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.
If your arguement is based on the duration of the effect, then I have to ask again, what's the duration of a shield bash? The reason I'm bringing this up is because your logic is flawed, either the scenario where they stack works, or based on your arguements two instanaeous effects or one instanaeous effect and an ongoing one don't stack... and by your admission neither of the latter effects is in the rules.
Right now I have no idea what you just said.Petrus222 wrote:
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.
Let me put it another way then. If the shield spike text said treat the effect of the sheild bash as though it was an a attack with a comparitively sized dagger and bashing said as though it was two sizes larger, presumably you would have no question that they stack. At a minimum they're two separate effects by your logic. But if you step back and look at it, treating the spike as a dagger (or a size larger) isn't actually an effect. It's just how to calculate it's damage. Treating something as if it's on fire (eg a glowing red hot iron poker being used as a club), doesn't always mean that it's actually on fire.
Your arguement that they don't stack is no different than banning longswords and greatswords because they're both treated as having more than one size increase from a dagger. Is it really an effect in your mind to increase the size of a dagger to a short sword? Is it then impossible to increase the size of the short sword again to a long sword and so forth? Remeber those two "effects" don't stack under your current arguement.
In short, the addition of the shield spike isn't an effect, ergo worring about stacking that effect again is a moot point. (If you want to talk about stacking bashing enchants on a sheild that's a different story. Though after thinking about that I'm not entirely sure that'd be an issue since I'd have no issue with a PC stacking flaming enchants on a long sword or other wpn... thought I haven't looked up if the pathfinder srd specifically disallows that or not.)
|
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.
If your arguement is based on the duration of the effect, then I have to ask again, what's the duration of a shield bash? The reason I'm bringing this up is because your logic is flawed, either the scenario where they stack works, or based on your arguements two instanaeous effects or one instanaeous effect and an ongoing one don't stack... and by your admission neither of the latter effects is in the rules.
No I beg to differ - my logic is not flawed at all on that.
Shield Bash is an attack.
The effect that the Bashing weapon quality provides the shield is a permanent effect.
You can be hit by any number of instantaneous damage-causing effects. You can be by 100 arrows, 6 longsword chops, 4 lightning bolts, and a fireball all in the same round - their damage stacks of course.
But like a Cloak of Resistance, the enhancement/effect/bonus that it provides the wearer is an omni-present permanent effect and available to the wearer every time he needs to resist a spell via a saving throw. Just as someone with the bashing quality on a shield will have that ability available to him every time he goes to make a shield bash.
Right now I have no idea what you just said.Petrus222 wrote:
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.
Let me put it another way then. If the shield spike text said treat the effect of the sheild bash as though it was an a attack with a comparitively sized dagger and bashing said as though it was two sizes larger, presumably you would have no question that they stack.
Correct.
The key is that although they are two effects, they are two effects that are worded to do two different things.
At a minimum they're two separate effects by your logic.
Correct.
But if you step back and look at it, treating the spike as a dagger (or a size larger) isn't actually an effect.
Yes it is. It is not actually a dagger. Think of it in computer language logic - IF you need to "pretend" something is something else that it is not, THEN go to other item for adjudication. That is an effect. It's an IF/THEN scenario. On the other hand, if the entry of a spiked shield just said: "This is weapon. It deals 1d6 point of damage when used to make a bashing attempt that deals piercing damage. It also acts as a shield." In this case, the aspect of it dealing damage is not a game effect, it's just a weapon - the fact that it acts like a shield then is an effect. However, now that's it's listed as a WEAPON, it would not qualify for a SHIELD based magical property (such as bashing).
So that in a nutshell is where I draw the line and call foul on the notion. Is it a weapon that acts like a shield? or a shield that acts like a weapon. Combining the effects stretches it too far since both effects essentially do the same thing as per their description.
It's just how to calculate it's damage. Treating something as if it's on fire (eg a glowing red hot iron poker being used as a club), doesn't always mean that it's actually on fire.
True. It doesn't mean it's actually on fire. However, since it "Acts as it's on fire" (effect), means that you couldn't then cover it in oil set it on fire for real, and expect it to do twice the damage. That would be two effects performing the same thing concurrently. That is the very core of my arguement all along.
