Ziere Tole's page

98 posts. Alias of zieretole.


1 to 50 of 98 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

It's basically the same situation as a Ring of Force Shield, and pretty much everybody agrees that the whole point of the ring is to be able to do this same tactic. If you can do it with the ring, I see no reason to disallow it with a quickdraw shield.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I haven't really been involved in this thread, but maybe that makes me a good candidate to actually answer Coriat's request as best as I can.

Coriat wrote:
Is there anybody still hanging around who does think that I can, say, start casting a spell, eat a readied arrow, and then decide that instead of rolling a Concentration check and possibly losing my spell, I'm instead going to change to channeling positive energy?
Ready wrote:
Distracting Spellcasters: You can ready an attack against a spellcaster with the trigger “if she starts casting a spell.” If you damage the spellcaster, she may lose the spell she was trying to cast (as determined by her concentration check result).

So, interrupting spellcasters is called out as a specific event that can be done using the ready action. I don't think anybody has argued that someone casting a spell can change to something else, because it is specifically called out.

The issue is partly with the fact that the spellcasting is specifically called out, so it isn't clear whether it is just an example or an exemption. The rules don't actually say that the triggering action is lost or disrupted in the case of other actions like a melee attack.

For all other actions, the main debate is over two lines:

Readying an Action wrote:
The action occurs just before the action that triggers it.
Assuming he is still capable of doing so, he continues his actions once you complete your readied action.

The first line says that the readied action occurs before the triggering action. Meaning, as paradoxical as it is, some view it as the action having not happened yet, therefore the action can still be changed.

The second line can be read as if the action has to be continued, but it isn't exactly clear if it is required to do so or not.

Personally, I'm of the opinion that the rules aren't quite clear enough for either side, and that either one results in a bit of ridiculousness. On the one hand, you have a readied action that can occur and then the triggering action change in a way that the readied action wouldn't have been set off in the first place. On the other hand, you have a triggering attack that somehow paused mid-air for enough time for the readying creature to do their own attack and also move away (it seems like the attack should either be fast enough that the readied creature wouldn't have time to do both, or slow enough that it would be easy to halt as soon as the triggering creature saw their target moving). Either one seems like a resulting oddity of turn-based combat trying too hard to emulate real-time combat, which is why I don't like readied actions in general.

Astral Wanderer wrote:

The attacker *is* still capable of attacking. Just not hitting, since the space he hits now only contains air.

It makes sense even from a non-mechanic perspective: you get close to attack, and the moment you open I lash back at you and move away, your sword concludes its swing in the air.

The only problem is that according to the rules, the readied action occurs first. So instead of attacking and moving back when they are mid-swing, you might be attacking and moving back when you see they are about to swing. Since they haven't actually swung yet, they could easily decide not to swing and move forward after you instead.

At least that's my and seemingly many others' interpretation. I honestly don't think the rules are clear enough in regards to whether you lose the action if you can't complete it, or whether you can change your action, so I'm not going to act like one interpretation is more valid than the other.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

It's the classic debate of hands versus 'hands'. Between that FAQ and various developer comments (and certain extra limb rules like those on Vestigial Arm), there is now this idea that there is an 'unwritten rule' about weapons/attacks requiring metaphysical hands of effort separately from physical hands. Generally it is accepted that the FAQ means armor spikes require a 'hand' even though they don't need a physical hand.

There is another way to read the FAQ, though. It could mean that armor spikes do require a free physical hand (like an armored gauntlet, which the FAQ mentions), in which case you couldn't threaten with both at the same time. While it is a free action to take a hand off of the two-handed weapon, you can only take free actions on your turn or while performing an action. If you don't take your hand off the two-handed weapon before the end of your turn, you don't threaten with the armor spikes, but if you do take your hand off then you wouldn't threaten with the weapon.

Most people are in agreement about armor spikes needing a 'hand' instead of a physical hand though, or they don't even know about the FAQ, so the answer is going to be "yes" at almost every table. Which means this question isn't likely to be answered, even though a lot of people wish the whole 'hands' thing would be either clarified or gotten rid of.

There's no official rule that I know of that allows it specifically. The best bet if something like that does exist would be in the Giant Hunter's Handbook, but I haven't had a chance to read the whole thing. There are some examples, like the Kaiju's 'Massive' trait, that come close but not quite, and are limited to very specific situations.

