| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
OK so pardon the newbie (to pathfinder) in his first post, but I'm not seeing how there is any question about this.
"These spikes turn a shield into a martial piercing weapon and increase the damage dealt by a shield bash... ...Otherwise, attacking with a spiked shield is like making a shield bash attack
OK, so to attack with a shield spike is not some special kind of attack but is clearly making a shield bash, and all the rule around that would apply to it.
"If you use your shield as a weapon, you lose its AC Bonus until your next turn"
Bold in both quotes is my own, added for emphasis
on the same page it says a light shield is treated as a light weapon for the purposes of penalties on attack rolls, and a heavy shield is a one handed weapon (but clearly not 'light')
So yes you can use the shield as your 'off hand' weapon when TWF. You could (see this thread) even use it in your primary hand, and some other weapon in your off hand and TWF. (yeah, weird but allowed) but unless you have the Improved Shield Bash feat, you are going to lose the shield's AC bonus for the round if you attack with the shield, spiked or not, TWF or not.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
OK so pardon the newbie (to pathfinder) in his first post, but I'm not seeing how there is any question about this.
"These spikes turn a shield into a martial piercing weapon and increase the damage dealt by a shield bash... ...Otherwise, attacking with a spiked shield is like making a shield bash attackOK, so to attack with a shield spike is not some special kind of attack but is clearly making a shield bash, and all the rule around that would apply to it.
"If you use your shield as a weapon, you lose its AC Bonus until your next turn"I can bold that last if it helps get the point across.
on the same page it says a light shield is treated as a light weapon for the purposes of penalties on attack rolls, and a heavy shield is a one handed weapon (but clearly not 'light')
So yes you can use the shield as your 'off hand' weapon. You could (see this thread) even use it in your primary hand, and some other weapon in your off hand. (yeah, weird but allowed) but unless you have the Improved Shield Bash feat, you are going to lose the shield's AC bonus for the round if you attack with the shield, spiked or not.
The example is more easily summed up by this example. I have a shield. I Two weapon fight to kick twice. Do I lose the shield bonus to AC?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
OK so pardon the newbie (to pathfinder) in his first post, but I'm not seeing how there is any question about this.
Welcome, newbie! You've entered into dangerous territory with your first post. I admire your ambition!
Just to give some historical context, the Designers (capital "D") work off the assumption that a normal, bipedal, humanoid character race has two "hands" worth of utility/effort/ability. Using this two-"handed" paradigm they've built the rules we have now for Two-Weapon Fighting and determining what's (generally) allowable for a basic character.
During most cases when questions about this Designer understanding come up, it's regarding attacks. At several points in the past, Designers have tried to voice how these "unwritten rules" work, but usually to no avail. This leads to the problem of using "unwritten rules" to support an argument. Both sides can rely on them.
In this thread, the assumption that you have two "hands" worth of utility is being extrapolated to cover "holding a shield". One side posits that, if you're gaining a mechanical benefit from using a "hand", that a character no longer has two "hands" of utility/effort/ability. Following this logic, you would not be able to use Two-Weapon Fighting, and benefit from a shield, as that would require three "hands" to pull off.
Most people seem to be on one side of the debate, but probably only because the arguments have been around the ability to attack in the past. Using a shield has come up only once, to my knowledge, and a (now retired) Designer has stated, somewhat off the cuff, that Greatsword/Shield was technically allowed, should a character ever be able to acquire a third arm.
So, hope that helps with the context of why this thread is here. If an FAQ ever comes out regarding the unwritten rules of "hands", it could really go any way, since there haven't ever been any rules on it written before!
(looking forward to your 2nd post!)
Armor spikes and shield spikes are two different things. ^_^
for some reason, in reading this I got obsessed on the sheild spikes etc and all the discussion about attacking with the shield.
so to quote Emily Litella "Never Mind"
so yeah, as long as you have the proficiency for the Martial weapon 'Armor Spikes'] the rules clearly say you can attack with them instead of an off-hand weapon, they count as a light weapon, and preclude you attacking with another offhand weapon (and vice versa) So yeah I see no reason with armor spikes that you could not carry a shield, and make your 'offhand' attack with armor spikes when TWF, taking the penalty for a light weapon.
why is this thread 10 pages long?
