Shield bash questions


Rules Questions

101 to 150 of 165 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

Aelryinth wrote:

aCTUALLY, I just think he wants them to stack, found a decent argument that made sense, and is sticking to it in the hopes the devs can use it as a specific exception to the stacking rules.

==Aelryinth

I don't really care if bashing and spiked shields stack. I don't own one. But what bugs me is the raw stupidity of saying Lead Blades applies to a madu but not to a spiked shield. What bugs me is that the UE text tells us its a weapon in its own right and the idea that that has no functional meaning....when those words only purpose is to change the functional aspect of a spiked shield.

It really goes back to what Mark Seifter said about it making the game more impenetrable.

On a side note, the FAQ is annoying because of its heavy handed style. If you read the description of Lead Blades, and the fact that the spell specifically talks about what is happening, that is done with the notion of allowing it to stack and not stack based on the nature of what is happening. Just like a +1 Insight bonus stacks with a +1 Moral bonus. I think Lead Blades is written with an intent to allow stacking with other size increases. Gravity Clip's text affirms that mindset. So for the PDT to come along and just flush that nuance down the drain with "as if" as a type of bonus, feels like someone using a cudgel to cut a peace of steak. But there is no denying Lead Blades won't stack with Bashing per the FAQ.

The other aspect of it is that the emperor has no clothes. The FAQ clearly does not apply to spiked shields based on how it is written and how spiked shields are written. Now, it may have been intended to apply to spiked shields, but the words don't get us there. It requires an arbitrary step of using an entry from the armor table. Kind of like saying that grocers should put cakes in the diary aisle next to eggs because we use eggs to make them. Shield spikes are no more an effect on a spiked shield than an egg is an effect on a cake.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

N N 959 wrote:

I asked for affirmation that the FAQ was "a direct explicit answer" to spiked shields.

continual reference to Jacobs (other than revealing you have no one else you can reference)
Does the text description make references to any other methods of determining damage or use the "as if" formula? No.

I linked this thread. Since you can't be bothered to read it, I'll paraphrase:

Mark Seifter, a Designer, responded to an inquiry about Spiked Shields and Bashing stacking with a hint that multiple questions will get answered as a result of their damage dice increasing FAQ pow wow.

I'm unaware I've ever reference James Jacobs, so it is bizarre you would say that.

Quote:

Shield Spikes

Benefit: These spikes turn a shield into a martial piercing weapon and increase the damage dealt by a shield bash as if the shield were designed for a creature one size category larger

So, it does in fact use "as if".

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

N N 959 wrote:

I think Lead Blades is written with an intent to allow stacking with other size increases. Gravity Clip's text affirms that mindset. So for the PDT to come along and just flush that nuance down the drain with "as if" as a type of bonus, feels like someone using a cudgel to cut a peace of steak.

The FAQ clearly does not apply to spiked shields based on how it is written and how spiked shields are written.

I'm starting to believe you are being honest and you believe both of those.

The whole game is based on abstract rules. When not all fires catch things on fire, why would you think a game effect such as Spiked Shield using "as if" would not be the same "as if" used in a general ability stacking prohibition?

I honestly can't comprehend how anyone could read the text of the rules, the text of the FAQ, and the messages post by the Designers, plus posts by James Jacobs creative director, and not use the words such as "as if" in the Spiked Shield rules. How can you just ignore them? From some comment in the UE? Is that your whole theory behind this? That "weapon in their own right" blurb? Is that blurb fluff text? Or is it simply saying "makes them better weapons than they were" happy dance song?


James Risner wrote:


I linked this thread. Since you can't be bothered to read it, I'll paraphrase:
Mark Seifter, a Designer, responded to an inquiry about Spiked Shields and Bashing stacking with a hint that multiple questions will get answered as a result of their damage dice increasing FAQ pow wow.

Yeah, I did read it and I have to say, wow dude, that's some serious misrepresentation on your part.

Mark Seifter was responding to Nefreet's inquiry on whether his FAQ would be answered, He was not affirming that the FAQ answered all of Nefreet's questions. Nefreet's FAQ request is a general question on ALL size increase stacking. Nefreet doesn't just cite bashing & spiked shields. So no, Mark Seiter is not confirming anythjng other than Nefreet's FAQ might be answered.

And guess what, Mark Seifter's response comes before the FAQ is released. You can't affirm that the FAQ answers something until after the exact wording has been decided upon.


James Risner wrote:


I'm unaware I've ever reference James Jacobs, so it is bizarre you would say that.

Then you must be posting in your sleep.

James Risner wrote:
N N 959 wrote:

The idea that 2d6 damage on a shield bash is somehow tipping the scales in any combat and needed to be disallowed is patently absurd.

And FYI, I see no proof offered by you or anyone that the Scarred Wanderer entry is an error. That's purely speculative on your part.

You think it is absurd, but the developers didn't because they made a FAQ to fix the problem

It is also convenient to argue something may not be in error, when even if it is in error, it is wildly unlikely to ever be fixed. They rarely ever fix errors in monster/npc stat blocks. I'm sure you know that.


