If I have a +1 Bashing Shield, and then add spikes to it, what does the damage from the shield become on a bash?
Is this legal in PFS?
Thank you for your time.
If you add spikes the damage doesn't change.
Spikes, in one of their many definitions, say "the shield does damage as if one size larger" bashing is "as if larger" and the FAQ says that "as if larger" don't stack, so you'd pick one effect to use, usually bashing since it's better damage.
Now, there a good size group of people that are wanting an Errata so that the spiked shield is always it's own weapon and that the line "as if larger" is removed from whichever description it's in.
They do not stack. They both use the "as if" language for size increases and per the FAQ you can only have one of those.
The damage does change. It goes from bludgeoning to piercing... That's it. Now if you're talking about the damage increasing, well: It most likely SHOULD but with the FAQ it doesn't.
Chess Pwn and the others are correct. They do not stack with regards to damage progression, but the damage type would change from bludgeoning to piercing.
Many feel it was unfortunately scooped up in the language clarification of a FAQ concerning various size changes. Myself included.
If it's worth it to you, you could always go with a Large heavy shield and bash with it two-handed. An actual size change would stack with the virtual size of Bashing. Although I've never run the numbers on that to see if the -2 on the attack and both hands being occupied is worth the increase in dice and the 1.5x in STR.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Many feel it was unfortunately scooped up in the language clarification of a FAQ concerning various size changes. Myself included.
The original question that spawned the FAQ was regarding spiked bashing shields and strong jaw/improved unarmed attack.
So if it's one thing, it isn't unfortunately scooped as much as intentionally targeted.
|
The answer by strict RAW is the shield would do 1d8 piercing damage. The shield spikes would change the damage type from B to P, but because of the extraneous cut and past line from 3.5 line "as if one category larger" it counts as a virtual size increase. In PFS, it should not stack until shield spikes are changed to remove that line or the FAQ is changed.
That said, I know at least one player locally who uses an adamatine spiked bashing shield and plays with it doing 2d6. There has not been any change in his character after the FAQ, but I would expect table variation on it if played outside of my local area.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
There is a published NPC in the NPC Codex that uses a spiked bashing shield for 2d6. Meaning that at least at that point, they did stack.
No, that simply means that like WotC not all published stat blocks are correct. In other words, the PDT doesn't write monster stat blocks.
Authors: Jesse Benner, Jason Bulmahn, Adam Daigle, Alex Greenshields, Rob McCreary, Mark Moreland, Jason Nelson, Stephen Radney-MacFarland, Patrick Renie, Sean K Reynolds, and Russ Taylor
We don't know how much or which ones the PDT team members wrote and there are a number of non members in that list.
It was also common "wisdom" on the forums that they stacked, as well as INA and Strong Jaw stacking. The FAQ realigned the thinking from that point forward.
There is a published NPC in the NPC Codex that uses a spiked bashing shield for 2d6. Meaning that at least at that point, they did stack.
Or that at some point, someone made an error. That book in particular is... You know what i think i'll just leave it at ...
If your case rests on the argument that "a spiked shield" and "a shield with spikes on it" are two distinct things that work differently, you have a very bad case.
good for him. I've had mine tell me no. So it's not like one VC saying yes or no actually means anything.
Either a bunch of posts shouldn't have been removed for being off-topic or we're discussing literally the exact same thing that was being discussed in a bunch of posts that were removed for being off-topic.
Honestly not sure which it is.
There's a certain amount of house ruling that I've experienced in PFS despite the prohibition on house ruling.
Is there, though? The "RAW" prohibition for PFS is "don't change things". There are those who believe that it means that ambiguous rules must be analyzed only by meticulous attention to precise wording, not context, consistency, archaeology, known intent, or any other factor.
Ironically, those people can't actually show proof for their interpretation of what RAW is supposed to mean.
The big RAW in pfs is not rules as written, its RUN as written. No adding monsters. No changing DCs.
You still can't change the rules but...
Of course, if you have a completely different idea of what the rules are then everyone else, and combine that with the staunch belief that the rules are perfect, knowable, and objective, then it will certainly look like people are house ruling.
If your case rests on the argument that "a spiked shield" and "a shield with spikes on it" are two distinct things that work differently, you have a very bad case.
I think the posts I was replying to were modhammered, so here's a recap. The Spiked Shield weapon does not contain the "as if" phrase. That phrase is only found under the Shield Spikes armor option. Therefore, the thinking goes, I can choose to only read the weapon entry and stack shield spikes with Bashing.
However, once you're aware of the "as if" phrase in Shield Spikes, it applies. If item X is described in one place as having attribute Y, and in another place isn't described as having attribute Y, the only reasonable inference is that it does in fact have attribute Y. Nothe that the Spiked Shield entry doesn't say "not Y", nor does it say "attribute Z (which may in certain cases conflict with attribute Y)".
Furthermore, you can't actually buy a "Spiked Shield". Cost: Special, Weight: Special.
Spiked heavy shield 57 gp/70 gp 1d4 1d6 ×2 — Special PYou can buy a spiked shield and the price is depended on whether it is wooden or steel, hence the range.
"Depends on whether it's steel or wood". Where are you getting that information from? Rhetorical question, the answer is "from the shields and armor section".
Not that price or weight have any bearing on the question being asked. The only thing that matters is how the damage is determined. It's listed. No "as if" language used.
I'm pointing out that the weapon table entry is a short-hand placeholder for the more in-depth information in the shields and armor chapter. And, as those entries are different*, the armor and shields chapter takes precedence.
*note: i almost wrote "contradict", but they don't. One simply has more information than the other.
What's unequivocally true is that you don't attack with shield spikes and in all books that talk about the subject the rules are explicit that attacks are made with a "spiked shield." The rules repeatedly make the distinction and do not use shield spikes interchangeably with spiked shield.
You're probably right. I can't think of anywhere outside the CRB attacking with a spiked shield is discussed, could you point me to something?
Why? Because once made, a spiked shield is a weapon "in its own right," wholly separate and independent from a shield or shield spikes. The FAQ does not contradict this.
Now you're just making unsubstantiated claims because you're desperate to win. In fact, whatever build you're thinking of making is probably going to suck if "spiked shields" and "shields (with or without spikes)" are different things.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Can you link? If you're referring to Mark Seifter's response, that isn't an official post.
This response came in the original thread that created the FAQ.
The whole point of that thread was spiked bashing shields. It also had "and also Strong Jaw/INA" as an aside. So they wrote the FAQ to cover spiked bashing shields AND strong jaw / improved natural attack by being nonspecific.