In my games I would allow it, although it would be pretty difficult. It would go something like:

-Acrobatics or Climb check to get up to the right height; using the normal rules if they are climbing a wall nearby, or jumping from a ledge or straight up, likely provoking an AoO due to moving around within the opponent's threat range. If they want to climb the opponent itself to get there, it would provoke an additional AoO and have a Climb or maybe Grapple check with a DC of 10 + the opponent's CMD
-Acrobatics check to stay standing once up there, with a normal DC of 10 + the opponent's CMD each round
-If the opponent moves or attacks someone else or such, DC 15 + opponent's CMD to stay on
-If the parkour-er attacks or does anything other than just focus on maintaining balance, DC 15 + opponent's CMD to stay on, and probably provokes an AoO
-If the opponent attacks the parkour-er or takes a move action to shake them off, DC 20 + opponent's CMD to stay on
-DC 10 + damage taken + opponent's CMD if the parkour-er is hit by anything.

That might honestly still be too easy for such a maneuver, maybe another +5 to the DCs across the board would be better. I would have to test it more.

The parkour-er would not share the space with the opponent, but instead be in the space above. It would also be best to have a size limitation; the parkour-er needing to be two sizes smaller than the opponent would probably be good (just one size different doesn't seem quite enough in most cases, although depending on which specific creatures are involved I might allow it).

For the opponent's CMD in this specific case I would invert the size bonus (Huge creatures would get -2 instead of +2 for example), as bigger creatures are more likely to be easier to stand on and might have a harder time throwing someone off.

All houserules of course, and mainly because as a GM I tend to be more lenient for the 'Rule of Cool'. There are plenty of people that are against the idea of anything close to such a maneuver, so even if you are the GM and its a home game, best to discuss with your whole group and make sure they are okay with it first.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
nighttree wrote:

Currently I was working on a build that involved the "Haunted" Spiritualist archetype...

But having one half of the team taken out of the equation (due to nauseated condition)for a +2 Str seems kind of like a bad call....even with the benefits gained at later levels.

As he mentioned earlier in the thread, nighttree is talking specifically about the usage of Enlarge Person in the Haunted archetype of the Spiritualist. In that specific case, he may be right in that it is not worth the trade-off, but that is due to the archetype's part of the effect, not Enlarge Person's part.

Major Creation was used to make the any-tool, but that doesn't mean that the any-tool can use Major Creation itself. Despite its aura and CL, it is still a 250gp item, so giving it the full power of a 5th level spell at will seems like a bit much.

It also comes back to the question of just how large a tool the any-tool can make. There is a vague limit on complexity in the form of it not having too many moving parts, but its not clear why that limit exists. Lack of material or a limit to the number of folds/twists/hinges seem like the most logical explanations for such a limit that I can imagine. Both of those limits also seem like they would lead to a size limit, but a size limit itself is not mentioned.

In the end, it is a magic item in a fantasy world and the item description is vague in such regards. I don't really see either interpretation as being notably more valid than the other (outside of my own opinions), so I just hope that maybe people will read both and come to their own informed conclusion on the matter, and then not argue too much if their GM comes to a different conclusion.

Cevah wrote:

They got the Fly skill wrong as well. They forgot Racial +8 for having a fly speed. They remembered it for the Climb skill.


Racial bonuses to the Fly skill are based on maneuverability, they aren't a flat +8 like climb and swim. Giant Flies have Good maneuverability for Fly, so they just get a +4 on Fly, which adds up correctly.

I guess I can see that interpretation, but generally magic items strictly do what their description says, regardless of what spell was used in their creation. The description doesn't say that the any-tool produces more material or grows in size or weight, so my opinion is that its better not to assume more than what is written.

Cevah wrote:

Traveler's Any-Tool

Based off major creation, and at CL 9, that effects up to 9 cubic feet of metal/stone, which most tools are made of. I think weight and size is not an issue.


Except that the tool doesn't cast the spell or produce an effect like the spell. The tool doesn't generate extra material or change its material composition in any way, it just "can be folded, twisted, hinged, and bent, to form almost any known tool". No matter what you do with the tool, it will still weigh 2 pounds and be made of iron (as per its description).

It's a very large magical leatherman/multitool/swiss army knife. Wheelbarrows and sleds are slightly outside my definition of "tool", but the any-tool could probably create a smaller version of each one. Not large enough for a medium creature, but maybe a small one. I agree with the others that it is the GM's call though.

And no, its not a one-shot item, it can be re-used and re-shaped as many times as needed.

Honestly, unless there's a good roleplaying reason that the GM is in on, players shouldn't be hiding something as common as their attack bonuses from other players. Sometimes one player has a party buff active, and wants to make sure the other players are applying it. There also are plenty of times when players might know the rules better than the GM, and can clear up rules confusion or stop rules abuse. So I don't think it should have to be the GM asking. Certainly, other players might need to be more tactful in asking, but they should still be able to ask.

