So you spike now does bludgeon damage? Not buying it, the bash enhancement does not improve the spike, as the spike entry states it must be enhanced on it's on
Also it's says "like" making a shield bash, meaning you attack the same way. Not like say a dagger, also under shield bash again it says it may be enchanted as a weapon. The spike and shield are two different items, it covers that under spikes. You can enhance one without doing the other
So until the books says they stack, no they do not stack. Unless bashing does piercing damage now.
Nope as the book points out the spike must be enhanced by it's self. The shield and spike are not the same item. As the spike my be enhanced as a weapon, without doing so to the shield.
Your spike replaces the shield bash damage. Your spike may be enhanced,BUT the bashing enhancement is an armor enhancement, it can not be placed on the spike as is is not a weapon enhancement.
So you enhance the shield, which now is better then the spike, so it does damage,not the spike. If they stack then so does adding a short sword to my long sword should as well.
Agreed. This has been hashed out and defined by 3.5 rules.
Spikes modify a Shield Bash. You enhance them seperately as a weapon because standard Shield Enhancements only affect AC. A +3 Shield is not a +3 Weapon.
I'll posit to you all the standard Uber Shield: +5 Bashing with +5 Defending Shield SPikes and an Augment Gem of Missile Deflection. With Shield Spec/Mastery/Ward in place, a Heavy Shield used on the defense provides +13 to your Touch AC, deflects the first ranged attack against you, and provides +18 Touch AC against all other ranged attacks.
Cost? 108,000 gp + Augment Gem.
Also, taking the Agile Shield Fighter Augment reduces your off hand penalty for any shield being used to bash down to -2.
===Aelryinth
You'll have to agree to disagree then because unless I get a statement that say it stacks, it does not
You added a enhancement to the shield, not the spike. They do not stack, they do not even do the same damage type. But you can do what you want in your game
Nope as the book points out the spike must be enhanced by it's self. The shield and spike are not the same item. As the spike my be enhanced as a weapon, without doing so to the shield.
...
Your spike replaces the shield bash damage. Your spike may be enhanced,BUT the bashing enhancement is an armor enhancement, it can not be placed on the spike as is is not a weapon enhancement.
...
So you enhance the shield, which now is better then the spike, so it does damage,not the spike. If they stack then so does adding a short sword to my long sword should as well.
&&&&&
You'll have to agree to disagree then because unless I get a statement that say it stacks, it does not
You added a enhancement to the shield, not the spike. They do not stack, they do not even do the same damage type. But you can do what you want in your game.
Honestly at this point you are just being argumentative. You don't like it, we get it. Given that you are trying to rationalize the game rules with "real world" situations that mean absolutely nothing to the game itself, its a given you won't see otherwise, we get that too. Despite that, the rules say otherwise and don't follow your rationale on this. So you go ahead with your house rules while I will happily play with the rules as given and base my decisions on what is written in the book, thanks for your permission.
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.
Please note, "a shield" - not only a plain shield, not only a spiked shield - any shield with this property gets these attributes. Those attributes being 1) Damage done as if it were 2 sizes larger a weapon and 2) Acts as if it were a +1 weapon. Basically its a template, imagine that. You take the "base item" and add those attributes, doesn't matter if it was a regular shield or a spiked shield, if it does blunt or piercing damage. The enhancement doesn't change that. You'd go to the items listing in the weapons section (table 6-4), find the shield you are adding the enhancement to and then make the appropriate changes to the damage. They are even differing types of size increase, one is type "shield spike" the other is type "bashing enhancement" so the rules for stacking don't even kick in. When you make a shield bash normally you do the same thing, go to the table and figure out which set of attributes you use (which shield and then whether it is a spiked shield or not), you're argument that a shield spike somehow isn't a shield bash is just plain ridiculous. The entry of the shield spike says it is, the RULES say it is despite what you decide on using in your game:
Shield Spikes: These spikes turn a shield into a martial piercing weapon and increase the damage dealt by a shield bash as if the shield were designed for a creature one size category larger than you (see “spiked shields” on Table 6–4).