Just to give some historical context, the Designers (capital "D") work off the assumption that a normal, bipedal, humanoid character race has two "hands" worth of utility/effort/ability. Using this two-"handed" paradigm they've built the rules we have now for Two-Weapon Fighting and determining what's (generally) allowable for a basic character.During most cases when questions about this Designer understanding come up, it's regarding attacks. At several points in the past, Designers have tried to voice how these "unwritten rules" work, but usually to no avail. This leads to the problem of using "unwritten rules" to support an argument. Both sides can rely on them.
In this thread, the assumption that you have two "hands" worth of utility is being extrapolated to cover "holding a shield". One side posits that, if you're gaining a mechanical benefit from using a "hand", that a character no longer has two "hands" of utility/effort/ability. Following this logic, you would not be able to use Two-Weapon Fighting, and benefit from a shield, as that would require three "hands" to pull off.
Most people seem to be on one side of the debate, but probably only because the arguments have been around the ability to attack in the past. Using a shield has come up only once, to my knowledge, and a (now retired) Designer has stated, somewhat off the cuff, that Greatsword/Shield was technically allowed, should a character ever be able to acquire a third arm.
So, hope that helps with the context of why this thread is here. If an FAQ ever comes out regarding the unwritten rules of "hands", it could really go any way, since there haven't ever been any rules on it written before!
(looking forward to your 2nd post!)
yeah I think I see the morass that is the 'handedness' stuff. perhaps best to just steer clear of that entirely in this case. Of course in combat we clearly act with more than just our hands.. martial kicks etc clearly violate that paradigm. And attacking with armor spikes (outside of a grapple) seems a bit like using your entire body, a bit like 'checking' someone in hockey.
Myself I would look at this more like 'types of actions' one of which is called 'off-hand attack' but clearly despite the name does not always have to use the actual off-hand itself given there are other actions like attacking with armor spikes, which also qualify as an 'off-hand attack.
If they had termed that something like 'secondary attack' (gods help me if that is already a term in the game) which included 'attack with off-hand weapon', shield bash with off-hand, attack with armor spikes, etc.) I wonder if we would be having the same discussion?
(given gamers, probably yes I sadly suppose)
|
@James:
They FELT that way - but they admitted (this is precisely what they did) that the wording was in error. Please don't try to run down the people who argued the other way.PDT:
"A courageous weapon was meant to help only on saves against fear (either adding its enhancement bonus as a morale bonus on saves against fear, or adding half its enhancement bonus to your existing morale bonus on saves against fear, whichever is best for you). However, the wording is in error. The last sentence should say “on saves against fear” after “any morale bonus.” This change will be reflected in the next errata."(part bolded by me)
Further, PFS at least, recognized that this was not a clarification, but rather an actual change to how the rule worked. (which is good, because it meant everyone in PFS could sell back their courageous items.)
That said, I don't think a single person in the PFS thread on the subject said "Yeah, that's what I thought it did when I bought it. I'm keeping mine"
The PDT during SKR's time seemed to feel that once a rule was in print, it was locked, and if it didn't do what it was supposed to, too bad, it was up to the players to make the rule make sense. (and if the player was too dumb to do that they should play a different character.)
The PDT with Mark Siefer seems to be much more open to "Wait, that isn't what was supposed to happen. Lets change it, that's why we have an FAQ."
|
|
If they had termed that something like 'secondary attack' (gods help me if that is already a term in the game) which included 'attack with off-hand weapon', shield bash with off-hand, attack with armor spikes, etc.) I wonder if we would be having the same discussion?
Secondary attack is a term in the game.
It refers to a natural attack that is made a -5 to hit and which only receives +1/2 strength damage.
If you think that things are confusing now, just think what would have happened if they had used that name twice...
Contributor
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
why is this thread 10 pages long?Shhh... It's just a baby right now.
Some of us are hoping that if it gets to 20 pages, the designers will get fed up and issue a FAQ.
:)
I'm pretty sure only FAQ clicks will accomplish that, unfortunately. Something about the "queue".
The issue was resolved decisively pages ago when no one could offer any rules text to say that Shield AC is lost outside of a shield bash, nor any rules text to say that losing shield AC is the default assumption (as some have argued).
