Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
PDT's response is that they wanted to put an end to INA and Strong Jaw stacking along with Bashing and Lead Blades/Impact and Shillelagh. The preclusion of those things stacking is a substantive change.
While that is a nice hope or dream.
That isn't what happened.
The FAQ came about from a "spiked bashing" shield question.
The case of Lead Blades, Impact, Strong Jaw, Improved Natural Attack, and friends was an aside. Not the main question.
As a result of so many ways to improve damage in the game, they wrote the FAQ to cover them all. If they had been specific someone else would argue like the Gang Up FAQ that it doesn't cover X because it only mentioned Y.
N N 959, I am right there with you with wanting a spiked shield and a bashing shield to stack (I had a great CORE character concept that I shelved once the FAQ came out). I'm certainly not one to try and gang up on anyone, but I just happen to read the FAQ differently than you. But then let me ask you this just so I understand.
You've pointed out that there is no "as if" language in the Spiked Shield entry. I can agree with that. I read it and the "as if" isn't there. However, we know it is in the Shield Spikes entry. I'm sure we can both agree on that. So I'm just curious how you see a difference between the two. Aren't Shield Spikes things that you put on a Shield to make it become a Spiked Shield? Because Shield Spikes aren't anything really on their own as far as I can tell.
So if A + B = C, and if A carries the "as if" condition with it, how does that disappear when you get to C? My understanding is that the "as if" is already understood to be a component of A. And when you are adding A to B, we can assume that component carries over. Therefore it becomes unnecessary to include repeating "as if" text when giving a quick description of C....because we know it came into the equation with A, was added to B, and is now part of C.
Does this make sense?
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
QUESTION: Do combinations of magical/non-magical damage dice increases (such as Improved Natural Attack & Strong Jaw, or Shield Spikes & Bashing) stack together?never been answered by the FAQ, though I do believe it provides an implicit answer.
You agree the question is answered but you want an explicit N N 959, you are wrong from the PDT? Despite having a thread that covered the issue? Answered.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
He's wanting a FAQ on, "Is a spiked shield an "as if" or not.
He's wanting a FAQ on, "Is a spiked shield an "as if" or not.
Benefit: These spikes turn a shield into a martial piercing weapon and increase the damage dealt by a shield bash the shield were designed for a creature one size category larger than you
So the question is more of is a spiked shield out of a source book a different item a shield with a shield spike on it (despite being identical in every way) . That would require an faq from that sourcebook, and i don't believe that that sort of sourcebook gets faqs.
He's wanting a FAQ on, "Is a spiked shield an "as if" or not.Benefit: These spikes turn a shield into a martial piercing weapon and increase the damage dealt by a shield bash the shield were designed for a creature one size category larger than you
So the question is more of is a spiked shield out of a source book a different item a shield with a shield spike on it (despite being identical in every way) . That would require an faq from that sourcebook, and i don't believe that that sort of sourcebook gets faqs.
That sourcebook is ultimate equipment and the PRD... I sure hope they allow FAQ's of a hardcover book in the PRD...
A spiked heavy shield does 1d6 damage. Bashing increases your damage by two size categories. So 2d6. A regular heavy shield does 1d4 and two size categories means a bashing heavy shield does 1d8
Surprised this thread reached two pages. Pretty simple question.
Wov. that was, like, super helpful and well thought-out.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Well, I mean, it's what the abilities say they do. So yeah, pretty well thought out.
I'm not sure if you are serious or just joking around.
The ability has "as if" language.
A FAQ was created related to spiked bashing shields and spawned a FAQ after 107 FAQ clicks.
Some people ignore this FAQ.
Some people say "it doesn't say as if on the the chart" and then ignore it.
It doesn't stop it from being relevant.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...I'm beginning to regret even inquiring given the round and round that this thing is producing.
Apologies for asking the question in the first place -- instead of gaining clarity and wisdom it's become a legalistic morass that I'll just steer clear of, really not worth the migraine.
Thanks for all the input and insight on the thread.
If you're doing PFS, go with the more conservative approach where it doesn't stack for now til it ever gets clarified to the naysayer's satisfaction. That way even if there's table variation, no one's gonna fault you for going with the smaller damage dice.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wov, this pro-stacking "spiked shields are not shields with armor spikes" argument is even less worthy than I thought.
N.N. quoted Ultimate Equipment section of the PRD at me, with the aim of proving the existence of "spiked shields" as something existing solely as weapons without the "as if" clause.