For a spiked shield that has the spike enhanced as well things aren't all that complicate either. We'll continue with a base of a +1 Bashing medium spiked heavy shield and make it a +1 Bashing medium spiked heavy shield (+2 flaming spike). That is a 22k gp (4k+18k) item before counting in the masterwork shield and shield spike. So before going on about how much damage is being done in comparison to the greatsword, take into account that is almost 45k gold to do what a dual wielding greatsword combatant could do with basically 2 regular greatswords. Of course this ignoring the fact that the shield slam is stated specifically to be an off hand attack in the rules and that doing dual shields ends up being more complicated than just the shield feats and physical shields themselves (there is another thread on that someplace around here) in order to get a shield used as a main hand attack. When making an attack with this particular shield you'd lose the AC of a +1 heavy shield (unless you had the feat & shield spike doesn't make a difference here) and you would get a +2 to hit and damage (the effective +1 of the Bashing enhancement is overwritten by the +2 weapon enhancement of the shield spike) and would have a base damage of 2d6 (medium 1d6 ->1d8->2d6) piercing and 1d6 fired damage. As a spiked shield the base damage is piercing so that would be what is increased. For a "plain" shield it would be blunt.
Work is done, time to go enjoy the New Year, have fun everyone!
[
Honestly at this point you are just being argumentative.
Says the man, who wont let it go. I got it y'all read the rules and look at them a different way. We do not agree on how each other sees a rule.
You can run it how you want, but you have no more "proof" then I do on how it works. All you got is how you choose to interrupt the rule
I said my peace and was willing to let it go, not every one agrees on every rule interruption. In the end it's a GM's call. I'm not your'n and your not mine, so it's a moot point to argue with you over what neither of us is gonna change are mind on.
A shield bash refers to the way in which you hit a person with your shield, adding a spike does not alter the way you hit them it simply increases the effectiveness.
When you perform a shield bash what ever enhancements that add to attack or damage would stack since all damage dealing parts of the shield would hit in the same manor.
|
Nope as the book points out the spike must be enhanced by it's self. The shield and spike are not the same item. As the spike my be enhanced as a weapon, without doing so to the shield.
I disagree with you here as well. Nowhere do I see the book say you can enchant the spike on a shield seperately from the shield.
Pg 462 Core Rules
"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."
By enforcing that the cost is in addition to (at the cost of a weapon enhancement) the cost of the AC based enhancement, the rules infer that there's two seperate enhancements that must be placed within said shield - one for AC - one for attack/damage.
Robert
|
|
from this we can surmise that a heavy shield that once did a unimpressive 1d4 dmg now does a still unimpressive 1d6 dmg, but hey whats this? My shield strikes as though it were THREE size categories larger now hey that 1d4 dmg is now a whopping 2d6 damage ALRIGHT! WOOOOH WHOOOOO!
I will admit, this all makes sense.
However size increases and bonuses do not stack - and is explicitly written in the rules.
Were this idea presented to me (as GM) by a player, I would cite those basic concepts as to why the idea is not as good as they would have liked.
The better of the two increases is what one should abide by.
I can provide page numbers and quote texts as to the rules about size increases not stacking, but I'm fairly certain everyone here knows that this is the case, and merely that rules logic had not been being applied in this instance.
Robert
EDIT: Which is why the 3.5 FAQ seems to establish a means for it, and which is why the 3.5 is irrelevant here - because 3.5 didn't explicitly indicate that size increases don't stack - thus why we were forced to endure so much more rules abuse in 3.5 how things got broken and how we came up with monikers such as CODzilla. These are things of the past since PF has since curtailed such abuse.
from this we can surmise that a heavy shield that once did a unimpressive 1d4 dmg now does a still unimpressive 1d6 dmg, but hey whats this? My shield strikes as though it were THREE size categories larger now hey that 1d4 dmg is now a whopping 2d6 damage ALRIGHT! WOOOOH WHOOOOO!I will admit, this all makes sense.
However size increases and bonuses do not stack - and is explicitly written in the rules.
Were this idea presented to me (as GM) by a player, I would cite those basic concepts as to why the idea is not as good as they would have liked.
The better of the two increases is what one should abide by.
I can provide page numbers and quote texts as to the rules about size increases not stacking, but I'm fairly certain everyone here knows that this is the case, and merely that rules logic had not been being applied in this instance.