James Risner wrote:


Quote:
Benefit: These spikes turn a shield into a martial piercing weapon and increase the damage dealt by a shield bash as if the shield were designed for a creature one size category larger

So, it does in fact use "as if".

Do you understand the difference between shield spikes and a spiked shield? It seems that you don't. There is an entry for a spiked shield in the weapons table. I've posted it several times in this thread. It does not use the term "as if." Nor does it require that I reference Shield Spikes to determine how much damage a spiked shield does. If you can't or won't recognize that shield spikes are not something you attack with and a spiked shield is, then you're never going to understand what I'm saying. The distinction, which is reinforced by the UE text as well as the Core text, affirms the distinction.

Does that mean the PDT did not intend for the FAQ to apply? No. But it does mean you'll need to use RAI to make it apply because RAW doesn't get you there.


James Risner wrote:


I honestly can't comprehend how anyone could read the text of the rules, the text of the FAQ, and the messages post by the Designers, plus posts by James Jacobs creative director, and not use the words such as "as if" in the Spiked Shield rules. How can you just ignore them? From some comment in the UE? Is that your whole theory behind this? That "weapon in their own right" blurb? Is that blurb fluff text? Or is it simply saying "makes them better weapons than they were" happy dance song?

Bingo.

You're lumping in what one Creative Director wanted to happen and then insisting that a designer's response that a FAQ would be answered as tantamount to affirming something it doesn't, then insisting the UE text is meaningless. Yes, if I do that, then I would probably come away with a complimentary interpretation.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

N N 959 wrote:
Yeah, I did read it and I have to say, wow dude, that's some serious misrepresentation on your part.

Actually you. But I just read a thread where you and Scott tried to argue your point with Mark, and each time being rebuffed.

Summary:
Scott: Bashing workings with Spiked shields right?
Mark: Well, it could maybe could be more clear to nebies, but no.
You and Scott: But look here and here and here.
Mark: Still no, no, and I wouldn't put much stock in NPC stat blocks to prove it does 2d6, cause ya know like some say to use Vital Strike incorrectly.
You and Scott: But but but
Mark: As a curiosity maybe I'll figure out whether or not it was intended to stack, but it doesn't cause reasons.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

N N 959 wrote:

insisting that a designer's response that a FAQ

Can you please stop misrepresenting the comments I'm making?

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

1 person marked this as a favorite.
N N 959 wrote:
Do you understand the difference between shield spikes and a spiked shield? It seems that you don't.

I don't because there is a difference, and I'm boggled as to why you seem to honestly believe there is. When developers tell you point blank directly to you there isn't.


James Risner wrote:
N N 959 wrote:
Do you understand the difference between shield spikes and a spiked shield? It seems that you don't.
I don't because there is no difference, and I'm boggled as to why you seem to honestly believe there is. When developers tell you point blank directly to you there isn't.

Please link where a developer told me "point blank directly" that there is no difference between shield spiked and a spiked shield.

But regardless, your refusal to accept the distinction represent an impasse in the discussion. We'll have to agree to disagree.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

N N 959 wrote:

.Please link where a developer told me "point blank directly" that there is no difference .

We'll have to agree to disagree.

Already did. The "Ask Mark anything" thread. In April 2015, you and Scott laid out you evidence they stack and got told no 5 times. Finally Mark left the discussion with essentially "dunno if they were intended to stack".

Pretty much everyone agreed to disagree with you 100 posts ago. I guess I like punishment.

But there isn't anything new you could show me or Paixo to get them to agree bashing spiked shields stack.


James Risner wrote:
N N 959 wrote:

.Please link where a developer told me "point blank directly" that there is no difference .

We'll have to agree to disagree.

Already did. The "Ask Mark anything" thread. In April 2015, you and Scott laid out you evidence they stack and got told no 5 times. Finally Mark left the discussion with essentially "dunno if they were intended to stack".

Pretty much everyone agreed to disagree with you 100 posts ago. I guess I like punishment.

But there isn't anything new you could show me or Paixo to get them to agree bashing spiked shields stack.

You're just funny. Or sad, I can't decide which. Let's actually post the critical exchange between Mark and Scott which you conveniently leff out.

Mark Seifter wrote:
Scott Wilhelm wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
I would not put too much stock in published NPCs when it comes to rules minutiae. I can also point out more than one NPC that specifically is supposed to use Vital Strike on a Spring Attack, for instance.

Ok, but you yourself agreed that it's counter-intuitive that a Spiked Shield would really count as a virtual size increase that would interfere with other virtual size increase effects, and that the writers probably didn't intend that when they wrote it.

I do think its odd and makes the game more impenetrable. I'm not really sure what was intended, though my advantage, I suppose, is I can eventually ask (if they remember)!
Mark Seifter wrote:
Scott Wilhelm wrote:

I have a question about Shield Spikes

Shield Spikes wrote:
These spikes turn a shield into a martial piercing weapon and increase the damage dealt by a shield bash as if the shield were designed for a creature one size category larger than you

So, some people on the forums are interpreting this literally, saying that since spikes count as a size increase, you can't put the Bashing Enchantment on it and expect it to stack.