Working from d20pfsrd, I pointed out to him that you can't actually buy those spiked shields, because they dont have complete cost and weight information, information that you can only get from the shield entries. He countered with quoting that the prices were for steel and wooden shields which, a) doesn't solve the lack of information, b) can only be known from reading the shield entries.
Now, I've just looked up "spiked shield" on the PRD, in UE and in the CRB, and N.N.'s (and Swoosh's) level of ...selective... reading and quoting is staggering.
UE (print or PRD), Heavy Spiked Shield: Cost 57/70 gp, weight: Special. Description: bla bla bla, See the armor spikes entry on page 10 for details. (Armor spikes? nice editing. But we know what you mean).
CRB, Heavy Spiked Shield: Cost special, Weight special. Description: Bla bla, see p. 152 for details.
Every single entry for a spiked shield is literally telling you, explicitly and repeatedly, that "this entry is not the full rules, those are in the armor and shields section"
Saying that you are buying "spiked shields", not shields with spikes on them (because the as-if is in the shield spikes entry but not the spiked shield entry), is A) silly, B) literally impossible because of critical information not existing in the entry, C) flagrantly against the printed rules-as-written.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Near as I can tell you don't need to bother with anything else. Because all you're doing is taking a single weapon and making a single enhancement to it.
If that is a genuine statement, then no you do need to bother looking at the rules where it tells you spiked shields are "as if one size larger" which won't stack with the bashing "as if two sizes larger".
Menacing Shade of mauve: I think what the line of thought is that the spike creates a permanent change to transform one weapon into another. A one time change vs a constant active effect of "as if" growth.
It's much like saying adding spikes to a gauntlet to make a spiked gauntlet does = 'Gauntlet spikes turn a gauntlet into a piercing weapon that deals gauntlet damage as if it were designed for a creature one size category larger.'
The only difference between a spiked shield and spiked gauntlets is how the damage increase is spelled out in one and not the other. The end result is the same; both changed to piercing and increased damage "as if it were designed for a creature one size category larger".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The RAW on this seems pretty clear. Entries concerning Spike Shields refer back to the Spikes...which clearly indicate they are "as if".
Do I agree that this should be how it is? Not at all. JJ mentioned not liking the idea of a spiked heavy shield in the off-hand doing 2d6 damage. But a flaming longsword does even more, so I don't see the problem there.
But back to RAW, those of you arguing that Spiked Shields don't actually fall into the FAQ are splitting hairs. You're combing through minutia and ignoring the bits you don't like.
As Menacing has pointed out, the Shields tell us to refer back to the Spikes entry. If you don't like it and want to house-rule it, go for it. But like it or not (and I don't), we are stuck with the official ruling that Paizo has given us.
JJ mentioned not liking the idea of a spiked heavy shield in the off-hand doing 2d6 damage. But a flaming longsword does even more, so I don't see the problem there.
The d6 from flaming doesn't multiply on a crit, isn't increased by vital strike, doesn't increase when enlarged, cots ~twice as much (remember armor enhancements are cheaper) Its not being the best offhand weapon thats weird, it makes a shield a contender for the best one or even two handed weapon.
JJ mentioned not liking the idea of a spiked heavy shield in the off-hand doing 2d6 damage. But a flaming longsword does even more, so I don't see the problem there.The d6 from flaming doesn't multiply on a crit, isn't increased by vital strike, doesn't increase when enlarged, cots ~twice as much (remember armor enhancements are cheaper) Its not being the best offhand weapon thats weird, it makes a shield a contender for the best one or even two handed weapon.
I was equating 1-handed weapons in the off-hand, although neither is the best option for anyone going the TWF route.
Also keep in mind that the crit range of many weapons is a lot better than a shield's, so this helps to compensate for the lack of multiplying the flaming (or whatever extra dmg you put on there).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you're doing PFS, go with the more conservative approach where it doesn't stack for now til it ever gets clarified to the naysayer's satisfaction. That way even if there's table variation, no one's gonna fault you for going with the smaller damage dice.You can never be safe from naysayers. There are always naysayers looking for things to say "nay" to.
You can't let small minded people cluck and tsk and make you think it can't be done.
Don't let anyone stop you from bringing your own brand of awesome to the table. Make sure legally, it's technically correct, the best kind of correct, and take your place as a paying customer who is obeying the rules. Pathfinder Society GMs are supposed to go by RAW, never their personal notions about what the designers meant to say. If you can show your interpretation is legal, they are supposed to allow it, even if they don't like it. PFSGMs are referees, not defenders of the faith. Paizo publishing and your local gaming store won't make money if they allow their paying customers to get bullied away from the game.
Don't ruin other people's fun with obnoxious arguments at the table, but you do have the right to have fun with your own sense of creative play with the rules as written.