Really what we should actually be focusing on from the OP is this line:

TrollingJoker wrote:
When we asked about it during play he was being really vague. It wouldn't be the first time that he tried to bend to rules without talking it over first with the DM.

So the player was already asked, and dodged the question. This is apparently a player who has also bent the rules in the past. It's not really a matter of what numbers are possible at that point; its an issue of mistrust between the players that won't actually be resolved unless the magus player speaks up in some way.

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Only a natural 20 is an automatic hit. Other rolls within a weapon's threat range still need to meet or beat the target's AC.

Combat - Critical Hits wrote:
Increased Threat Range: Sometimes your threat range is greater than 20. That is, you can score a threat on a lower number. In such cases, a roll of lower than 20 is not an automatic hit. Any attack roll that doesn't result in a hit is not a threat.

Everybody is correct in that there are plenty of ways to boost attack with a magus, but the real answer is that your player should be able to tell you exactly what number he is using and how he got to it. It is still possible that he has made a mistake somewhere. If he refuses to tell you, that indicates an issue of a different sort is going on here.

You don't have to ask in an accusatory way, just ask for clarification. Especially if you are allowing books that you don't even have access to, it is fairly reasonable to ask about the existence and explanation of things you might not be familiar with. In my experience, players only get defensive or offended by such questions when they want to avoid answering them for a reason. People who put time and effort into character creation in order to legitimately get high numbers usually enjoy explaining exactly what lengths they had to go to for it.

Social interactions especially are complex and completely unique to any given scenario, so trying to apply rigid DC formulas and time requirements to them doesn't tend to work.

Honestly the whole skills section should have been written more like guidelines instead of hard and fast rules, but then people would complain about 'table variation'.

Also, helpful tip, don't try to snipe as your first attack, because if you are initiating combat while stealthed it will most likely be a surprise round, and you cannot snipe during a surprise round because you only have a single standard or move action, and sniping requires one of each. Which means you're left out in the open until your next turn, you then need a move action to hide again if they didn't somehow spot you while you were unstealthed, and you're stuck again with a turn with only a single standard action, so you can either wait until next turn to attack again or attack and take the risk that they spot you while you are unstealthed waiting for your next turn, whereupon you face the same dilemma as the earlier turn.

Yeah, sniping is a whole mess once you try to combine it with a surprise round.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

There are other roleplaying games that go in to such specifics; some games also go into individual strength/dexterity scores for each arm, legs, and core. Some specify whether you are better at swinging a sword sideways, downwards, or thrusting. Some games even go through the insanity of trying to resolve everybody's actions as a single turn, instead of people taking turns in order.

Pathfinder takes the approach of generalization for the sake of keeping the game playable by most people. Ability scores, and really all stats, are an abstracted representation of what a character is capable of. In the case of charisma, this can be due to attractiveness or other social skills; the game doesn't bother going into detail about which part contributes how much because that would add more complication, and even pathfinder players can only tolerate so much of that.

As far as the beauty score idea specifically goes though, I am very tempted to post a random picture of someone, and see if the thread can come to an agreement on what their beauty score would be. Alternatively, people could post their own pictures (of other people, not themselves, let's not get crazy) with what they think their number should be, and people could vote on whether they agree with that number or not. Boy, that would be an entertaining mess of a thread derail. Of course, asking for a charisma score would probably be just as inconclusive.

Charisma = Appearance is not RAW in my opinion.

Let's look again at what the rules say:

Charisma wrote:
Charisma measures a character's personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance.

Charisma = Personality + Magnetism + Leadership + Appearance

In an equation where X = Y + Z, raising the value of X does not mean that Y also has to go up; it could just as easily be that Z is going up. Y could even go down as long as Z goes up by a proportional amount.

There are four 'values' added to charisma by RAW, so you can easily have a high charisma while still having one of these values be low, or a low charisma with one of the values being high.

Appearance isn't the same as attractiveness/beauty/etc., but many people treat them as such, which tends to lead to problems. Appearance is objective, and is the same regardless of who is looking at you, while attractiveness is subjective, and can change drastically depending on the tastes of whoever is looking at you.

In my opinion players should be able to choose their character's appearance, while using the ability scores as guidelines. A strong/dextrous character, for example, should probably look more physically fit than the wizard who dumped all their physical stats, but that doesn't mean they need to have a visible six-pack. Its not much different from picking eye color, hair color, or even skin color, except that the guidelines are set by stats instead of race (EDIT: or in addition to race, I should say, since race certainly affects appearance choices).

