etc.), so your claim that it's a 1D6 Slashing Shield Bash is, at the very least, a stretch I don't know how it's conceptually justifies, but the Table says it, so that's good enough for me.
Darksol the Painbringer wrote: that not everyone can connect to (myself included). Giving the PFS GMs the benefit of the doubt, I'm sure they're sensible human beings, and I'm certain several, if not many of them, would share the same concerns I've displayed here. And those concerns are legit, but if what the player is doing is legal, even if the rules themselves are poor rules, the player should be allowed to do it.
Darksol the Painbringer wrote: The other alternative, saying that it's a Spiked Light Shield instead of a Light Shield with Armor Spikes, leads to the same snafu I explained above, in that you're either betraying the rules of one (or both) item/property description(s), or you're betraying the FAQ (which the PFS GMs are required to enforce). More later.
Darksol the Painbringer wrote: Now I pop my head back out, as I've made my (and the rest of my side's) case (and in a more civil manner, since I was a little "heated" in the previous interactions, which I apologize for). I accept your apology.
Locking this thread. Even if someone is being insulting or breaking our Community Guidelines in some way, it does not make it OK to respond in kind. If you find yourself in a situation where you feel compelled to fire back, it might be a good idea to step away from the topic entirely.
Recent threads in Rules Questions
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