So that is the RAW, I guess, but it seems completely counter-intuitive that adding spikes causes any kind of size increase. The nature of Shield Spikes' damage increase seems to be completely different from any kind of size increase, real or virtual, and I have trouble believing that the writers really meant their description of Shield Spikes to be a stacking limitation on the Bashing Enchantment.

What do you think?

It's kind of an odd decision from an "explaining to new players" perspective to define shield spikes in that way, I agree. I'm not really sure why that decision was originally made. The whole thing about attacking with shields is actually written pretty confusingly.

How you read that and come away with what you're saying is beyond comprehension.

And FYI, I don't recall that Mark ever replied to my posts in that discussion, so claiming that he shut me down "directly" is just flat out lying.

No where in that discussion does Mark say there is no difference between shield spikes and a spiked shield. The question isn't asked. Neither Scott nor I referenced the UE text which spells it out. Why? Because at the time, I didn't understand the difference myself. I figured that out definitively in this thread, thanks to Darksol.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

N N 959 wrote:
How you read that and come away with what you're saying is beyond comprehension.

If you read that exchange, and didn't see Mark saying that they didn't stack but he didn't know whether or not they were intended, I can't help you. No one can.


Sure, I can see how you come way with that part of it. But there's nothing in there about shield spikes versus spiked shield or him responding to me directly.

And what you're ignoring is that Mark answering a question on Shield spikes, not a spiked shield. Shield spikes are affected by the FAQ. What Mark does not answer is whether a spiked shield is its own weapon and thus outside the FAQ. Why? Because neither Scott nor I reference the rule that articulates that.

Without the UE text, the distinction is hard to establish. Without the distinction, its natural to conclude the FAQ applies. I don't recall any prior discussion on the topic highlighting the distinction. And if there was, I certainly didn't internalize its implication. I think we all just used the Core description of shield spikes, not suspecting there was a newer definition. I have to wonder what definition the PDT was operating under.


N N 959 wrote:

Sure, I can see how you come way with that part of it. But there's nothing in there about shield spikes versus spiked shield or him responding to me directly.

And what you're ignoring is that Mark answering a question on Shield spikes, not a spiked shield. Shield spikes are affected by the FAQ. What Mark does not answer is whether a spiked shield is its own weapon and thus outside the FAQ. Why? Because neither Scott nor I reference the rule that articulates that.

Without the UE text, the distinction is hard to establish. Without the distinction, its natural to conclude the FAQ applies. I don't recall any prior discussion on the topic highlighting the distinction. And if there was, I certainly didn't internalize its implication. I think we all just used the Core description of shield spikes, not suspecting there was a newer definition. I have to wonder what definition the PDT was operating under.

So then by your logic, the only attacks a Shield can make are Shield Bash attacks, which means that a Klar does 1D6 Slashing damage as a Shield Bash, Throwing Shields can't actually be used as a Ranged Attack (because you can't Shield Bash at a range), nor can you Shield Bash with them as a Free Action, since it requires a throw, and a throw is not a Shield Bash, and the Klar can be affected by the Bashing property to deal 2D6 Slashing damage, because it's not a Spiked Shield, it's just a regular Shield with Armor Spikes. Except, it doesn't work, and this stuff has been debunked.

You see what happens when you apply the "RAW only" bulls!@# arguments that Scott was applying before? It breaks the game in ways that were not meant to be broken, because if they were meant to be that way, Paizo would've simply just said they would be that way, and written them accordingly. But they didn't. And it's quite clear as to why that is: Because they didn't want them to be that way. And you just can't see it.

Applying Armor Spikes to an item that otherwise cannot (and should not) feasibly receive such an attachment, being able to do "infinity damage" (and then not, because its own logic fails upon itself, thankfully), treating descriptions as affecting only what the description is about (creating a theoretical 'bubble' between subjects, never being able to interact with each other), all of these elements are what cause the game to implode and not properly function, and is what would happen if we went with your RAW "Spiked Shields are their own weapons and therefore cannot be affected by anything other than its own description."

It's much simpler, and more balanced, to say that the Shield Spikes description applies to Spiked Shields (as it says it does in the Shield Spikes description), and these adjustments are reflected in their own entries in the table, than for the Developers to write up some stupid bypass that would probably not make any sense if they followed through with it, and people would FAQ it back to what it originally was, just to fulfill some 3.X stuff that, by the way, Pathfinder has strived to make this a separation from 3.X. Like with SLA qualifications for Prestige Classes, they're capable of reneging their stuff, and in this case, regarding 3.X, and including things like the Armor Spikes shenanigans, they have. But in this instance, you just can't accept the renege.

