|
You couldn't Enlarge yourself actually twice and cause them to stack, you shouldn't be able to damage as if you were larger twice and expect them to stack.
Furthermore, since neither the Spiked Shield or the Bashing property actually gives a "Bonus" type, the stacking rules for Bonuses don't even come into play. Therefore, the rule of stacking that states "Bonuses that are untyped stack" is irrelevant, let alone in support of the notion that they stack.
Neither of the two modifications to a shield gives a bonus (such as "This give a +2 bonus")
Instead they are both effects - such as Blur and Diplacement.
Casting both such spells on a target doesn't remove the Blur, but the effects of the Blur are irrelevant.
This is covered in the spell section as:
"One Effect Makes Another Irrelevant: Sometimes, one
spell can render a later spell irrelevant. Both spells are
still active, but one has rendered the other useless in
some fashion."
Since both effects on the shield are not bonuses, the "all untyped bonuses stack" should not apply, so then one would have to fall back on other logic within the rules - rules that apply to effects. Effects do not stack; you get the greater of the two; like adding Stoneskin to a Golem; both require Adamantite to overcome it - so you would take the greater of the two DR - not combine both amounts.
Robert
Robert you're making this more complex than you need to.
Go to the wpns table, look up the damage for a spiked shield, add bashing. End of story. Stop looking at it in terms of multiple effects and instead apply the as written rules to the as written stats for a spiked shield.
Ergo 2d6 for a medium heavy spiked shield with the bashing enchant.
(If you want some real controversy, apply the "defending" characteristic to a +5 shield spike.)
Robert you're making this more complex than you need to.
Go to the wpns table, look up the damage for a spiked shield, add bashing
Which is the issue as you can't do that.Bashing adds to the shield not the spike.
Robert has the right of it I think.
|
|
Robert you're making this more complex than you need to.
That typically happens when players try to abuse the rules and bend it beyond what they should for the purpose of a little munchkinism.
(If you want some real controversy, apply the "defending" characteristic to a +5 shield spike.)
Another classic case in point.
Robert
Actually, the shield naturally has an offensive part, even without spikes. You can still bash with a shield without spike, you can still offensively enchant a shield without spikes. The spikes just fit within that fold of offensiveness. The reason to write it like that (+2 flaming shield spike) is for clarification that that bonus is indeed for the offensive part of the shield.Robert you're making this more complex than you need to.
Go to the wpns table, look up the damage for a spiked shield, add bashingWhich is the issue as you can't do that.Bashing adds to the shield not the spike.
Robert has the right of it I think.
But the spike gives the effect one one size larger to the shield although the spike now does the damage not the shield(see damage type)
The bashing gives the shield the effect of 2 sizes larger not the spike. So the shield now does more damage then the spike, which dose not count as larger as bashing can not be added to the spike
Still not seeing how they can stack here
I saw it. I disagree, effects or bonus do not stack. It does not matter if they come from the same source or not.
Both items do the same thing. Make it count as one size or more larger. They do them in different ways. No matter how you look at this I can not see how you could count it as stacking. They do different types of damage, bashing can not be added to the spike, to improve the spikes damage it must be enhanced outside of the shield and effects do not stack
Sorry reads to be as Hard core loophole hunting as "Well the book didn't say and didn't give me 7 examples to cover any build and didn't make it clear enough" yada , yada , yada
Robert has been kind enough to show a few different ways the rules make this unlikely and a pure muchkin loophole
As always you can do what you like in your game
Okay, logic and reasoning don't work for you. You need a hard answer and a specific rule. I understand, but until one of the big boys puts a post up, just try to be open minded.
Using your argument, "effects or bonus do not stack. It does not matter if they come from the same source or not", then a fighter with a +3 one-handed melee weapon and 14 strength would only get a +3 bonus on attack and damage rolls with it. By your logic, they do the same thing, but in a different way, and shouldn't stack. Likewise, armor bonus and shield bonus shouldn't stack, for the same reason. Hell, none of the magic bonuses on those should stack, either.
Different types there Skippy. One is a str bonus the other is a enhancement bonus. Also armor grants an armor bonus, while shields grant a shield bonus Again(this is stated) not the same thing.They stack. However bashing is an size increase effect. The spike is a size increase effect. They both are the same type so would not stack
|
|
Okay, logic and reasoning don't work for you.
Accurate logic and reasoning would be more helpful.
I know you weren't addressing me specifically, but seeker and I seem to be on the same page here.
Using your argument, "effects or bonus do not stack. It does not matter if they come from the same source or not",
That's not what I said - what I said was "EFFECTS" do not stack. Bonuses CAN stack - barring the specificity of the bonus - covered quite succinctly in the Stacking rules of modifiers.
then a fighter with a +3 one-handed melee weapon and 14 strength would only get a +3 bonus on attack and damage rolls with it. By your logic, they do the same thing, but in a different way, and shouldn't stack.
False. Anything with language equating or mirroring "+Z X type of bonus" is a potentially stackable factor in the game - in this case the Strenght offers a Strength Bonus, and the +3 weapon provides an Enhancement bonus; and in the rules in the combat section clearly indicate that BONUSES of different TYPES stack.
Likewise, armor bonus and shield bonus shouldn't stack, for the same reason. Hell, none of the magic bonuses on those should stack, either.
Once again false. Armor provides an armor BONUS. Shields provide a SHEILD bonus to one's AC. These stack because they are different BONUS TYPES.
Furthermore, the rules in the magic item section specifically mentions that the Enhancement bonuses of a shield and armor break the normal rule of stacking and DO combine to add to ones' AC.
Do you see my point that your logic is flawed?
et tu Brute'.
And as for your spike argument, THEY ARE NOT SEPARATE ITEMS. The spikes are simply an addition to the offensive parts of a shield. They are referred to as a collective, spiked shield, one item, not a shield with spikes. You still attack the same EXACT way regardless of whether your shield is spiked or not.