"Illegitimi non carborundum!"
--my granddaddy
If there's a discrepancy on how a rule is interpreted in a PFS game between GM and player and it could be argued for either way, you go with the GM's ruling for the rest of the game. That way the game can actually move on and everyone involved can hope to finish the scenario in the allotted time. The rules debate can continue outside the game. The more conservative route is to just keep the game going because everyone's fun is more important than just one person's fun. If one's interpretation of the rules for a particular build is gonna cause constant headaches for everyone to enforce that interpretation to use that build, then that just ain't worth it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Don't let anyone stop you from bringing your own brand of awesome to the table. Make sure legally, it's technically correct, the best kind of correct
That is the absolute worst kind of correct. Usually because its not correct. Just because someone has an argument that they are technically correct does not mean that they actually are technically or actually correct. It just means they have an argument. This thread is exhibit A for for why you do not have to let a player have their way just because they have an argument. Some arguments are bad.
Pathfinder Society GMs are supposed to go by RAW
No.
The big raw in PFS is run as written. Not rules as written. No adding monsters, no changing DCs, no dropping a dragon on the party because it would be awesome. PFS DMs adjudicate rules the same way any other DM does through a combination of raw, intent, clarifications, and common sense, but with the caveat that they can't actually change the rules. You may have to add a little more raw into the mix than normal, but it is far from the only consideration. Take a look at the campaign clarifications document: its a big smackdown on a lot of the "Technically correct" rules loopholes that the sola raw crowd was relying on.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Let's actually quote the PFS Guide, since the OP is asking about PFS....
As a Pathfinder Society GM, you have the right and responsibility to make whatever judgements, within the rules, that you feel are necessary at your table to ensure everyone has a fair and fun experience. This does not mean you can contradict rules or restrictions outlined in this document, a published Pathfinder Roleplaying Game source, errata document, or official FAQ on paizo.com. What it does mean is that only you can judge what is right for your table during cases not covered in these sources. Scenarios are meant to be run as written, with no addition or subtraction to number of monsters (unless indicated in the scenario), or changes to armor, feats, items, skills, spells, stats, traits, or weapons.Emphasis added.
So yeah, while GMs do have to run the scenarios as written, the PFS guide unequivocally states that the PFS GMs have to follow the rules, without exception. So being technically correct is the only type of correct that matters in PFS. That's the beauty of it. That's the appeal. GMs don't get to change the rules. If something is allowed per the the written rules, it's allowed in PFS.
Except... I think that even you'd agree that there is an argument that spikes & Bashing don't stack - you just disagree with it. That's EXACTLY the sort of thing that PFS GMs are SUPPOSED to make calls on. And they need to one way or the other.
What you quoted just means that a PFS GM can't (for example) say that they think that Shield Bashing in general is a dumb idea and that they don't allow it at their table.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
[DM Ned Flanders] I've done everything the Rules say, even the stuff that contradicts the other stuff! [/DM Ned Flanders]
Let's actually quote the PFS Guide, since the OP is asking about PFS....
As a Pathfinder Society GM, you have the right and responsibility to make whatever judgements, within the rules, that you feel are necessary at your table to ensure everyone has a fair and fun experience. This does not mean you can contradict rules or restrictions outlined in this document, a published Pathfinder Roleplaying Game source, errata document, or official FAQ on paizo.com. What it does mean is that only you can judge what is right for your table during cases not covered in these sources. Scenarios are meant to be run as written, with no addition or subtraction to number of monsters (unless indicated in the scenario), or changes to armor, feats, items, skills, spells, stats, traits, or weapons.Emphasis added.Emphasis changed
So yeah, while GMs do have to run the scenarios as written, the PFS guide unequivocally states that the PFS GMs have to follow the rules, without exception. So being technically correct is the only type of correct that matters in PFS. That's the beauty of it. That's the appeal. GMs don't get to change the rules. If something is allowed per the the written rules, it's allowed in PFS.
And then it states that if there's isn't a clear rule that the GM gets to rule. And I would not say that the rules in any documents allow a bashing spiked shield to stack or that a monk's unarmed strikes let their natural attacks be at full bab and str. SO since there is no rule I get to rule no.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Because the rules treat the spiked shield as a bona fide weapon.
Your conviction in saying that doesn't make it so. You can't find a single developer position that shares yours, and you can find several that disagree. You know this isn't an issue the PDT will spend time to quash, so you know you can continue to say it works because you have crafted a system where you will never be directly told no.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Pathfinder Society GMs are supposed to go by RAW, never their personal notions about what the designers meant to say
Actually that isn't true. They are supposed to not modify the scenarios, not add monsters, increase DC's, make Longswords deal 1d12 damage, or other rules deviations.