And that's fine. Don't accept it then. But professing your perspective as the one that Paizo currently shares (or should've taken) is blatantly false, especially when you don't have the feasible proof to back up such a claim.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

N N 959 wrote:
Mark answering a question on Shield spikes, not a spiked shield. Shield spikes are affected by the FAQ. What Mark does not answer is whether a spiked shield is its own weapon and thus outside the FAQ..

Because you are making a distinction when no one else is.


Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Stuff about Klar...

Welcome back Darksol, happy to have you. Glad to see "next time" was sooner rather than later.

As far as the klar, I have no comment. Nothing I've said or typed contemplates the klar. I've looked at it in the past and I think it's a hot mess. Throwing shields? Similar, but not as bad. So you're free to try and draw a nexus between my statements about the spiked shield/shield spikes situation to whatever you want. It's a free world.

Quote:
But professing your perspective as the one that Paizo currently shares (or should've taken) is blatantly false, especially when you don't have the feasible proof to back up such a claim.

I don't recall claiming any such thing. In fact, in my previous response to Risner, I specifically asked the question about whether the PDT is in agreement on the mechanics.

Imbicatus correctly points out that the Core definition of shield spikes comes verbatim from 3.5. So what is indisputable is that Paizo, specifically the design team under the leadership of Jason Bulmahn, modified the text to Shield Spikes between Core and UE. The new definition says the shields spikes create a new weapon. That was all Paizo. Whether the PDT continues to honor that rule or whether they think it means something else, I cannot say. But there is no denying that Paizo is wholly and totally responsible for the UE addition. So I do have proof to back up a claim on what Paizo felt at the time the entry was updated.

I've said this before and I'll repeat it. Without the text change in UE, it's harder to establish the distinction. Using just Core, I can see how one might be motivated to dismiss the precise and specific language in the Core shield spikes entry that you aren't attacking with shield spikes, but with a spiked shield. It's also pretty easy to dismiss the fact that a spiked shield is an entry in the weapons table by trying to pretend the shield spikes text trumps the weapon table. Yes, I see the path the thought process many people went down. But the UE text has functional significance and you can't just dismiss it it out of hand. Unless the PDT says, "it's fluff" it stands as valid and applicable RAW and not only that, its RAW added by Paizo themselves. So regardless of what you believe the PDT intended to accomplish with the FAQ. Rules As Written, it does not apply to a spiked shield.

P.S. Don't be a stranger!


James Risner wrote:
N N 959 wrote:
Mark answering a question on Shield spikes, not a spiked shield. Shield spikes are affected by the FAQ. What Mark does not answer is whether a spiked shield is its own weapon and thus outside the FAQ..
Because you are making a distinction when no one else is.

Perhaps no one in this thread, but Paizo affirmed the distinction when they, themselves, modified the shield spikes definition to establish the spiked shield as a "weapon in its own right."

I'll repeat what you said to me, if you read that and can't see that Paizo intended to create the distinction, then I can't help you...no one can.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

1 person marked this as a favorite.
N N 959 wrote:
I'll repeat what you said to me, if you read that and can't see that Paizo intended to create the distinction, then I can't help you...no one can.

You can help all of us by acknowledging you don't dictate Rules As Written interpretations and not withstanding the intend debate, developers agree it is limited. You won't.


Funny, when you all thought you had RAW on your side, you didn't hesitate to flog me with it. Now that it clearly isn't, you're annoyed with the use of the concept. Why am I not surprised?

Scarab Sages

N N 959 wrote:
Funny, when you all thought you had RAW on your side, you didn't hesitate to flog me with it. Now that it clearly isn't, you're annoyed with the use of the concept. Why am I not surprised?

RAW is not on your side. Despite being able to be enchanted as weapons in their own right, the Spiked Shield's damage is a virtual size increase to a normal shield bash according to the rules in both the CRB and UC. The Bashing enchantment on shields is also a virtual size increase to a normal shield bash. When combined with the FAQ on virtual and physical size increases, they do not stack.

That is the rules as they are written.


Please quote me the text for a "spiked shield."

There is no virtual language used. The language your refer to occurs in the Shield Spikes entry, right after it tells us that a spiked shield is its own weapon. That's RAW. That's the rule as it is actually written.

Since there is no written text that says a spiked shield uses virtual anything, then the FAQ does not apply. As written the FAQ does not apply. I don't reference shield spikes to determine the damage of a spiked shield because the spiked shield has a damage die and is "a weapon in its own right."

As the rules are written, the spiked shield is not affected by the FAQ. The shield spikes are....but they aren't a weapon and you can't attack anyone with them, just ask Darksol.

What you and others are doing is referring to the shield spikes entry when using a spiked shield. Your thought process is if the shield spikes use the language and the spiked shield is using the shield spikes, then the spiked shield is affected. If the spiked shield wasn't a weapon in its own right, then that might be accurate. But it's not because the spiked shield is its own weapon.

When you make a weapon out of special material, does that make a weapon in its own right? No. Longsword made out of cold iron is still a longsword. When you make a spiked shield using shield spikes does that make a weapon in its own right? Yes. How do we know that? Because the rules say that. That is written in the rule book. That weapon, as written, does not use "as if" language. That is irrefutable and indisputable.