A shield without spikes can be enchanted both ways as well, as any item can. The spikes just change the damage. They change the way in which the shield hits. A shield, even...I'll grant you that they may very well be the 'same item.' However, your aforementioned arguement addresses BONUSES and BONUS TYPES. I am not indicating BONUS TYPES couldn't stack - so long as they follow the basic logic and restrictions of stacking they do indeed.
What I have been saying is that SPIKES and BASHING are two features that are NOT bonus types - and should therefore not follow the stacking guidelines.
I'm not being a hypocrite by pointing out that spells have a "no stacking of effects." That's not the only area of the game that provides effects - it was just the handiest and easiest to illustrate.
There is no verbiage whatsoever to indicate any of the damage afforded by either the spikes or the Bashing quality is a type of bonus. It's an effect.
And throughout the rules, effects simply don't stack. Whether it's two things that are magical, or something natural with something magical (such as the case of a shield spikes and bashing property to weapons). If you have a racial base 30 ft of darkvision (natural) and get Goggles of Night (magical) - you dont get 90 ft of Darkvision. If you have DR 10/Adamantite naturally and have Stoneskin cast on you (magically) you don't get DR 20/Adamantite. If you're a devil with 16 Spell Resistance (natural) and put Spell Resistance 17 on your armor, you don't get SR 33. If you're a half-fiend with Fire Resistance 10 (naturally) and you wear a ring of fire resistance 20 (magically) you don't get Fire Resistance 30.
I merely pointed out the spells verbiage to illustrate that one must look at logic and rules found elsewhere in the book since none of the bonus damage from either source is a TYPE OF BONUS whatsoever, so rules regarding bonuses and their types are irrelevant - subsequently one must look for other areas in the game to find rules that govern special effects of the game. Spells, magic items, and some natural occuring effects from ones race or equipment.
To illustrate further - another natural occuring effect is Natural Armor; however an Amulet of natural armor DOES help someone with natural armor because it gives a BONUS TYPE to ones already existing bonus to natural occuring natural armor.
Finally your stated comments about 3.5 are completely irrelevant. This is a different game and much has been changed - even a number of rulings, sage advice, and other web-zine commentary by WotC employees - which was often times countering each others comments, subsequent updates, and subsequent releases of supplment books. Pathfinder has altered a number of things from 3.5 - even things that were Specifically FAQed or Sage Adviced to death. Because even if it's WotC answer - doesn't meen it's what Pathfinder RPG wanted for their game. Furthermore, some people playing Pathfinder never played 3.5, and to automatically assume that everyone playing Pathfinder did play 3.5 and understood and knew all of the FAQed items and left things to be deferred to 3.5 logic would simply be counter-intuitive, counter-productive, and just bad form for their game-design.
If they wanted it to stack it would be a caveated addendum in the book as "Typically effects do not stack, but this and this breaks that normal rule." But unlike the Shield and Armor enhancement bonus being explicitly indicating that it breaks the otherwise simple and understood stacking rules, the increased shield basing damage effects do not.
Robert
Robert you're making this more complex than you need to.
Go to the wpns table, look up the damage for a spiked shield, add bashing. End of story. Stop looking at it in terms of multiple effects and instead apply the as written rules to the as written stats for a spiked shield.
Ergo 2d6 for a medium heavy spiked shield with the bashing enchant.
This. The Bashing enhancement is applied to a "base item" just like any other enhancement. Your argument is that the heavy shield is the "base item" when modified by a shield spike. This isn't backed up by the rules. The description of a shield spike states that the heavy shield and heavy spiked shield are two differing items, going so far as to refer to a new entry on the weapons table. A medium heavy shield is one item, a medium heavy spiked shield is a separate and distinctly different item. It has its own costs (granted based on the heavy shield plus another amount) and its own statistics (again adjusted from another item). You can't use a medium spiked heavy shield as if it were a medium heavy shield, you must always use the statistics listed for a spiked medium heavy shield as that is the actual item you have. It isn't a medium heavy shield with an 'effect' of shield spike. It is a medium heavy spiked shield, it is a thing unto itself. Just like an eagle and a celestial eagle are two completely different creatures. Yeah one is based on the other, but they are no longer the same, distinctly different. Nor can you remove the 'celestial' part from the celestial eagle to get a regular eagle per the rules. You have one and you have the other, the exact same thing with the shields.
When adding Bashing to an item you either have a medium heavy shield or a medium heavy spiked shield. Not a medium heavy shield that "happens to be enhanced with this spike and has some sort of size increase due to that" like you are implying. It is a medium item that does damage, it just so happens that damage is of a range equivalent to something larger. That doesn't make it larger though. It doesn't give it some enhancement bonus, or some quality that increases its size. It is what it is, a weapon with damage potential slightly higher than normal, innately. That is what you paid more gold for.
Using Robert's reasoning it would stand that if a large monk were to be enlarged via Enlarge Person they wouldn't get the extra damage on an unarmed strike as there is a table that shows damage for both small and large monk’s unarmed damage. Technically that is a size increase you are arguing, and because of that the enlarge person cast on, lets say an ogre, wouldn't increase the unarmed damage as it was already increased by the table. I disagree with that and that is what I would call "faulty reasoning."
The spiked heavy shield is a distinct item differing from a heavy shield the same way a human monk is considered a distinct and different being from an ogre monk. When applying an identical effect to both each of their base qualities and attributes are modified identically by the effect. A medium monk(1) does 1d6 normally with unarmed strikes, 1d8 unarmed if enlarged (large) and 2d6 if shapechanged to a huge form and 2d8 into a garg. form. A large monk(1) does (1d6+1 size category bigger as per the rules text and table of the monk class) 1d8 normally, 2d6 if enlarged (huge) and 2d8 if shapechanged into a garg. form then 4d6 if in a col. form. With your reasoning the large monk shouldn't be doing as much damage as they do by the rules because there is some 'size increase factor' involved in the monk class giving them an innate effective increase in damage which wouldn't "stack" with the magical bonus applied. The rules don't back up your 'reasoning.'