Now, whether others find that character's appearance to be attractive...that is entirely up to whoever is in control of the character looking at them, not the player of the character being looked at. In the case of NPCs when I am GMing, I'll either decide based on what I think fits the characters and the story, or if I want to leave it somewhat random, I'll make a charisma check against whatever I feel is a fitting DC. For example, if its a creature of the same race I might just do DC 10, and up to say a DC 25 for different races, depending on just how different they are. Other modifiers to the DC could be things like whether the person is attracted to muscles or intelligence, or even for clothing preferences.

As for Sissyl's situation, what I'll say to that is that being attractive with a low charisma doesn't mean you have to have a nasty personality. You could just be socially awkward in some way, maybe by being shy or blunt. Low charisma just means you are less likable or noticeable, not that you are more hate-able. If players choose for their character to be rude, it is usually because the player wants to be rude, not because they feel forced to do so. In addition, as I said earlier, the players should not be able to choose whether others are attracted to them. So overall it just sounds like you were playing with people who wanted to be [insert obvious swear word/words here], and changing how appearance/attractiveness works might not solve that problem.

alexd1976 wrote:

There is no real point to me bringing this up, other than to bring attention to the fact that many people assume the stats have been split into two categories by the game designers since day one.

They have not.

They are BECOMING split into these two categories, because almost everyone uses them this way already.

Both of my quotes are from the CRB, the 'day one' rules. You can argue that such distinctions didn't exist in D&D (I'm not going to go back and check), but as far as Pathfinder is concerned the original game designers did split the stats into the two categories since day one. They didn't state it in the Ability Score sections of the rules probably because they were very limited in word count (a lot of stuff was cut down because of this) and there was no need to mention it until it came up later.

Okay, if magic items don't count, how about:

Age wrote:
With age, a character's physical ability scores decrease and his mental ability scores increase (see the Aging Effects tables). The effects of each aging step are cumulative. However, none of a character's ability scores can be reduced below 1 in this way.

Does every single thing in the book need to have a glossary entry to count as a rules mechanic? Do they really need to define the term before it comes up? How many times does it need to be referenced?

alexd1976 wrote:
There is no such thing as mental stats or physical stats, those are arbitrary groupings that a lot of people use, but don't exist in published text.
Headband of Mental Superiority wrote:
The headband grants the wearer an enhancement bonus to all mental ability scores (Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma) of +2, +4, or +6.

This was the easiest one for me to find, but I am sure there are others. Not disagreeing with any of the rest of your post though.

Scott Wilhelm wrote:

But PFS GMs have a customer service obligation.

I was only referring to those GMs who refuse to honor Paizo Publishing's implicit guarantee that their product will work the way they say it will...

This is definitely a tangent, but I would like to point out, just because a rule is in a Pathfinder rulebook published by Paizo does not mean that it has to be supported in PFS play. PFS has its own specific list of which books and which rules/items from those books are allowed, and has the authority to 'adjust' rules as they see fit (they try not to when they can avoid it, but it certainly happens). In that sense PFS fully supports 'houserules'. The only difference is that every single PFS GM/Judge is expected to adhere to the same set of those houserules.

Your attitude that just because it is in a book means that the PFS GM has to allow it is just as likely to get you kicked out of an event as someone who tries to bring their own houserules into PFS, in my experience.

Also, almost all PFS GMs do not represent Paizo. They do not have to be a Paizo employee or work for a retailer that sells Paizo products. They are, 99% of the time, unpaid volunteers who are expected to adhere to certain rules, but there is no legal obligation for them to do so. For that matter, buying the books does not mean you are paying for the right to join in PFS play. PFS is a separate service that Paizo happens to help provide for free. Just because you bought the books does not mean Paizo owes you anything in regards to PFS.

(This probably came off as rude, but I felt like it had to be said with how many times you took the 'Paizo owes it to me' attitude when it is in regards to PFS)

The only way I could see people thinking it was exploitative was if they thought that magical enhancements to the scizore's AC also added to attack/damage or vice versa. However, the rules on that are clear that they are treated as two separate enchantments that have to be paid for separately.

Magic Items - Armor wrote:

Shields: Shield enhancement bonuses stack with armor enhancement bonuses. Shield enhancement bonuses do not act as attack or damage bonuses when the shield is used in a shield bash. The bashing special ability, however, does grant a +1 bonus on attack and damage rolls (see the special ability description).

A shield could be built that also acted as a magic weapon, but the cost of the enhancement bonus on attack rolls would need to be added into the cost of the shield and its enhancement bonus to AC.

You could of course get the Shield Master feat, but then you are spending a whole bunch of feats to do so, and feats are worth far more than money.

BigDTBone wrote:
It also has nothing to do with balance, as has been demonstrated time and time again mathematically. THW/THF is the second worst combat style in the game.