Your arguement that they don't stack is no different than banning longswords and greatswords because they're both treated as having more than one size increase from a dagger. Is it really an effect in your mind to increase the size of a dagger to a short sword? Is it then impossible to increase the size of the short sword again to a long sword and so forth? Remeber those two "effects" don't stack under your current arguement.
That's ridiculous. A longsword or greatsword are their own items in and of themselves. You're now comparing apples to spacesuits. An equivalent would be if you used a dagger and had some effect placed on it that says: "This _______insert effect name here____ability allows the dagger to be treated as a longsword when it come to damaging foes - though it is still one-handed weapon"
That is the equivalent of the "Bashing" quality. Now you have an altered dagger with some form of effect - whether it's a magical transmutation, some special crafting trick from the Viking Weaponsmiths of Linnorn Kings, whether from some divine intervention....irrespective of it's source, there is an effect in play that now changes the property of the item so that it is not exactly as is that item.
If there was another ability that said "This _____Insert Ability name here_____ ability allows a dagger to be treated as a short sword for purposes of damage"; you would not then be able to add to the already altered dagger and expect it to do damage as a greatsword. You simply use the better of the two.
In short, the addition of the shield spike isn't an effect, ergo worring about stacking that effect again is a moot point.
It is worded as an effect. I'll admit that the wording may be a bit misleading and wonky. The spiked shield may in fact be meant to be it's own item, and not meant to be an effect.
However, if it's own item, we go back to Seeker's point that the particular item is not on the list of those items able to be altered by the Bashing Quality. Neither is a dagger, shortsword or longsword for that matter.
(If you want to talk about stacking bashing enchants on a sheild that's a different story. Though after thinking about that I'm not entirely sure that'd be an issue since I'd have no issue with a PC stacking flaming enchants on a long sword or other wpn... thought I haven't looked up if the pathfinder srd specifically disallows that or not.)
You could theoretically put as many Flaming qualities on a weapon as you'd like. However, you'd only roll damage for the highest amount. In this case they'd all do d6's so you'd still roll a 1d6 for fire damage. Once again - same effects don't stack.
The fact that you'd consider allowing bashing twice in the same shield, and allow multiple flaming is certainly within your rights as GM of your own games as a houserule; but it is not official, not allowed in organized play, and it certainly explains alot about why you've been as vehement as I in arguing your case with the spiked shield.
Robert
Think of it in computer language logic - IF you need to "pretend" something is something else that it is not, THEN go to other item for adjudication. That is an effect. It's an IF/THEN scenario.
I don't buy the idea that a spiked shield is experinceing a "daggerized" effect in the same way you do. It'd be like a cashier being told to charge the same amount for apples and oranges and then saying that the oranges have been "apple-ized".
Another issue I see in your arguement is that you redefine the term "effect" everytime you use it. But nonetheless, in each of your definitions of effect, I've given examples using your logic that break commonly accepted game mechanics (eg banning long swords because they're too many size increases or ignoring multiple sources of the same damage.) As a consequence I don't buy the arguement.
However one area where we significantly diverge is here:
It's just how to calculate it's damage. Treating something as if it's on fire (eg a glowing red hot iron poker being used as a club), doesn't always mean that it's actually on fire.True. It doesn't mean it's actually on fire. However, since it "Acts as it's on fire" (effect), means that you couldn't then cover it in oil set it on fire for real, and expect it to do twice the damage. That would be two effects performing the same thing concurrently. That is the very core of my arguement all along.
Conversely I don't have an issue with the idea of oil stacking (albeit breifly) on the glowing poker. Otherwise I'd be forced to argue that a hot poker that isn't glowing, a orange glowing poker and a white hot admantine poker that can melt some types of rock would all do the same amount of fire damagem, since once they're experiencing the "hot" effect by your logic, they can't be any hotter. And that doesn't make any sense to me.
ETA: (I just want to acknowledge that I'm treating this more as an amusing exercise in rules lawyering and if I've at all offended you or any one reading this, that wasn't my intent, and I apoligise if offense has been taken.)
|
|
(eg banning long swords because they're too many size increases or ignoring multiple sources of the same damage.) As a consequence I don't buy the arguement.