The same logic and mechanics apply to the shield as they did to the monks. A medium heavy shield will do 1d4 (per the table 6-4), a medium Bashing heavy shield will do 1d8 (per 6-4 and enhancement description), large Bashing heavy shield will do 2d6 (per tables 6-4 & 6-5 and the enhancement description). Now when we have medium spiked heavy shield it does 1d6 normally (per 6-4 as it is an entity of its own), if we had a large spiked heavy shield it would do 1d8 (per table 6-5) as the innate damage of the medium item is 1d6. If we add Bashing to the medium spiked shield it goes to 2d6 (per 6-4 and the enhancement details). If added to the large spiked heavy shield it would be 2d8 (per 6-4, 6-5 and the enhancement write up).
@seekerofshadowlight, if you are looking for munchkins/munchkinism/loop holes, you're going to find them everywhere. You're looking for them, you're focusing on it, that is what you want to see. The rules as I'm explaining aren't loop holes, they have precendence. They might not have been very well thought out, but until Paizo decides to speak out on a subject that has been brought up a numerous amount of times, and will be brought up plenty more, the rule book and its written word is what we have to work with. Add to the mix that the PFRPG is based on 3.5 and the rules for 3.5 say this works and I'm content until I get a final word from Paizo as they deemed it wasn't necessary to change it in their final version of the redone rule set. There was no drastic vebage change, there are no exceptions pointed out, there are no new rules in place to change something they viewed as overpowered or incorrect. Nor has anyone popped into the threads about this to say "yeah we missed that sorry it should be XYZ." They left it as it was.
I don't see in the rule book where it says it stacks I see alot of things that point to how it would not however. Also paizo changed alot of things even if they didn't change how it was written such as improved natural attack no longer stacking with monks unarmed damage. 3.5 FAQ is meaningless for the most part that was a different company and a different design team with different ideals of what should work with what.
Also enlarge person changes your size. Not give you a size effect, but changes it so no not the same thing. And I am not looking for the loophole y'all do fine job of that on your own.
I assume they left the rule working as it does in the book. In which case it does not stack. I have yet to be showed a rule that says it does but more then one that shows it would not
In 3.5 it worked the same way to someone over ruled it in a FAQ
Pathfinder did change how stacking works. Sorry but 3.5 FAQ carries not a damned bit of authority in this. Now if the pathfinder FAQ rules it otherwise and changes how it works in the book so be it, but until they do I'll use it by the rules as I see it. In this case, they clearly to me do not stack
However bashing is an size increase effect. The spike is a size increase effect. They both are the same type so would not stack
Actually I think you need to look at the wording more carefully.
It's a little like the difference between something that provides a bonus to your Natural AC, as opposed to something that provides a Natural AC bonus. Skylancers comparison of the eagle and celestial eagle is also very apt.
From the SRD:
Bashing
A shield with this special ability is designed to perform a shield bash. A bashing shield deals damage as if it were a weapon of two size categories larger (a Medium light shield thus deals 1d6 points of damage and a Medium heavy shield deals 1d8 points of damage). The shield acts as a +1 weapon when used to bash. Only light and heavy shields can have this ability.
Moderate transmutation; CL 8th; Craft Magic Arms and Armor, bull's strength; Price +1 bonus.
Using the example in the text of the enchantment itself, it's clear that you take the base shield being enchanted and increase the damage by two size categories. If that base shield happens to be spiked and start at 1d6, then 2 sizes up it's 2d6. The damage increase that's treated as a size increase isn't an effect or typed bonus... I'm just not seeing why you're saying they wouldn't stack. There's nothing in the rules to suggest that they wouldn't.
Another way to look at it, by your rationale, a character couldn't get the benefit of a CSW and a CLW from a second caster at the same time, because they're both healing effects.
|
|
Using Robert's reasoning it would stand that if a large monk were to be enlarged via Enlarge Person they wouldn't get the extra damage on an unarmed strike as there is a table that shows damage for both small and large monk’s unarmed damage. Technically that is a size increase you are arguing, and because of that the enlarge person cast on, lets say an ogre, wouldn't increase the unarmed damage as it was already increased by the table. I disagree with that and that is what I would call "faulty reasoning."
Once again people are failing to see the difference between being enlarged, and "doing damage as if enlarged - but not really being enlarged"
At no time did I presume or imply that someone being enlarged by and enlarge effect, whether a monk doing unarmed damage, or a fighter with a bashing shield, wouldn't increase the damage done by their respective weapons.
By all means, a person with a bashing shield who gets enlarged would indeed do more damage than someone who wasn't enlarged - but in this case, the person and their equipment truly did get bigger.
I am not arguing that in any way shape or form. What I have been arguing is two effects of 'acting as if larger' working in conjunction. Just as you couldn't "enlarge" twice.
The Bashing enhancement is applied to a "base item" just like any other enhancement. Your argument is that the heavy shield is the "base item" when modified by a shield spike. This isn't backed up by the rules. The description of a shield spike states that the heavy shield and heavy spiked shield are two differing items, going so far as to refer to a new entry on the weapons table.
Now here is where your argument makes sense. This actually makes has some merit. I'm not necessarily agreeing that it should work that way - but I will concede that this at least gives you a leg to stand on.
I still don't think they should both work together - and reasoned quite well with all the examples I've provided.
Furthermore, it stands to reason that a person wielding a one-handed weapon getting AC and damage as per a great sword wielded in one hand is a bit outside the scope of balance. This is what gives me pause - thus my rationale is simply why i see it not working is justification for not allowing said imbalance.
If Paizo wants it to work that way and clarifies it in some FAQ, and your arguement above is the fuel used to justify it, then so be it, as I said, it actually makes sense; but so too does them NOT stacking for cited reasons. I will admit by indicating it's a base item of itself, it lends creates a vague possibility within the scope of the rules. But my gut tells me after years of gaming and getting a good sense of what Paizo has tried to do with Pathfinder (as it pertains to cutting the legs out from under such imbalanced builds, and cheesey munckinisms), that they won't be on board with it working that way. But I am omniscient and they may very well surprise me. I still believe they shouldn't stack and it does violate the "stacking of effects" rules.