The thread is at its current length because the two "sides" enjoy repeating their points at each other--with increasing quantities of unnecessary personal insults.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Bah.
I warned many that these rulings with "unwritten rules" would have repercussions.
I was told "No. Don't worry, these only apply to this one FAQ.
HAH!
Look at this!
Would this even be a question, without them?
What new, ridiculous mind-numbing debates will crawl from this murky dark abyss, of "unwritten rules"?
Why can we not have them written, or fully known?
Are they like the knowledge of Elder Gods?
Would such knowledge drive us mad?
Are we not already slipping into insanity, with just a glimpse?
Is the mere knowledge of their existence, tearing our minds apart?
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Again, the question to be FAQ'd is --- HERE ---.
When Two-Weapon Fighting while wielding a shield, but not using the shield as a weapon for one of your attacks, do you lose the shield's shield bonus to AC until your next turn?
Please hit the FAQ button. Regardless of anyone's feelings, I'd rather know how it's officially ruled than have someone proved wrong/right.
|
|
Again, the question to be FAQ'd is --- HERE ---.
When Two-Weapon Fighting while wielding a shield, but not using the shield as a weapon for one of your attacks, do you lose the shield's shield bonus to AC until your next turn?Please hit the FAQ button. Regardless of anyone's feelings, I'd rather know how it's officially ruled than have someone proved wrong/right.
But => THIS ONE <= has more FAQ hits...
It's funny watching all of these arguments about "hands of effort" and "amount of effort needed to get a shield bonus", and the corresponding rules. Wanna know a secret? They don't exist. They are nowhere in the entire rulebook. They don't mean a thing, because the only official place they were hinted at existing, the FAQ, doesn't spell them out.
Someone mentioned people were "wrong" about the armor spike and greatsword thing.
No, they weren't. It was RAW at the time. They changed it.
The FAQ is primarily used as an errata. It is by no means rules clarification, sorry to burst anyone's bubble. RAW this works. Period. Anything else is an attempt to exrapolate rules that aren't there. That's not to say that won't change, but until it does, play the rules as they're written. Or if it's a home game, play them however you please.
You could technically wield a longsword, dagger, two spiked gauntlets, a boot knife, a boulder helmet, and a barbazu beard all at once. Heck, throw in a couple natural weapons on top of that.
Bah.
I warned many that these rulings with "unwritten rules" would have repercussions.
I was told "No. Don't worry, these only apply to this one FAQ.
HAH!
Look at this!
Would this even be a question, without them?
What new, ridiculous mind-numbing debates will crawl from this murky dark abyss, of "unwritten rules"?
Why can we not have them written, or fully known?
Are they like the knowledge of Elder Gods?
Would such knowledge drive us mad?
Are we not already slipping into insanity, with just a glimpse?
Is the mere knowledge of their existence, tearing our minds apart?
You know what? Smurf the shield handedness issue, this is what people should be FAQing. Let's get those Elder God rule books out to the stores people! (The EGCRB?)
|
Thunder and Fang....
You keep your AC Bonus with TWF with the Earthbreaker and Klar. Normally, you would lose that AC bonus.
Now, I know, there are others mentioned earlier in the thread, but this one is another that is consistent with the others.
Also keep this in mind. A monk can flurry with one "hand." If he uses a shield (having to get the feats to be able to do so) that isn't light, he loses his WIS bonus to AC. Not worth it, really.
I am not hitting the FAQ on any of this, it is already apparent that one would need to either have AC bonus from the shield, or the extra attack from the off-hand, with the exception of the one feat that allows for both.
Would some of you try to get the shield bonus while TWF as well as getting the TWF Defense bonus?
Thunder and Fang....
You keep your AC Bonus with TWF with the Earthbreaker and Klar. Normally, you would lose that AC bonus.
Right, because
A traditional klar counts as a light wooden shield with armor spikes. A metal klar counts as a light steel shield with armor spikes.
and
If you use your shield as a weapon, you lose its AC bonus until your next turn.
--
That is an awesome feat, btw. It's like Improved Shield Bash + Titan Mauler archetype rolled into one--but only for a specific shield and a specific 2H weapon. Still... awesome feat.