I've seen some of the math but I don't remember it being that significant (mostly because the ones I saw assumed perfect optimization at level 20 and being able to full attack every turn). However, more importantly, what I do want to be reminded of is: what was the list of combat styles that were compared? Second worst out of three or four isn't nearly as big a deal as second worst out of 10.

EDIT: It doesn't really contribute to the conversation so perhaps you should just PM it to me.

blackbloodtroll wrote:
There is a lot of extrapolation from a single FAQ.

I mean, its not just the one FAQ, its also things like Vestigial Arm and Tentacle that don't give you extra off-hand attacks even though they give you extra physical 'hands', so that also establishes the idea that metaphysical hands and physical hands are treated as separate things, which is where we run into so much trouble.

Normally it takes two hands to wield a crossbow, but by taking a penalty of -2 on attack rolls you can wield it in one. Almost like taking a -2 for an inappropriately sized weapon.

Crossbow, Light wrote:
Normally, operating a light crossbow requires two hands. However, you can shoot, but not load, a light crossbow with one hand at a –2 penalty on attack rolls.

Of course, that is assuming "operate" is the same as "wield", since they are used in roughly the same context. "Shoot" is yet another different word, but lets assume in context that it is synonymous with "wield for a single attack". Of course, this assuming that similar words mean the same thing when used in the same context, which tends to have no value in a rules discussion. Why they didn't just use the word wield, I don't understand (well, my guess is that they thought "operate" sounded cooler for a crossbow).

EDIT:....yes, the wording is inconsistent and annoys me as well, but making contextual assumptions has to be okay in at least some circumstances, otherwise a whole lot of other rules fall apart too.

blackbloodtroll wrote:

Is it something misremembered?

I believe most of us occasionally do that.

Its certainly not impossible. As best as I can remember, the blog post mention was in one of the "Ask <developer/designer/etc> All your Questions" threads, so...I might be better off assuming I misremembered in order to avoid having to read (or even skim) through a few hundred pages between all the possible relevant people. Even the Search Thread tool was either returning dozens of pages of results per thread or no results, depending on how narrow I tried to make the terms.

I know this is gonna sound crazy, but I don't bookmark and add notes on every single thread post I read here, especially when its not even a rule but a reference to a vague upcoming future rule. I'll try to find the original, but I only have so much time before I have to get back to work. Plenty of other people have mentioned it all over the forum, so if any of them can pop in with it and save me the time that would be great.

Talonhawke wrote:
Are we really gonna push the issue till we have a 2 part blog post on metaphysical hands vs hands and how the interact with everything in the game world?

I am going to somewhat parrot Talonhawke. It has been stated that at least one blog post is in the works on the subject, which means that there are probably more situations/rules affected by 'hands of effort' than the single one we currently know about. When that blog post does come out a lot of us are gonna look foolish (almost certainly I will), a number of us (not sure just how many) will ignore the existence of said blog post, and probably none of us will have accurately guessed the entire new/modified rules.

BigDTBone wrote:
The logical interpretation would be that both of your physical hands are required to use a bow, but that your metaphysical "off-hand of effort" is still available.

So TWF with a bow and a one-handed or light weapon works, as long as you have a third physical arm. Or if you only have two arms, start your TWF attack with your bow, then quickdraw a dagger to attack with, that would still work. As I understand it, you don't have to actually be holding both weapons when you start TWF, so there shouldn't be a problem.

Byakko wrote:
Using a bow requires one primary hand attack and consumes one offhand attack.

Other than the Armor Spikes FAQ which only calls out Two-handed weapons (which bows are not), is there any proof of this? Sure, its a logical connection to make, but its still an "extrapolation" as far as I can tell.

Let's say I have a vestigial arm, giving me three limbs. Can I TWF with a longbow and a longsword? I think this might be another example of what BBT is asking.

The armor spikes FAQ shows that Two-handed weapons use the offhand attack, preventing TWF. Vestigial arms also do not give any more attcks than your usual main-hand/off-hand. Bows, however, are not Two-handed weapons as a rules construct, but simply require two physical hands to use. Therefore it is somewhat unclear whether they also use two of the metaphysical 'hands of effort'.

I do hope that when the handedness blog post actually comes out it clears up more things than it breaks.

The only place I can find the words "conflicting rules" is you saying it. What I said is "inconsistent".

Character A attaches a buckler and attacks with the buckler hand in one turn.
Character B attacks with a hand and then attaches a buckler to it in one turn.