If it is allowed, I can guarantee a lot of Pathfinder Society characters being built that way - replacing the Living Greyhawk spiked chain tripping/disarming monkey.
Robert
|
|
Another way to look at it, by your rationale, a character couldn't get the benefit of a CSW and a CLW from a second caster at the same time, because they're both healing effects.
False. Cure spells are duration: Instantaneous.
Instantaneous effects can take place at the same time - just as you can be burned by multiple fireballs, you can be healed by multiple Cure spells.
Robert
|
Hi! just my two cents on this problem with the shields. Since I do also have some question in regards if I'm using the rules properly (not house ruling it)
1.- Normal shields:
Do blunt damage
Magical properties for shields only
2.- Spiked shields:
Do piercing damage
Magical properties for shields and weapons
Example: Heavy Steel Shield +5 flaming burst, bashing, arrow deflection.
Note: Spiked shields can use both weapons and shields special properties, but you can't have a spiked heavy steel shield +10 for using both weapons properties you can only have the highest one and it works for both purposes as shield and weapon.
PS: I'm sorry english is not my first language. Well this is how we think the rules covering this issue work, and if we are mistaking it, well then it's a house rule
Another way to look at it, by your rationale, a character couldn't get the benefit of a CSW and a CLW from a second caster at the same time, because they're both healing effects.
False. Cure spells are duration: Instantaneous.
Instantaneous effects can take place at the same time - just as you can be burned by multiple fireballs, you can be healed by multiple Cure spells.
Robert
Shield bashes have an associated duration?
Example: Heavy Steel Shield +5 flaming burst, bashing, arrow deflection.
The way I understand it, you enchant the spike as a weapon and the shield as armor, but seperately.
So if you want a +5 shield with bashing and arrow defleciton that's a +8 magic shield cost, plus the shield and masterworking it. (~64k gp)
To add Flaming burst you'd have to add a masterwork spike, and pay for a +3 magic wpn. (~18k gp)
Then when used, you'd get a +5 enhancement bonus to your sheild AC, but only a +1 enhancement bonus to hit and damage plus your flaming burst.
You would not get +5 to hit, damage and AC out of it.
|
|
Shield bashes have an associated duration?
The bashing property effect is a permanent effect. So is the in-game mechanic effect of using spikes shield. It's not instantaneous that the spikes increase their damage output (over a standard shield); it's something that is on-going and permanent.
So is darkvision on a half-orc, so is spell resistance on a dragon, so is Keen on a weapon. These are examples on on-going effects.
Falling damage, fireballs, cure spells, and power word kill are things that happen instantaneously, and the the magic is gone. It may have linging consequences(or benefits) - such as the hit point damage done from a fireball (which can later be restored), or the hit points restored from the healing (which can then be taken away from a fireball for instance), or the inconvenience of being dead after a power word kill spell, but the effects that caused the consequences are instantaneous.
Robert
|
|
The way I understand it, you enchant the spike as a weapon and the shield as armor, but seperately.
So if you want a +5 shield with bashing and arrow defleciton that's a +8 magic shield cost, plus the shield and masterworking it. (~64k gp)
To add Flaming burst you'd have to add a masterwork spike, and pay for a +3 magic wpn. (~18k gp)
For the record, I agree with you.
But wouldn't this then go against what many have been arguing in support of the two effects (spikes doing increased damage, and Bashing property doing increased damage) working in conjunction with each other?
their arguements seem to be based on the fact that the spike is NOT a seperate item, but that it is all one item.
Originally myself and seeker argued that because it is two seperate items you couldn't stack the damage from the two effects because the SPIKE is doing one part of the increased damage (from the weapon part of it), and the BASHING is applied to the shield aspect of it. So it's one or the other. To which I still believe.
And the way you describe and understand it above, to me should include reasoning that you're using either the shield to bash, or the spikes to stab; but not both. Hence the "attach a morning star to a longsword" comparison and attacking with it.
Robert
Hi! just my two cents on this problem with the shields. Since I do also have some question in regards if I'm using the rules properly (not house ruling it)
1.- Normal shields:
Do blunt damage
Magical properties for shields and weapons (sold separately)2.- Spiked shields:
Do piercing damage
Magical properties for shields and weapons
Example: Heavy Steel Shield +5 flaming burst, bashing, arrow deflection.Note: Both Spiked shields and normal shields can use both weapons and shields special properties, but you can't have a spiked heavy steel shield +10 for using both weapons properties as the spike and the shield are the same weapon (and therefore can't be enchanted twice unless one bonus is defensive and one is offensive).
Fixed that for you. The thing people seem to be forgetting is that, like the bashing property, a shield spike is an augmentation to the shield, not an entirely separate weapon. After all, a shield spike is useless without a shield to back up its "punch."
|
|
like the bashing property, a shield spike is an augmentation to the shield, not an entirely separate weapon.
This too supports my arguement.
Either way you want to look at it.....
a_) They're two seperate entities and should be enchanted seperately and thus you either are attacking with the pointy thing or you're bashing with the bam bam side; but you're gettting both
OR
b_) They're two augmentations of the same item - each augmentation doing the same effect - which two augmented effects do not work with each other - use the greater of the two.
Thanks, RD for helping stratify that.
Robert
So is darkvision on a half-orc, so is spell resistance on a dragon, so is Keen on a weapon. These are examples on on-going effects.
And the developers were very careful to rule that things like keen couldn't be stacked. It's explicitly written in the description of spells, weapon enchantments and the feat. That isn't the case with shield bashing.
Falling damage, fireballs, cure spells, and power word kill are things that happen instantaneously, and the the magic is gone. It may have linging consequences(or benefits) - such as the hit point damage done from a fireball (which can later be restored), or the hit points restored from the healing (which can then be taken away from a fireball for instance), or the inconvenience of being dead after a power word kill spell, but the effects that caused the consequences are instantaneous.