You could technically wield a longsword, dagger, two spiked gauntlets, a boot knife, a boulder helmet, and a barbazu beard all at once. Heck, throw in a couple natural weapons on top of that.
You forgot...a shield!
Of course, then you'd lose your shield AC if you TWF, or use it in one of your iteratives.
==Aelryinth
Because the rules are clear to me, and I don't see the need to put on the FAQ flag every time someone wants to cheese the mechanics past their clear intent.Why have only 6 people FAQed this so far?
I played a fighter (brawler) who fought with punching dagger/armor spikes/shield and I had a great time. I'd love to know if it's PFS-legal. ^_^
If you believe, FAQ it. It's the only way to prove you do!
==Aelryinth
Thunder and Fang....
You keep your AC Bonus with TWF with the Earthbreaker and Klar. Normally, you would lose that AC bonus.
Now, I know, there are others mentioned earlier in the thread, but this one is another that is consistent with the others.
Also keep this in mind. A monk can flurry with one "hand." If he uses a shield (having to get the feats to be able to do so) that isn't light, he loses his WIS bonus to AC. Not worth it, really.
I am not hitting the FAQ on any of this, it is already apparent that one would need to either have AC bonus from the shield, or the extra attack from the off-hand, with the exception of the one feat that allows for both.
Would some of you try to get the shield bonus while TWF as well as getting the TWF Defense bonus?
The Shield bonus can easily exceed the Wisdom bonus to AC. It's potentially +7, after all, 24 Wisdom is a high level Wisdom score.
The shield bonus from TW defense would not stack with an actual Shield.
Please hit the FAQ button on an appropriate post. It shows you believe in the question and want it clarified for the benefit of everyone.
YOu and I might, after all, be wrong. I welcome such a ruling.
Unfortunately, the other side will be wrong, and they don't.
So, please hit the FAQ. It can only turn out better for us! I can see the stampede of blade boots, armor spikes, and IUS users even now!
==Aelryinth
|
Contributor
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Because the rules are clear to me, and I don't see the need to put on the FAQ flag every time someone wants to cheese the mechanics past their clear intent.Why have only 6 people FAQed this so far?
I played a fighter (brawler) who fought with punching dagger/armor spikes/shield and I had a great time. I'd love to know if it's PFS-legal. ^_^
NOt FAQ'ing means he doesn't believe his own position, and is afraid that drawing attention to the issue will mean he's unable to do so in the future, in other words.
If you believe, FAQ it. It's the only way to prove you do!
==Aelryinth
Uh... the person you're currently accusing of cheese/munchkinism is on your side. ^_^
Woops! I fixes.
Ty.
83 posts since I logged off earlier. Speed reading promotes errors.
Sorry, Lazar.
==Aelryinth
The biggest mistake here, is the Shield Bonus = Attack belief.
There is nothing to support, that maintaining a Shield Bonus to AC, means the denial of potential attacks.
This is false.
Two kicks, does not equal lost Shield Bonus to AC.
It's a preposterous stance.
By that stance, two kicks shouldn't interfere with wielding a Greatsword, either! Feetses is not hands, after all!
Alas, you've already been ruled wrong on this point. A shield is a weapon, and must be readied like any other to perform its function. Just holding it is not enough.
So, your stance is indeed preposterous! :)
Who knew that 'don' could have so many people crowing about a loophole?
==Aelryinth
I just not where the Shield Bonus = Attack theory came from.
I mean, it must have come to someone, and then they scoured the rules, in an attempt to prove their theory.
Probably because of all the rules that swap Shield Bonus for attack, which means its the Default Rule.
But when you rewrite the Default Rule to suit yourself, of course it looks wrong.
==Aelryinth
|
|
I just not where the Shield Bonus = Attack theory came from.
I mean, it must have come to someone, and then they scoured the rules, in an attempt to prove their theory.
Probably because of all the rules that swap Shield Bonus for attack, which means its the Default Rule.
But when you rewrite the Default Rule to suit yourself, of course it looks wrong.
==Aelryinth
Do not all those involve attacking with the thing providing the Shield Bonus, or an attack utilizing the same arm as the donned item?