A longsword is a longsword. It had specified characteristics that are omnipresent to the game. It's damage, weight, cost, critical multiplier, type of damage (slashing) are all aspects that make up the longsword. Each one of those aspects interacts with different mechanics. Damage interacts with hit points of your foe. Cost interacts with your gold/wealth. weight interacts with your weight allowance to carry etc.
What a longsword is NOT, however, is an "alpha dagger."
A Shield is a shield. A large sized shield is a shield - albeit larger than it actually is. It's weight is more, it's cost is more, and its damage when bashing is more.
A shield that bashes as if larger but isnt' really larger is not a standard shield. This is a shield with some form of game effect added to it - whatever that effect is or comes from - it's still an effect that changes an otherwise ordinary shield irrespective of its size, into something different. In other words it interacts with the game mechanics in a different way than all other shields of its size and type.
There was a magical dagger in 2nd edition called a "Longtooth Dagger". It was a magical dagger that was a favorite magical item of rogues; it was a dagger and could be used in "backstabs" (2nd edition version of Sneak Attack) but did damage as a longsword.
That is an effect of what I was talking about. Banning longswords because they're "big daggers" is simply not relevant to what I have been espousing.
But lets say for instance that there was a magical property that could be added to weapons to make it do damage as if it were larger - It would not be within the spirit of the rules and the scope of the game to allow you to further enchant the Longtooth Dagger and make it do damage as a greatsword.
THAT is what I have been trying to explain.
However one area where we significantly diverge is here:It's just how to calculate it's damage. Treating something as if it's on fire (eg a glowing red hot iron poker being used as a club), doesn't always mean that it's actually on fire.True. It doesn't mean it's actually on fire. However, since it "Acts as it's on fire" (effect), means that you couldn't then cover it in oil set it on fire for real, and expect it to do twice the damage. That would be two effects performing the same thing concurrently. That is the very core of my arguement all along.Conversely I don't have an issue with the idea of oil stacking (albeit breifly) on the glowing poker. Otherwise I'd be forced to argue that a hot poker that isn't glowing, a orange glowing poker and a white hot admantine poker that can melt some types of rock would all do the same amount of fire damagem, since once they're experiencing the "hot" effect by your logic, they can't be any hotter. And that doesn't make any sense to me.
Not making any sense to someone, and following the games rules are not always mutually exclusive.
We simply have to admit and accept that sometimes rules exist just for the playability and gamists perspective of being fun fair and balanced. By the letter of the rule - even though you'd allow said poker to do the "hot poker damage" and the "on fire damage" concurrently is not a strict adherence to way the rules of the game are designed to work.
You can of course enforce them to in your own games, so long as you realize that is not the way that all would play, and not the way it would work by someone who wanted to follow all the rules - regardless of whether it makes sense or not.
As I said in a previous post - someone with 150 hit points is just as effective (statistically speaking) in combat before he takes any damage as he is when he's taken 149 points of damage. This doesn't make sense to me. But I understand the simplistic nature of hit points, and why the system exists to create an easy to adjudicate system that is balanced and playable. Now I don't personally like it - and so I've created a Vitality and Stamina system of hit points that takes into account wounds etc and it makes combatants less effective as their stamina is weakened. But I know this is not the way that the game is officially played. These are house rules afterall. But we like them alot. You and your players may like the idea of stacking flaming properties on a blade, you all may like the idea of stacking Bashing qualities eventually doing the damage of a titan's shield bash, and by all means, more power to you. That is what makes the game so wonderful - there's no "wrong way to play" so long as you're having fun. You can alter, change, add, or erase rules as you see fit and as they make sense to you. I've merely been arguing the way it's origially and officially designed to work.
Cheers, mate. It's been fun - I don't really think I have anything more to add to this topic. (But that probably won't stop me from doing so....) :-) Not only is the horse dead at this point, but the head is split wide open by now, and the grey matter is oozing all over the ground.
Robert
|
|
+1
ETA: (I just want to acknowledge that I'm treating this more as an amusing exercise in rules lawyering and if I've at all offended you or any one reading this, that wasn't my intent, and I apoligise if offense has been taken.)...
On the other hand, my guess is that if they were annoyed by now of our bantering, they would have stopped reading a long time ago. :-)
Robert
This is what I envision, when I think of someone duel-wielding two spiked shields.
Personally, I don't see why people have such a problem with the notion.