Robert
Then why would you argue that a damage source that happens to be modified by two sources can only be modified by one? (Another example then your PC is standing in a burning pool of oil (not instantaneous damage), and gets fireballed, does he only take the greater fireball damage?)
Or, a PC has to scale a cliff that happens to have a rather shaky rope ladder up the side, would you really argue that they couldn't use the ladder and their climbing kit to determine the bonus to their climb check?
On a similar note if you're going to separate the spike and bashing effect are you okay with your PC using it as either blunt bashing (2 size increases) [u]or[/b] peiricing (one size increase) as they want? To be honest that seems excessively complex and against the description of the shield spike.
But wouldn't this then go against what many have been arguing in support of the two effects (spikes doing increased damage, and Bashing property doing increased damage) working in conjunction with each other?
Not at all, that's just costing the item out.
Look at it this way. Hitting someone with a sheet of plywood hurts. Putting a big nail in that sheet concentrates a lot of force on a point so it's going to hurt more. Now add a magical effect that causes that sheet to accelerate to it's target and doesn't it just make sense that the nail is going to hurt that much more?
Well if ya want to get even more technical, bashing can not be added to a spiked shield. Spiked shield is not listed in the entry, which states Light and medium shields. Not Light and medium shield or spiked shields.
And yes your nail hurts, however if the plywood hits like it's the size of an SUV the nail is kinda a moot point, the damage type may change the amount of damage would not. It really would not matter if it just broke every bone and caused massive internal damage or if it broke every bone and caused massive internal damage and caused a piecing whole as well. The damage would be more or less the same
|
|
Or, a PC has to scale a cliff that happens to have a rather shaky rope ladder up the side, would you really argue that they couldn't use the ladder and their climbing kit to determine the bonus to their climb check?
Fail. Again, people continue to try to use examples of things that provide an actual quantifiable BONUS that is stratified with a bonus type and number.
That being said, there are stated rules about Competence bonuses stacking.
A rope ladder and/or a knotted rope and wall do NOT give bonuses to ones climb skill - they set a DC to be met by one's climb skill check. The climbing kit provides a competence bonus to said attempt against the easier DC of the rope ladder (or rope and wall).
EDIT: In a nutshell, they do work together and there's a rational and explained mechanic for why and how that is.
On a similar note if you're going to separate the spike and bashing effect are you okay with your PC using it as either blunt bashing (2 size increases) [u]or[/b] peiricing (one size increase) as they want? To be honest that seems excessively complex and against the description of the shield spike.But wouldn't this then go against what many have been arguing in support of the two effects (spikes doing increased damage, and Bashing property doing increased damage) working in conjunction with each other?Not at all, that's just costing the item out.
So the thought process to cost it out vs the usage of it are using two different philosophies. Hopefully you can see from my perspective that is not indifferent from "selective hearing" Using what you want from logic that supports you, and discarding that which does not. Whether it does or doesn't it is selective.
Look at it this way. Hitting someone with a sheet of plywood hurts. Putting a big nail in that sheet concentrates a lot of force on a point so it's going to hurt more. Now add a magical effect that causes that sheet to accelerate to it's target and doesn't it just make sense that the nail is going to hurt that much more?
SCORE! That makes as much sense as anything I've read on here so far, and will give you credit on this one.
The nail is going to hurt more - and is simulated by the Spikes of the shield doing more damage than the shield would do ordinarily.
The problem is that we can't possibly theorize magical effects that change the physics of the sheet of plywood to make it seem as if it's 4 times larger than it is (equivalent of two size categories), since such physics does not actually exist; so we couldn't experiment and know how that would cause the nail to actually do more damage than the nail (in and of itself) would otherwise. I agree that making the sheet of plywood seem larger would make it hurt more (a la that Bashing quality simulates this) but I am not convinced that it would then compile on the nail to make the nail that much more hurtful than the enormous damaging board already is doing, making the nail moot by that point. I would then err on side that the physics-breaking notion that the board is not really bigger but hurting as if it is overides the already not-so impressive damage of the nail at that point.
That is where real-life physics must take a backseat to game-mechanics, and where we must look for rules and loopholes regarding effects, stacking, etc.
I still see them as two effects that augment the same item and not meant to work in unison. Much like having a torch within the radius of a sunrod doesn't make the sunrod brighter.
Robert
|
|
Well if ya want to get even more technical, bashing can not be added to a spiked shield. Spiked shield is not listed in the entry, which states Light and medium shields. Not Light and medium shield or spiked shields.
SCORE! If the spiked shield is a new item in and of itself that people are arguing that it is the BASE ITEM, then that base item with it's own entry is NOT listed in the bashing quality as applicable.
And yes your nail hurts, however if the plywood hits like it's the size of an SUV the nail is kinda a moot point,
Ah - you ninja'd my moot comment.
Well said, Seeker.
James Jacobs made a similar reference in the "Power Attack adding to Rend" conversation - "there's no point in adding a hand grenade to a nuclear explosion." LOL
EDIT: This comes back to my "gut feeling" that I mentioned earlier about what I think Paizo would think of things like this, and what they tried to reduce from the 3.5 power creep ballooning effect that broke so many games for people.
Robert
like the bashing property, a shield spike is an augmentation to the shield, not an entirely separate weapon.
This too supports my arguement.
Either way you want to look at it.....
a_) They're two seperate entities and should be enchanted seperately and thus you either are attacking with the pointy thing or you're bashing with the bam bam side; but you're gettting both
But you are hitting with the ENTIRE shield, spike and all. It's all considered one magic item (even if it is enchanted as a shield AND as a weapon). Enchanting the shield spike is enchanting the shield (and vice versa) as it is all considered one item. If it helps, think of the spike as a modification to an existing item, rather than a separate item.
OR
b_) They're two augmentations of the same item - each augmentation doing the same effect - which two augmented effects do not work with each other - use the greater of the two.