Why, at the end of their turn, is one of those buckler'd characters different from the other? Turns are sequential and don't happen at the same time, so it is not because of the opening left during the attack. Since it is a free action to change your stance on a weapon enough to either be threatening or not, why does it take not just a move action but an entire round to regain the use of of an item that doesn't even need to be adjusted? And yet if you put that item on in the same place right after the attack instead of before it, you do not take the penalty. Am I really the only one that finds that odd?

What I am saying is that the rules as they are now are inconsistent. The point of the FAQ request I made is to see if the developers feel they are inconsistent or being misinterpreted, and if so to possibly get a general rule that is consistent or at least a better reason why the inconsistencies are there. The rules are not meant to always be taken literally and without context; the developers have stated that common sense should be applied. This is a case where my common sense leaves me feeling like something is missing.

I'm not really arguing in the sense that I am trying to prove that my 'side' is right. Really the best I am hoping for by continuing this discussion is showing that there is another way (really a couple of ways) that people are looking at the issue. Especially in the case of the Ring of Force Shield, there has been a lot of disagreement on the matter.

Like Gilarius and Ozy said, a wand of Shield will be a better choice, or just him casting Shield, since as a magus it is on his spell list. More AC (well, until you are at the point of a +4 or higher magic buckler), no penalty if he wants to two-hand his weapon on rounds he isn't doing spell combat, works against incorporeal, and even if its a caster level 1 wand a minute is more than enough for most fights. Plus if he casts it himself he can cast it during spell combat, so he doesn't even have to give up a round of attacks (there is an arcana that would allow him to use the wand during spell combat, but probably not worth it unless he starts using other wands as well).

It is not RAW, but as an extrapolation it might be RAI. Again, at the time the CRB was published, bucklers and shield bashes were the only two normal ways to attack with the same hand a shield is on. Its not entirely unreasonable to guess that the intention was to not allow a shield bonus at the same time as an attack with that hand (without feats or something). It could have been meant as general rule that they only bothered to write in the two spots where it came up. They just may have failed to make that clear when new possible methods came out. The way the rules are written is not always the way the developers meant them, because of space limitations in the book, words with multiple meanings, the occasional poor editing, etc.

While the rules are an abstraction, most rules have some sort of in-character explanation for why they exist, because the rules are still making some attempt to recreate a fantasy world. In the case of the buckler and shield bashing, there are two common "explanations" for it. One I'm not even going to mention, because it involves turns happening at the same time which really doesn't work. The second explanation is that you are somehow thrown off balance by the attack and cannot ready your shield arm to defend in time. You are still off balance even if you move 30 feet or sheathe your weapon or do a whole bunch of other stuff. However, if you shield bashed with a throwing shield, you can then throw that shield, pull out a quickdraw shield, and now get the bonuses of that new shield because you were only off balance with the old shield. How the rules work as RAW just doesn't make sense to me from that perspective.

...Honestly I should just start over since even with the edit attempt that was a poorly worded post, and I feel bad for that.

All objects in pathfinder have a size category. Doesn't matter whether its a weapon, a key, a piece of furniture, or whatever. This is shown under the Smashing Objects section.

PRD wrote:
Armor Class: Objects are easier to hit than creatures because they don't usually move, but many are tough enough to shrug off some damage from each blow. An object's Armor Class is equal to 10 + its size modifier (see Table: Size and Armor Class of Objects) + its Dexterity modifier.

Yes, there is one of those wonderful tables for it. Now, weapons have an additional size category, lets call it their 'weapon size category', separate from their size as an object.

PRD wrote:
Weapon Size: Every weapon has a size category. This designation indicates the size of the creature for which the weapon was designed.

Since splash weapons are thrown weapons (yes you might not agree but lets assume as much at this point) which are weapons, they have a weapon size category. As shown by the bold above, their weapon size category is the same as whatever size the splash weapon is made for. In order to avoid too much bookkeeping, we assume that alchemists make bombs correctly sized for themselves, and adventurers buying splash weapons buy ones that are sized for themselves as well. By RAW, an adventurer in a dungeon could find a splash weapon that is inappropriately sized for them, but that is overlooked because unlike with other weapons, splash weapons do a specifically set type of damage that almost always energy damage, so its not like the damage dice is changed due to the size (after all, something like the Flaming weapon ability doesn't change based off of size either). They should take a penalty for the inappropriate size, its just most DMs/players don't bother/think about the bookkeeping necessary to know whether that is the case or not for a specific splash weapon out of the pile of them that might be in their backpack.

So if you want to know what the weapon size category of a splash weapon is, the answer is: whatever size category person the splash weapon was made for, just like the answer would be for any other weapon. If you want to know the object size of a splash potion, I will somewhat refer to my previous post that the object size of any ranged weapon is missing from the information provided in the rules, so splash weapons are not an exception in that case.