Claiming that I need to use the shield spiked definition when evaluating the FAQ against a spiked shield is your belief on how the rules work. Nothing in how the FAQ was actually written references a spiked shield.


Imbicatus wrote:

the Spiked Shield's damage is a virtual size increase to a normal shield bash according to the rules in both the CRB and UC.

That is the rules as they are written.

No, that's not the rules as written. That is you paraphrasing the rule. The spiked shield entry does not reference shield spikes. Your doing that on your own. The spiked shield entry has a damage die and we know exactly how much damage the spiked shield does without referencing any other table or text. Not only that, the spiked shield has size categories, along with a price.

The shield spikes entry tells us how we make a spiked shield: take the shield add the spikes, and you get a new weapon whose damage is one step higher. Once that is complete, I have a new weapon. When using that weapon, I reference that weapon's definition. Does that weapon use "as if"? No. It unequivocally does not.

Scarab Sages

Shield Spikes convert a normal shield into a spiked shield. They are synonymous. The rules for Masterwork Armor clearly show that to gain a enhancement bonus on attack rolls with a spiked shield you need to make the spikes masterwork.

Ultimate Equipment wrote:

Masterwork Armor:

Even though some types of armor and shields can be used as weapons, you can't create a masterwork version of such an item that confers an enhancement bonus on attack rolls. However, you can create masterwork armor spikes and shield spikes, which do confer their enhancement bonus on attack rolls to attacks made with the spikes.


Imbicatus wrote:
They are synonymous.

That's yet to be proven. And actual term used in UE is "transforming," not simply converting. As written, they are not because the UE text flat out tells us the "spiked shield" is its own weapon. Again, irrefutable and unequivocal as to what is written. Your supposition is that we ignore the distinction and treat them as the same thing for the FAQ. That's fine, but that's RAI, not RAW. RAW makes the distinction. Telling me the distinction should be ignored is something you can argue, but not from a RAW perspective. Even if its what the PDT intended, that still doesn't make it apply as written.

Quote:

The rules for Masterwork Armor clearly show that to gain a enhancement bonus on attack rolls with a spiked shield you need to make the spikes masterwork.

Ultimate Equipment wrote:

Masterwork Armor:

Even though some types of armor and shields can be used as weapons, you can't create a masterwork version of such an item that confers an enhancement bonus on attack rolls. However, you can create masterwork armor spikes and shield spikes, which do confer their enhancement bonus on attack rolls to attacks made with the spikes.

Yes, this came up when someone start asking about the pricing of enchanting a spiked shield. Perhaps in Nefreet's thread or some other one. Those rules are confusing because the actual shield spikes entry says you enchant a "spiked shield." So a long time ago, either I, or someone else asked how we resolve that. No answer was forth coming. I can see how you want to us those clauses to infer that the rulebook is using shield spikes and spiked shields interchangeably. But it doesn't change the actual UE entry which states a spiked shield is its own weapon. So barring a PDT statement that a spiked shield and shield spikes are one and the same....they are not because the UE text says they are not and that's going to trump some ambiguous statement in the Masterworks Armor section.

One thing I did in this thread is contrast the Armor Spikes entry and the Shield Spikes entry. Armor spikes says you can enchant armor spikes, not spiked armor. Shield spikes says can enchant a spiked shield, not shield spikes. Consider, if shield spikes and spiked shield were synonymous, why would the Shield Spikes entry say you can enchant a "spiked shield" instead of saying shield spikes when the armor spikes entry goes that route?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

So your point is that a Spiked shield is not made by adding shield spikes to a shield?


Sure, that's my point. No, actually, my point is that the PDT is secretly trying to eliminate all melee classes.

Bad faith posting is going to be met with ridicule.

Scarab Sages

N N 959 wrote:


Bad faith posting is going to be met with ridicule.

Good luck with that, as ridicule is met with moderated posts, locked threads, and temporary posting bans.


So has posting to antagonize people, which is clearly what Cavall has done and what you're endorsing by "favoring" his post.

Scarab Sages

He has a point. Spiked Shields are what you get when Shield Spikes are applied to a Shield. You can't have one without the other. Trying to argue that you can doesn't make any sense from a logical standpoint, and by insisting that they are separate form each other you are making a bad faith argument.


He does not have a point, his post is meant purely to be inflammatory by suggesting I'm advocating something ridiculous. Common tactic when a poster has nothing substantive to add to the discussion.. I'll quote myself three posts before his.

N N 959 wrote:


The shield spikes entry tells us how we make a spiked shield: take the shield add the spikes, and you get a new weapon whose damage is one step higher. Once that is complete, I have a new weapon. When using that weapon, I reference that weapon's definition. Does that weapon use "as if"? No. It unequivocally does not.

So no, I'm not making a bad faith argument, I'm making one that you don't agree with because your refuse to give credence to the UE text which expicitly tells us we have a new weapon.