I disagree on this point. People are reading too much into the stacking rules and are stretching the wording to accommodate their arguments. Fact of the matter is that two bonuses from different sources stack. I seriously doubt that the game designers intended for the size bonus rules to even apply here.
Thanks, RD for helping stratify that.
Robert
That's not what I'm arguing at all. My responses above in bold.
Fail. Again, people continue to try to use examples of things that provide an actual quantifiable BONUS that is stratified with a bonus type and number.
If it's fail to argue using bonuses as examples, than it's equally fail to use bonus rules to explain why they don't stack.
Hopefully you can see from my perspective that is not indifferent from "selective hearing" Using what you want from logic that supports you, and discarding that which does not. Whether it does or doesn't it is selective.
Speaking of selective hearing and logic you didn't answer the question: would you let your player use a spiked shield as piercing or bludgeoning at their leisure? (you also ignored the bit about whether a fireball would trump burning oil damage and how keen specifcally excludes stacking but this does not.) :)
Lastly take into account that if the cost of an item and it's use aren't subjective, then every wonderous item's value should be easily calcuable. (and they're not) Or if cost was truly relevant to mechanical use than Masterwork and a +1 enchantment on a weapon should have far less cost difference because they both have the same effect on how well it hits. From my perspictive, the cost of the item is a nonissue here and a bit of a red herring you're latching onto that isn't really relevant to the use of the object.
...but I am not convinced that it would then compile on the nail to make the nail that much more hurtful than the enormous damaging board already is doing
A light one handed pick and a military pick both contact with roughly the same surface area on the pointy side, the military pick however does more damage and penetrates deeper because it's got more weight behind it. If it helps just think of the bashing enchantment increasing the speed of the hit. (If you really wanted to calculate something you could use E=0.5mv^2 and up the E as though the mass had increased 4x and back-calculate the new velocity of the hit with the original shield mass but that's a little excessive.)
In short so far the best arguement I've seen that they don't stack is seeker's comment about them not being listed in the bashing description, but even then I think that's an excessively literal read of the entry since I think we all agree that a spiked shield is simply a sub-category of things we call shields. (It would also mean that large or bigger sheilds could never be spiked since they aren't listing in the description.)
|
|
I disagree on this point. People are reading too much into the stacking rules and are stretching the wording to accommodate their arguments. Fact of the matter is that two bonuses from different sources stack. I seriously doubt that the game designers intended for the size bonus rules to even apply here.
I agree with you - I feel the size bonuses and the stacking thereof having nothing to do with this issue.
I've been arguing all along that it's a question of stacking game effects.
If the shield spike increased the size of the shield to large, and the bashing increased the size of the shield by two sizes, THEN it would be a "size bonus" issue. But they don't. They just mirror the "effect" of being larger as it pertains to damage.
All things in the game - all of them, that affect the game are either a numerical quantifiable bonus/penalty based on integers, or an effect that changes an existing condition or otherwise the physics. Anything that changes the existing physics of something is an effect. Generally effects do not stack. You assume the greater effect overrides the lesser making the lesser inert.
A +3 weapon gives a numerical increase in effectiveness (Bonus) A light source brings light to an otherwise darkened room (Effect).
Two torches that produce light to a darkened room (physics effect) held by the same person do not create a larger radius of light. Now I know that in the real world, it would probably make things a bit brighter - but this is a game that is hinged on gamists rules that often times overrides physics of real world equivalence.
Another such example is a person with 150 hit points being just as effective in combat before he's taken any damage as he is after taking 149 points of damage. But hit points is a gamists mechanic to make the game playable and balanced and easy to adjudicate.
If something changes something else in the game, and does not give a quantifiable numeric change (or modifier), the the change is attributed to a change in physics by a game "effect"
Something that can no longer move is "paralyzed" Something that no longer lives is "dead" Something that has Fly spell on them can now magically fly. etc. None of those are a change in numbers - they're just a change to existing physics. I contest that so too is the "pretending that an item is larger than it actually is" is such an effect and subject to the effects don't stack consensus of the game.
That all being said - much of my fancy lawyering speak seems to have become moot since it was finally agreed upon that the spiked shield is its own item with its own entry and does not exist on the list of the items that can be changed/modified by the Bashing effect property.
Robert
|
|
If it's fail to argue using bonuses as examples, than it's equally fail to use bonus rules to explain why they don't stack.
Once again - I'm not using rules of "Bonuses" as my arguement. I've been arguing rules about Game Effects.
Do you recognize and understand the difference between a Bonus (explained as a numerical change/modifer) and effect (something that alters the existing phyical nature of something already in the game)?
would you let your player use a spiked shield as piercing or bludgeoning at their leisure?
No.
(you also ignored the bit about whether a fireball would trump burning oil damage and
I did speak on this idea earlier; but it was in reference to something else - regardless the same logic applies.
Fireball damage is instantaneous; not an on-going effect; thus the damage is in addition to. Its an instant once-chaging of the hit point amount of a person - thus a numeric change. Instananeous effects of damage do not play a role in this arguement.
What you should be asking yourself is "IF the fireball spell carried verbiage that 'catches it's victims on fire' (as the burning oil of an alchemists fire does) would I allow the person to catch on fire twice (once from each source) simultaneously and do concurrent damage from each?"
To which that answer is of course not. Catching on fire is an Effect of the game that changes the existing physics of something (unless for some reason you're always on fire - in which case you're probably immune to the damage) - and you don't stack those effects.
EDIT: You're either "on fire" or "Not on Fire". Being on fire has its own game effect. [1d6 points of damage per round...you can extinguish by yada yada] You can't be on fire twice. You can't be paralyzed twice. You can't be dead twice.
....how keen specifcally excludes stacking but this does not.) :)
I don't know how long you've been playing but when 3rd edition was first released, this verbiage was not specifically mentioned. 3.5 ratified that simply because of the number of people that abused the rule and made darkwood keen scimitar wielding characters with Improved Critical. After it was FAQed to death and discussed, they added that caveat specifically to ensure no more arguements ensued to once and for all nip it in the bud.