Yes, splash weapons have a size category, because they are weapons.

Before you ask what their size category is, let me ask what the size category of a longbow is. It is not under a table for Light weapons, One-handed weapons, or Two-handed weapons. It is wielded with two hands, but since it is not under the Two-handed weapon table, it is not actually a Two-handed weapon. It is under the category of Ranged weapons.

PRD wrote:
A weapon's size category isn't the same as its size as an object. Instead, a weapon's size category is keyed to the size of the intended wielder. In general, a light weapon is an object two size categories smaller than the wielder, a one-handed weapon is an object one size category smaller than the wielder, and a two-handed weapon is an object of the same size category as the wielder.

So which of those applies to longbows, since they aren't any of the three categories listed? Ranged weapons don't have a listed size category there, despite being weapons.

Edit: I should be clear, I would like to know the size category of the longbow as an object. It's size category as a weapon is obviously the size category of whoever it was made for/whatever size the crafter wanted to make it for, just like the weapon size category of a bomb is the same as the size category of the alchemist who made it, and the weapon size category of other splash weapons is the same as whatever size the crafter made it for.

_Ozy_ wrote:

Nope, because 'thrown weapon' is different specific category than 'splash weapon' even if they are both thrown, just like a bow is not a 'two handed weapon' even though both require two hands to use.

That's why thrown weapons show up on the weapons tables as simple, martial, or exotic. And splash weapons do not. Nor do they have a size category, whereas thrown weapons do.

So yes, we can indeed move on as long as you no longer claim that splash and thrown weapons are the same things.

You know, I've looked a bit, but I don't see a table called "Thrown Weapons". None of the tables even have a "Thrown" column with a Yes/No on which weapons are thrown or not. Apparently since a table for the category doesn't exist, thrown weapons do not exist in the game...

The main wording on which weapons are thrown weapons I can find is this one:

PRD wrote:
Thrown Weapons: Daggers, clubs, shortspears, spears, darts, javelins, throwing axes, light hammers, tridents, shuriken, and nets are thrown weapons.

No mention of splash weapons. These are the only throwing weapons I guess, so too bad for kunai, starknife, harpoon, etc. wielders that wanted to throw their weapons using the listed range increments for them...

Also interesting, the next sentence is this one:

PRD wrote:
The wielder applies his Strength modifier to damage dealt by thrown weapons (except for splash weapons).

Now, why would they call out splash weapons as an exception if the Thrown Weapon section doesn't apply to them in the first place? Seems odd to make an exception for something that still wouldn't be the case without the exception. I guess those silly developers decided to just throw in some words that have no contextual meaning to them...

Seriously though, I've seen the idea thrown around before that something has to be on a table to be called a weapon. Where is the rule for this? I'd like to see an explicit quote.

Errata or FAQ somewhat depends on what the answer is. If the answer is that using a shield hand causes you to lose the AC regardless of when during the turn you equip the shield, that would be more of a FAQ-like answer clarifying that the rules for bucklers and shield bashing applies as a general rule instead of specific. Even if instead they rewrite rules entirely and make it errata, a FAQ request seems like the most likely way to make that happen from the position of minimal power that I am in.

_Ozy_ wrote:
...Also, bucklers are a little bit off topic since we're talking about free action activation of a force shield.

I tried to write the FAQ question as fairly general so as not to focus on just the RoFS, as that is not the only situation where the issue comes up.

With a buckler on my arm I take a standard action to 2H attack and then a move action to go 30 feet somewhere else. I have lost AC of the buckler until the start of my next turn.

Without a buckler on my arm, I take a standard action to 2H attack and then move action to equip a buckler. I do not lose the AC of the buckler until my next turn. (I am sure some people will say that I still would lose the bonus, but that doesn't seem to be the case with the rules as they are written)

This seems odd and more like a discrepancy to me. In that 30 feet of movement (given a character with at least +1 BAB) I could draw a different weapon that I would then be able to threaten with. With Quick Draw I could ready another weapon to threaten as a free action without moving. Why in 30 feet of movement am I not able to adjust myself to defend with the buckler again? Perhaps it is because being able to threaten with a weapon is a different level compared to defending with a shield? I don't actually believe that, but if not then I have a hard time explaining why the buckler or the shield bash loses its AC for so long when threatening only takes a free action to adjust for.

While thematically all turns are happening at the same time, pretty much everyone will tell you that from a game mechanics standpoint that just doesn't work. If you kill someone with your last attack in your turn, they don't still get half of a turn if they were supposed to go later that same round. Movement and positioning becomes a whole giant mess as well. Parts of the game were written with the thought that turns occur simultaneously, but most of the game doesn't work like that, which is why we get into problems like this.

kyrt-ryder wrote:
You're more likely to find a place that rents scaling weapons to you, with the fee being a cut of your adventuring loot, say 10% or whatnot (possibly backed up by some kind of supernatural contract or mafia connections or whatever) of your loot haul.