The UE text then tells us to refer to the weapon table and look up what? "spiked shield."


It's not a bad faith post. It's questioning the point of saying there's a difference between shield spikes on a shield and a Spiked shield.

I want to know where you think the difference lies and how one makes a Spiked shield if not for adding spikes to a shield.

When I make a shield bash do I have to say "I bash him with my shield that is Spiked? " for instance or risk having the GM correct me.

There's no bad faith I want to know exactly where you lie on this.

However I should stress that I don't feel you're right in this at all. Not to encourage ridicule or make it seem like I am ridiculing. Just so you know that I think the burden of proof lies on you not on me.


Cavall wrote:


I want to know where you think the difference lies and how one makes a Spiked shield if not for adding spikes to a shield.

How does one make water? By combining hydrogen and oxygen. By your logic, water should burn because both oxygen and hydrogen do.

The text books explicitly tells us we've got something new. The text literally uses the word "transforming" to describe the process. It tells us what that thing is called and that things satisfies all the properties of a weapon. Shield Spikes do not satsify the properties of a weapon. Darksol can explain that to you. It can't be spelled out any more clearly than it is. Sorry, I can't help you to understand it better. If you need the PDT to simply say, "weapon in its own right" before you'll believe what you're reading, then ask the PDT to say it. I don't need to.

Quote:
When I make a shield bash do I have to say "I bash him with my shield that is Spiked? " for instance or risk having the GM correct me.

I'll quote you what the rulebook, all of them, actually say

Any rulebook with a shield spikes entry wrote:
Otherwise, attacking with a spiked shield is like making a shield bash attack.

That is taken from the Shield Spikes entry. It unequivocally tells us that you attack with a "spiked shield."

Once again, this is RAW.

There is no burden of proof on me to prove what is literally written in the text. You want me to prove that what is intended is different than what you think is intended. I have no obligation to do that.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Aelryinth wrote:

Hey, if two handed firearms like a musket can do d10 20/x2 if wielded in melee combat, then a shield which is bigger and DESIGNED AS A WEAPON AND with a BASHING enchantment on top doing 2-12 isn't bad at all.

.. where's the rule for the firearm club?

It's under the Gunslinger rules, in their deeds.

I was a bit miffed to find it not listed in the weapons section for ease of use.

==Aelryinth


I'm not actually asking for the pdt to say it's a new weapon. It's a shield that due to spikes is considered virtually one size bigger. Because that's "literally " what the books tell us as far as stacking.


Cavall wrote:
I'm not actually asking for the pdt to say it's a new weapon. It's a shield that due to spikes is considered virtually one size bigger. Because that's "literally figuratively" what the books tell us as far as stacking.

Please quote me the text for a spiked shield from any book you can find it in.

Thanks.

EDIT: Fixed that for you.


No, thank you. Feel free to scroll up to the many quotes needed to reference as far as that goes. I've no need to hunt down what you cm scroll up to do. Literally.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

N N 959 wrote:
Funny, when you all thought you had RAW on your side, you didn't hesitate to flog me with it. Now that it clearly isn't, you're annoyed with the use of the concept. Why am I not surprised?

I think I have RAW on my side, absolutely.

I also would be my life the Developers agree with me.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

As the thread with the dev JS noted, he does indeed have RAW on his side. JS repeated it numerous times. They don't stack. That's the rule.

There is a small, marginal chance that he does not have RAI on his side, which is a completely different issue. JS noted that, but that doesn't change the RAW.

==Aelryinth

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Cavall wrote:
So your point is that a Spiked shield is not made by adding shield spikes to a shield?

I think that is his point, yes.

N N 959 wrote:
Cavall wrote:
Because that's "literally figurativelyliterally" what the books tell us as far as stacking.
Fixed that for you.

Fixed that for you.


James Risner wrote:
N N 959 wrote:
Funny, when you all thought you had RAW on your side, you didn't hesitate to flog me with it. Now that it clearly isn't, you're annoyed with the use of the concept. Why am I not surprised?

I think I have RAW on my side, absolutely.

I also would be my life the Developers agree with me.

Here is what the FAQ says,

Quote:
As per the rules on size changes, size changes do not stack, so if you have multiple size changing effects (for instance an effect that increases your size by one step and another that increases your size by two steps), only the largest applies. The same is true of effective size increases (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). They don’t stack with each other, just take the biggest one. However, you can have one of each and they do work together (for example, enlarge person increasing your actual size to Large and a bashing shield increasing your shield’s effective size by two steps, for a total of 2d6 damage).

Nowhere in the FAQ does it literally metion spiked shield, or even shield spikes for that matter. So that means for the FAQ to have any effect on an item, the item must satisfy the requiremens of the FAQ i.e. the item must use the language "one size category larger" or similar language.

Let's look at the weapon text description for a spiked shield

PRD wrote:
Spiked Shield, Heavy or Light: You can bash with a spiked shield instead of using it for defense.

Does that text description use any of the language required in the FAQ? No. Does the weapons table require have any kind of "special" or "see below" for damage? No.