That being said - the fact that it states it there to prevent confusion, doesn't mean that it then opens the flood gates that all other effects in the game should now work to stack and do concurrent damage etc, just because it doesn't explicitly state it in every situation - the rule book would have to be 2000 pages in order to do prevent every possible effect stacking scneario.
A light one handed pick and a military pick both contact with roughly the same surface area on the pointy side, the military pick however does more damage and penetrates deeper because it's got more weight behind it. If it helps just think of the bashing enchantment increasing the speed of the hit. (If you really wanted to calculate something you could use E=0.5mv^2 and up the E as though the mass had increased 4x and back calculate the velocity of the hit with the original shield mass...
If you're speaking of "Light Pick" and "Heavy Pick" the difference is in damage is simply the size of the weapon. It's quite plausible that the Pick spikey pointy thing that goes into your enemy is larger too.
But once again - it's something that physics simply can't prove. Espcially by simply replacing E w/ x4, since the board or shield in this case isn't actually bigger; just imagined to be. No amount of experimentation can prove whether a nail added to a piece of plywood would have any more effectiveness if we "pretend the board is several times larger"
Checking the hardness of geological stones and minerals - that's something we can experiment to prove - imagined magical plywood pretending to be more alpha-wood than it is....certifiably impossible to prove or disprove.
So I'm left with using the rules of effects (not bonuses, bonus types, modifiers....just effects) in the game and how they interact with themselves.
Or now - just reading the true rule of the law that a spiked shield being its own item with its own entry and not just a two part augmentation of an exiting item, isn't a viable option in the write-up of Bashing property as an item that can be enhanced in that way.
Robert
None of those are a change in numbers - they're just a change to existing physics. I contest that so too is the "pretending that an item is larger than it actually is" is such an effect and subject to the effects don't stack consensus of the game.
By your own logic then it does stack since what we're talking about is a change in the amount of damge the spiked bashing sheild does. (eg the number and type of dice you roll.)
|
|
None of those are a change in numbers - they're just a change to existing physics. I contest that so too is the "pretending that an item is larger than it actually is" is such an effect and subject to the effects don't stack consensus of the game.
By your own logic then it does stack since what we're talking about is a change in the amount of damge the spiked bashing sheild does. (eg the number and type of dice you roll.)
I don't see how you read that at all.
My own logic specifically indicated that both effects are the same (Effect = pretending item is larger than it is) - so take the greater of the two.
What I mean as a change in numbers is +3 to Attacks from Strength, +1 to attacks from Weapon Focus, +2 to attacks from magical sword. Those are changes in numbers. They work in conjunction with each other - so long as one follows the clear and concise rules for stacking modifiers of same listed "type".
Effects are not a number, not a modifier.
Robert
|
|
None of those are a change in numbers - they're just a change to existing physics. I contest that so too is the "pretending that an item is larger than it actually is" is such an effect and subject to the effects don't stack consensus of the game.
By your own logic then it does stack since what we're talking about is a change in the amount of damge the spiked bashing sheild does. (eg the number and type of dice you roll.)
The number of dice or size of dice rolled is not a modifier. It's an element of a change in effect.
Much like becoming larger means you use bigger dice. That isn't a game modifer. That's a consequence or benefit from a game effect. It changes the existing physics, so it must be adjudicated differently that the way it was adjudicated before.
An example of a difference.
You have a +5 weapon now, when you use to have a +3. You don't change the physics of the way the weapon works. It's still a longsword its still a d8 of damage, it's still slashing weapon etc. All those effects are the same.
The only difference is that the modifier to your attack and damage has changed by a MODIFIER based on a BONUS and TYPE.
If said longsword +5 wielder becomes ENLARGED (game effect), then the properties and physics of the blade have changed - but the modifiers from it are the same.
It still adds 5 to attck rolls as an enhancement bonus. But now since it's larger (an effect) you're using a bigger dice that you're adding the +5 to.
Robert
It would be really nice to get a Developer or someone official to specifically state if spikes and bashing stack in pathfinder or not.
However I think you're all scaring them off.
Being on fire has its own game effect. [1d6 points of damage per round...you can extinguish by yada yada] You can't be on fire twice. You can't be paralyzed twice. You can't be dead twice.
If that's truly your arguement, than it's a very good arguement that you can't take damage from multiple sources of the same energy damage at the same time and should experience only the largest source of damage. Eg I can't be effectively shocking grasped, (Ie any more electrocuted) if I'm already vibrating with a lighting bolt and I can't take any more acid damage if I'm immersed in acid already. But I think it's pretty clear that the rules don't actually work that way. If I want to shoot a melf's acid arrow at a guy in the acid pit I can, and it should damage them.
Or consider the effect of multiple doses of a paralysis poison. Multiple doses stack by increasing the DC of the save and the duration of the effect. You're right, you can't be doubley paralyzed, but you certainly can be repeatedly poisoned (or affected by another poison that has the same effects.)
What you're missing here is that the effective size increase is coming from two different sources that have no reason not to stack. It's not like people are saying I want to take bashing multiple times on the same shield.
No amount of experimentation can prove whether a nail added to a piece of plywood would have any more effectiveness if we "pretend the board is several times larger"
Conversely it takes very little evidence to show that it is very effective if you just use a bigger board or speed up the original board. (both of which emulate the "pretend it's bigger" thing very well.)
Effects are not a number, not a modifier.
If thats the case than something that modifies the number and type of dice you roll for damage is not an effect and outside the scope of your arguement since effects are qualitative and not numerical. (Also it could be argued that if is something is to be treated "as if it was something" then it isn't actually experiencing an effect; it simply is that something and nothing's being modified. That in turn means that any questions about stacking effects are moot, because there are no effects to discuss in the scenario.