Just want to say that I find that to be a really cool idea that I am totally going to incorporate into one of my campaigns.

Komoda wrote:

Lets face it, I don't care if it is RAW, the rule that you lose the benefits of the buckler for the entire round if you make an attack with the weapon in the hand of the buckler arm is a stupid rule.


I would like to ask, do you also feel the same way about the rule for losing AC after a shield bash? My guess(/hope) is yes, and honestly I do have to agree that both of those rules are somewhat silly in terms of where the game is now. I would be very happy if the result of the FAQ was removing those two rules entirely, but that would also invalidate feats/archetypes/etc.

However, at time the CRB was made, those rules covered the only two possible cases of attacking with the same hand that a shield is on (as far as I can tell). Since the only two possible cases at the time both had the same rule about losing the AC, it seems logical to guess that the intent, at least at that time, is to lose the shield AC whenever you attack with that hand. Again, I don't feel either side's argument is strong enough to make a final conclusion at this point. Ozy isn't wrong from a strictly RAW view, but plenty of people like myself look at the intent differently.

So this FAQ and this FAQ are the ones Kazaan and Ozy are referencing, for added information. Both seem to have roughly the same relevance to the current matter, in my opinion. There are a number of specific rules for similar situations, but no general rule. Both sides have decent arguments and the intent is unclear, hence the FAQ request.

I started a FAQ for what I think is the most relevant question in the matter.
Arguments can be made, but so can a FAQ, and while it might not be answered, it might at least be worth a try, right?

23 people marked this as FAQ candidate.

FAQ Request:

Does using your off-hand for a two-handed attack or two weapon fighting normally prevent the use of any shield's AC bonus in the off-hand until your next turn?

In the case of bucklers or shield bashing the rules are clear. However, the rules are not so clear when it comes to items like the ring of force shield or quickdraw shields. Can you activate a ring of force shield after making a two-handed attack and immediately get its shield AC bonus? Can you do something similar with a quickdraw shield?

Some people have made good arguments for both sides, but I don't feel it is clear enough in the rules currently. RAW seems to favor that the AC bonus is only lost in the specific case of shield bashing and bucklers, while (at least to me) intent seems to be that any use of the shield hand for attacks would prevent the use of the shield.

(Hopefully I've formatted this correctly enough. If anybody feels I should modify the wording or anything please say so)

CommandoDude wrote:
I seem to recall a post from one of the devs stating that you can two handed fight with a ring of force shield even while active.

I was bored, so I think I found the post you are talking about here

Joshua J. Frost wrote:
Ring of force shield essentially grants you a +2 shield bonus to your AC as if you were wielding a heavy shield without needing to actually wield anything. It requires no hands to wield--just an open ring slot.

Joshua was never a developer though as far as I can tell, just a regular employee who was also in charge of PFS for a while. His "ruling" doesn't really match the item text all that well either, and also would suggest that you are no longer wielding the shield in a hand, and therefore (probably) could not shield bash with it. Whichever way it is, the ring of force shield seems to need a proper FAQ, I just don't know the best way to word the question.

Link to possibly relevant FAQ
The bonus damage from point blank shot applies to the damage of a direct hit from an alchemist's bomb, but not the splash damage. Seems like the same might apply for the bonus damage from rage.

Just because the rage damage used to come from strength doesn't mean it still has to. The bonus damage now applies when using dex-to-damage and such as well; it doesn't have to be strength-based attacks.

Canthin wrote:
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
An excellent point raised above is that Paizo produce stat blocks for high level martials that include the AC bonus from the ring and a 2HW as the attack, with no note about only including the shield bonus in rounds where the 2HW is not used.
Except that the stat block is from 3.5 (Second Darkness was a 3.5 AP that Paizo made) and we are now discussing Pathfinder, not 3.5.

I would also like to add that even if it were a Pathfinder AP, it wouldn't be the first time that an AP statblock or rules reference was just wrong (the authors are, after all, usually just as imperfect as we are at reading the rules).

Anyway, thank you for the discussion all. Malachi, I'm not going to try and convince you further, nor was that really my intention in the first place. Those reading this thread who were/are undecided in the matter, I hope I have given you some food for thought that will help you decide. Without more evidence either way or developer comment, I don't think either ruling can necessarily be called more wrong than the other. Until actual new information is posted I don't have anything more to say.

1 to 50 of 98 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>