The FAQ as written, does not affect spiked shields. That is irrefutable.

If you think you have RAW on your side, then you don't understand what it means when someone says Rule As Written. You are confusing that with Rule With What I Think the Designers Wanted It To Do. RAW and RWWITTDWITD are not he same thing, as the latter doesn't even have an 'A' in it.

Many of you believe you can backdoor this problem by insisting that shield spikes and spiked shield are the same thing. That isn't stated anywhere in RAW. That's an inference, counter-indicated by the rules themselves. Many of you believe the designers wrote the FAQ intending the shield spikes definition would include a spiked shield, because you think the devs were intend on stopping the 2d6 from occurring. That isn't stated in the rules or the FAQ. In fact, the rules actually tell us how to get a 2d6 shield bash don't they?

I'd hate to see you die over a game.


Cavall wrote:
I'm not actually asking for the pdt to say it's a new weapon. It's a shield that due to spikes is considered virtually one size bigger. Because that's "literally " what the books tell us as far as stacking.

If this is true, then I should be able to do a word search for "shield that due to spikes is considered virtually one size bigger".

I did the search, nothing come back. Not even shield spikes shows up. So no, that's not "literally" what the book tells us. Try it yourself. Risner, you may want want to have a go at it as well since you seem to think Cavall's use of "literally" was correct. It's hard to have a discussion when people make up the definition for words in the english language.

You know what is literally in the rulebook? "weapon in its own right." Word search for that in Ultimate Equipment. Please let us know if you find it.

Thanks.

Scarab Sages

Spiked Shields are both armor and weapons. The weapon table entry is incomplete for them, because the rules for shields are in both the weapon and armor sections of the rulebook. What is the cost and weight of a spiked shield using only the stats from the weapon table?

You cannot ignore the rules for shield spikes in the armor entry because you cannot make a spiked shield without them.

Using the entry for Shield Spikes on the armor table, it is clear that the damage for a spiked shield is a virtual size increase from a normal shield.

That is the rules as they are written in their entirety. There is no RAI or any other acronym you want to make up otherwise.


Imbicatus wrote:
Spiked Shields are both armor and weapons. The weapon table entry is incomplete for them, because the rules for shields are in both the weapon and armor sections of the rulebook. What is the cost and weight of a spiked shield using only the stats from the weapon table?

Ultimate Equipment has the cost.

Quote:
You cannot ignore the rules for shield spikes in the armor entry because you cannot make a spiked shield without them.

If what you say is true, then every time I make a spiked shield bash, I would have to refer to shield spikes to determine my damage? Do I? No. I can go to the Weapons Table and look no further. Aery wants to insist this is a "convenience," that the weapons table entry is there just help us out. Paizo could save time and money if they just put a footnote on a shield and say "treat as one size category larger if used with shield spikes." But they didn't. They updated the text for shield spikes, so they certainly could have made the Weapons Table smaller.

Quote:
Using the entry for Shield Spikes on the armor table, it is clear that the damage for a spiked shield is a virtual size increase from a normal shield.

It's clear that when making a spiked shield, you increase the damage of the shield you start with. There' no denying how the weapon is made. But once it's made, it is its own weapon. The very entry where we are told how the weapon is made tells us it is its own weapon. It's not even ambiguous.

Now you can ignore what it says, or claim it means something different. But there's no denying what the words are.

Quote:
That is the rules as they are written in their entirety. There is no RAI or any other acronym you want to make up otherwise.

That's not the rules written. That's you looking at what's written and telling me how I have to process the information. You're telling me that I have to use shield spikes when attacking with a spiked shield. That isn't written anywhere and conflicts with the actually written rules that say the spiked shield is its own weapon. In fact, the shield spikes entry tells me to look at the Weapon Table. The spiked shield entry does not refer to the shield spikes entry. Nowhere is that written. Making a spiked shield is a transformative process, hence the use of "transforming" in the shield spikes entry.

All of you have a real struggle separating the process you think you should use with something that's actually written. A GM can 100% accurately determine the damage for a spiked shield without referencing the armor section. So no, I don't need the armor section to determine the damage of the spiked shield once its made. I need the armor section to determine how to make the spiked shield.

While you may believe that means shield spikes and spiked shield are synonymous, the written rules tell us they are not. That having been said, it's possible that some members of the PDT think the same way. It's possible that some members of the PDT were not aware or contemplating the text in UE. But then it's possible that they were.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

N N 959 wrote:

Nowhere in the FAQ does it literally metion spiked shield, or even shield spikes for that matter.

The FAQ as written, does not affect spiked shields. That is irrefutable.

I don't think that word means what you think it means ... [Princess Bride]

But let's take your assertion to the logical extension:

  • The FAQ doesn't mention Strong Jaw, so it doesn't apply to that spell.
  • The FAQ doesn't mention Impact, so it doesn't apply to that.
  • The FAQ doesn't mention Improved Natural Attack, so not that.
  • The FAQ doesn't mention bashing, so it doesn't apply.
  • The FAQ doesn't mention Enlarge Person, so it doesn't apply either.
  • The FAQ doesn't mention anything so nothing applies.
  • The FAQ irrefutable applies to NOTHING AT ALL.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

N N 959 wrote:
Quote:
That is the rules as they are written in their entirety.
That's not the rules written.