Or they have other things to do. Eh this will be covered when they get around to a FAQ, but they got loads of other things they need to do other then this, most of em reply here own their own time anyhow
|
|
If that's truly your arguement, than it's a very good arguement that you can't take damage from multiple sources of the same energy damage at the same time and should experience only the largest source of damage. Eg I can't be effectively shocking grasped, (Ie any more electrocuted) if I'm already vibrating with a lighting bolt and I can't take any more acid damage if I'm immersed in acid already. But I think it's pretty clear that the rules don't actually work that way. If I want to shoot a melf's acid arrow at a guy in the acid pit I can, and it should damage them.
Well you're unfortunately filtering out choice bits and forgetting the key aspect of my logic.
You CAN be shocking grasped while being Lightning Bolted - they're both INSTANTANEOUS effects. Just like you can be hit by two shocking grasps, two fireballs, or two lightning bolts.
These are not on-going effects - they are damage - like being hit by two long swords. Of course you're going to take the damage twice.
Even if you were in a pool of acid and then got hit by a magical Acid Arrow spell you'd take both damage.
What couldn't happen is falling in a pool of acid taking ongoing acid damage and then falling to a deeper end of the pool and taking more damage or damage twice. Just as you can't be on fire twice.
Or consider the effect of multiple doses of a paralysis poison. Multiple doses stack by increasing the DC of the save and the duration of the effect. You're right, you can't be doubley paralyzed, but you certainly can be repeatedly poisoned (or affected by another poison that has the same effects.)
That's correct; and becasue it breaks the otherwise clearly understood laws of game effects, it has its own sub-system of rules to explain how it works differently.
It's a bit more complicated - but worth it since it's so much cooler this way. But it is in fact different and specifically detailed how to resolve.
What you're missing here is that the effective size increase is coming from two different sources that have no reason not to stack. It's not like people are saying I want to take bashing multiple times on the same shield.
That's true, they're not - but that would be too obvious as they're not just the same effect, they're the same source. As I mentioned yesterday, Half-orcs darkvision is a different source from Goggles of Night - (one naturally occuring, one augmented by magic), but they dont' stack. No more or less than someone wearing two pairs of goggles of night over their eyes.
No amount of experimentation can prove whether a nail added to a piece of plywood would have any more effectiveness if we "pretend the board is several times larger"
Conversely it takes very little evidence to show that it is very effective if you just use a bigger board or speed up the original board. (both of which emulate the "pretend it's bigger" thing very well.)
Unfortunately that would just wind up being a circular arguement - there's no way to prove that the physics of a pretent larger board is the same as making it speed up. Its just a matter of personal aesthetics.
Effects are not a number, not a modifier.
If thats the case than something that modifies the number and type of dice you roll for damage is not an effect and outside the scope of your arguement since effects are qualitative and not numerical. (Also it could be argued that if is something is to be treated "as if it was something" then it isn't actually experiencing an effect; it simply is that something and nothing's being modified. That in turn means that any questions about stacking effects are moot, because there are no effects to discuss in the scenario.
Right now I have no idea what you just said.
Something that modifies a dice - +5 to attack rolls, +14 to saving throws, +16 to climb checks, +2 to damage - are modifiers based off of Bonus types - most of them from some sort of game effect or a combination of a few; but the actual modification is an adjustment to a dice roll - and therefore a bonus (or penalty) with a Bonus Type.
Something that changes the amount of dice you use, or size of dice is an effect (not a modifer Bonus type) - Enlarge Person uses bigger dice, Flaming quality adds a d6, Sneak Attack adds xd6 etc. these are game effects, not modifiers. Effects CAN create a bonus type of some sort - but they dont' have to. The effect of making your weapon magical creates an Enhancement Bonus type to your attack and damage rolls; so the two systems are integraged and synergistic - but they operate differently. Some effects DO NOT apply a Bonus (or penalty) to dice rolls and have no bonus type. Such as a Ghould Paralyzing touch - with a failed save, you're paralyzed. This is an effect with no Bonus Type modifiers. It just is. The verbiage of the Bashing quality falls into this category - it provides a beneficial effect - but not an actual bonus to a die roll. It just is. To ajudicate the existing effect, you roll different dice. This is the change in the otherwise understood physics of that shield.
Bonus Types ALWAYS give a bonus to a dice roll, whether it's natural, competence, sacred, luck, morale, resistance, deflection, shield, armor, dodge, or circumstance, They're bonuses to a dice roll (or penalty for that matter).
Claiming something does damage as if larger is an "effect". This is not a bonus type at all - and adds nothing to a dice roll in and of itself. Bashing property ALSO has the EFFECT of making the item act as if it was a +1 weapon. This is the Game Effect (making the weapon magical thus giving it bonuses on attacks and damage, and allowing it to hit incorporeal creatures). But the bonus itself is an ENHANCEMENT bonus type - and thus would not stack with an existing enhancement bonus. If the Bashing quality said "This ability adds +4 damage to all successful bash attacks" That would be a Bonus Type (modifier) that I would without a doubt agree that it stacks with the "effect" of a spiked shield that does damage as if larger.
Hopefully that helps clear that up. Gotta go. I assume we'll resume this tomorrow. :-)
Robert
|
|
It would be really nice to get a Developer or someone official to specifically state if spikes and bashing stack in pathfinder or not.
Yeah they've been busy - there's been an ongoing issue w/ tripping weapons and how their BONUSES apply to combat vs non-tripping weapons, that those involved have repeatedly been asking for official clarification.
All I can say is that people at Paizo have indicated that a FAQ and such is fortcoming - but a ways off still.
Unfortunately this issue and the tripping and others are resolved and does affect how our organized play is adjudicated.
Robert
Again the 3.5 rules do not say you may do this. The 3.5 FAQ says it works that way. But how things stack among many other things have changed.
You asked 2 different folks if it worked that way in 3.5 you could get 2 different answers. The FAQ was just the WOTC official one
Last time I checked wotc did not print pathfinder. So wotc official answers do not carry much weight
So back at ya, show me in the 3.5 PHB or the PRPG where it states they stack? It has been shown a few places where it stats how they would not