They can, in fact and are encouraged, interpret the rules. This includes explicitly paying attention to the intent of the rules as they understand them.
So a PFS GM that believes a rule works differently than you think, is violating the campaign mission by allowing you to run the rule the way you think if it's counter to the way they think it works.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
The key point is that any time there is a legitimate difference in opinion at a PFS table between the players and the GM, the GM's interpretation of the rules wins.
The GM is also free to ask any player to leave the table if they are causing a disruption. A disruption is when Player says "bashing spiked shields deal 2d6", GM says "no it's 1d8", the player says "no look here in ..." and the GM is free ask that player to play elsewhere if he doesn't stop saying "but..."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I was making a statement of philosophy vis a vis an atmosphere of fear that a person or person on this thread an others expressed about GMs ignoring the rules as written and imposing their personal notions of how they think the game aught to be.
Except this is what the RAW is LAW crowd accuses people of every time someone makes a decision other than theirs, even if the decision is well founded in the raw and other methods of interpretation. Its such a ubiquitous objection that its far more synonymous with -a ruling I disagree with- than someone genuinely imposing their will on the game.
This is predicated on the idea that the rules have one and only one meaning, and that simply is not the case.
PFS is basically unworkable if that really is the normal way PFSGMs behave.
And yet it manages.
And even if it isn't, even the perception of this actually being the case is a serious problem for Paizo name, because that is a perception of the Paizo name for lousy customer service and shoddy quality control.
And yet it manages.
It is very comforting to see that Paizo realizes this too and has published directives for the exact opposite of this behavior.
In an organized play setting, it’s important to stick closer
o RAW. Those players who use an option based around a RAInterpretation may find table variation when different GMs
ule differently on whether a particular ability works in the
player’s favor. Be cautious about embracing a 100% RAW
perspective, especially when adjudicating in-game effects
hat do not rely on character build.-GM 201
Closer to raw. Not sola raw, not chuck everything out the window, closer, and then be careful
And regular contributors on these forums defending the behavior PFS GMs going against the Rules as Written is a more damning indictment of Pathfinder Society than any I could make.
We have very different ideas of what constitutes going against the rules as written.
It's the exact same discussion. Now I'm confused.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Page 152 of the Core Rulebook (6th printing) tells us how to make shield bash attacks. It does not talk about shield spikes.
Page references: How do they work? The relevant section starts at shield bashes on p. 152, and continues to shield spikes on p. 153.
Page 10 of UE talks about armor spikes, not shield spikes. What page it wants us to refer to is unknown.
Obvious editing errors, how do they work? It means I can completely disregard everything, right?
Don't let anyone stop you from bringing your own brand of awesome to the table. Make sure legally, it's technically correct, the best kind of correct, and take your place as a paying customer who is obeying the rules. Pathfinder Society GMs are supposed to go by RAW, never their personal notions about what the designers meant to say. If you can show your interpretation is legal, they are supposed to allow it, even if they don't like it. PFSGMs are referees, not defenders of the faith. Paizo publishing and your local gaming store won't make money if they allow their paying customers to get bullied away from the game.
Bullying, being a paying customer, organized play, getting outside your troll basement and interacting with other humans, how do they work?
There is so much wrong in your statement, I will just pick one: "If you can show your interpretation is legal, they are supposed to allow it". No. If you can show that your interpretation is correct and other possible interpretations are incorrect, using the entire suite of interpretative tools available, then they're supposed to allow it.
Furthermore, I've repeatedly raised a question that you two keep dodging: What is the weight and price of a spiked shield, and how do you know?
The price is 13 gp/19 gp for light and 17 gp/30 gp for heavy. It's in the table/item description.
Now the weight is still special.
The price is 13 gp/19 gp for light and 17 gp/30 gp for heavy. It's in the table/item description.
Now the weight is still special.
I know that they fixed ONE of their "armor spikes iz shield spikes durrrrr" typoes but not the other.
The point of the question is, you can't tell the price or weight of the spiked shield without referencing the shields section. The weight is a complete cipher, but the split cost can't actually be parsed without reading the full description in the shields section either.
Oh I agree. Since shield spikes says it does damage as 1 size larger, see spiked shield it's still tying the spiked shield to the shield spikes which says as if. Now if IN THE ERRATA FOR THE NEW BOOK THAT THEY JUST MISSED THE OPPORTUNITY TO DO SO they had changed the wording of either to make it clear then we wouldn't have any issue.