Thats the meaning of RAW.


James Risner wrote:
N N 959 wrote:

Nowhere in the FAQ does it literally metion spiked shield, or even shield spikes for that matter.

The FAQ as written, does not affect spiked shields. That is irrefutable.

I don't think that word means what you think it means ... [Princess Bride]

But let's take your assertion to the logical extension:

  • The FAQ doesn't mention Strong Jaw, so it doesn't apply to that spell.
  • The FAQ doesn't mention Impact, so it doesn't apply to that.
  • The FAQ doesn't mention Improved Natural Attack, so not that.
  • The FAQ doesn't mention bashing, so it doesn't apply.
  • The FAQ doesn't mention Enlarge Person, so it doesn't apply either.
  • The FAQ doesn't mention anything so nothing applies.
  • The FAQ irrefutable applies to NOTHING AT ALL.

Perhaps I clarified that section after you quoted it.

NN959 wrote:
So that means for the FAQ to have any effect on an item, the item must satisfy the requiremens of the FAQ i.e. the item must use the language "one size category larger" or similar language.

I have a habit of rereading my posts and then editing them for clarify or mistakes.


N N 959 wrote:


I have a habit of rereading my posts and then editing them for clarify or mistakes.

*grin* Which I failed to do on that post before it got locked.


Darksol the Painbringer wrote:


You see what happens when you apply the "RAW only" bulls!@# arguments that Scott was applying before? It breaks the game in ways that were not meant to be broken, because if they were meant to be that way, Paizo would've simply just said they would be that way, and written them accordingly.

Forgot to respond to this before, but it looks like we're making progress. Now you're arguing that RAW is broken in this case. That's a huge step towards a mutual understanding.

Quote:
...treating descriptions as affecting only what the description is about (creating a theoretical 'bubble' between subjects, never being able to interact with each other), all of these elements are what cause the game to implode and not properly function, and is what would happen if we went with your RAW "Spiked Shields are their own weapons and therefore cannot be affected by anything other than its own description."

First, I'm not creating a theoretical bubble. Paizo is, by adding "weapon in its own right." I didn't invent those words or imagine them. Second, those words don't isolate a spiked shield. Any FAQ that wants to say something about a spiked shield can either name it directly, or, provide a keyword that includes a spiked shield. For example:

Any bashing weapon must do blunt damage.

Despite not mentioning spiked shields directly, the spiked shield entry says you can make a "bashing" attack with it, so the hypothetical FAQ applies. You can also indirectly affect a spiked shield by exclusion. For example,

This property can only be applied to slashing weapons.

The weapon table tells us a that the damage is B for blunt, so spiked shield are affected. The designers know how to do this.

So the idea that my interpretation cannot be affected by any description but its own, is inaccurate. What I am saying is that a spiked shield is not affected by the shield spikes entry for the purposes of this FAQ because the shields spikes entry tells us the spiked shield is its own weapon and provides all the stats necessary for us to use the weapon (except weight), as a weapon. Telling me that the FAQ includes a spiked shield can only done via the shield spikes entry. Are there other examples of something being included by one of its constituent entries?

Let's look at magic weapons. The Impact weapons ability is a great place to start .

Impact from PRD:
IMPACT
Price +2 bonus; Aura moderate transmutation; CL 9th; Weight —
This special ability can only be placed on melee weapons that are not light weapons. An impact weapon delivers a potent kinetic jolt when it strikes, dealing damage as if the weapon were one size category larger. In addition, any bull rush combat maneuver the wielder attempts while wielding the weapon gains a bonus equal to the weapon's enhancement bonus; this includes all bull rush attempts, not only those in which a weapon is used, such as Bull Rush Strike, Shield Slam, or Unseat.
CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS

Cost +2 bonus
Craft Magic Arms and Armor, bull's strength, lead blades (Advanced Player's Guide), righteous might or giant form I

You'll notice that weapon quality uses the "as if" language and does not say that it creates a weapon in its own right, or anything similar. So any Impact weapon is affected by the FAQ. I cannot find an Impact Great Axe on the weapons table. The only way I can determine the damage for an Impact weapon, is to actually read the weapon ability text, which uses the "as if" language.

But apologies, I'm belaboring the point. Your argument in your post is really that a RAW treatment in this instance leads to a broken result. Whether that's true or not, is an opinion. The good news is that at least now, you and I are on the same page about what the RAW is.

Of course now, I'm sure you'll post some clarification that you're not conceding this. *sigh* Still, I believe in you Darksol, I really do. Your posts have been really crucial in helping me zero in on how to understand the mechanics and perspectives at work.

101 to 150 of 165 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Shield bash questions All Messageboards