Robert
EDIT: Which is why the 3.5 FAQ seems to establish a means for it, and which is why the 3.5 is irrelevant here - because 3.5 didn't explicitly indicate that size increases don't stack - thus why we were forced to endure so much more rules abuse in 3.5 how things got broken and how we came up with monikers such as CODzilla. These are things of the past since PF has since curtailed such abuse.
yea, it is good to be GM, as the rules support you are the final arbiter of snobby rulelawyeringplayersthatthinktheycantrickyou in allowing stuff like this
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.
The easy point of clarification here is that a spiked shield is a different item. Reading the last line of the Bashing special ability, it is very clear about what it can be applied to. It cannot be applied to bucklers, tower shields, or light/heavy spiked shields. What it does allow is a method to enchant a non-spiked shield to act as a weapon, in a way that spiked shield users have had available, and is better than the spiked shield. In turn, the Lion's Shield is another incremental improvement, which, although the rules don't clearly support it, I would allow to be enchanted with Bashing. The rulebook and SRD seem to refer to a spiked sheild as a separate item.
This seems like a case of trying to apply the zombie template to an octopus. While it would be a powerful zombie, the zombie template requires the base creature to have a skeleton. Therefore, you cannot make a zombie octopus.
Shields are considered both shields AND weapons at ALL times (even before the addition of shield spikes). They appear both on the armor table and the weapons table after all. They must be enchanted as shields or weapons separately (but may have both enchantments simultaneously).
You can enchant a shield to give you +5 to AC and bashing (shield traits). You can enchant the same shield with +5 to attack and damage rolls (weapon traits). You can apply shield spikes before or after these enhancements, it makes no difference. Spikes are not considered a separate weapon. (Note, however, that this is not true of armor spikes, as armor itself is never considered a weapon.) The spiked shield is the same weapon it always was, except for the fact that it now does piercing damage, and little bit more damage at that.
|
|
Please do. I am particularly interested in the ones that you find in the Pathfinder rules that are not in the 3.5 SRD. ie where they chose to change the text to change the rules as opposed to leaving the text identical to change the rules. The most common rule on the issue that I am finding is located in the individual spells that can increase size is "Multiple magical effects that increase size do not stack."
I feel the precedent is set with this declaration and is applicable in this case. It makes sense that two sources that cause an item to "attack as if x number of sizes larger" does not stack if size bonus increases do not stack. Is this explicity stated? Maybe not, but the precedent is set, and like Jason and the others have mentioned before - sometimes a GM just needs to use common sense based on precedents and way other things are ruled. I feel a GM need only point to that established caveat as a means to rule with common sense, that to disallow such a thing (which could easily be construed as abuse or not as intended). It just makes sense.
At least it makes as much sense as disallowing a Shield property to be added to a weapon. A spiked shield is a weapon (Granted one that provides an AC bonus). But a main-gouche or other defending type weapon that could exist to benefit a two-weapon style warrior would be similar in theme. To increase its overall AC effectiveness, and ability to attack/damage, requires two seperate types of enhancements.
Furthermore i got the gist of the 'enhanced the noun' and the spike not actually being a different part - but what I was indicating was that in essence, since it has dual effectiveness and needs to be enhanced in two separate enhancement trees, it can be imagined or otherwise considered two seperate parts. Much as a double-weapon must be enhanced at each end. They are both part of one item, but they are in essence two seperate parts and treated seperately.
Robert
By all means make any house rule you want. But come on, the rule existed in this state for the duration of 3.5. Nothing changed. Was it so much abused over the years? I have to believe Pathfinder copied the rules exactly because they didn't believe their was a problem with the rules as defined by 3.5.
It is no more a house rule then using a 3.5 FAQ as proof. Bonus do not stack. The spike adds a size bonus, the bashing adds + 2 size bonus, you would take the larger of the two, not add them together, unless it is stated you do, which it is not
You can't have a +3 crossbow, then use a +2 bolt and expect to gain a +5,
The cost for enchanting a double weapon is spelled out in the craft magic weapon section. The cost for enchanting a shield as both a weapon and shield is not, so you fall back on the default table 15-29 and the adding new abilities section.
No it's stated, you enchant it as a separate item, which makes it done like a double weapon. Same with the spike, which is counted as a separate weapon as well. This is made clear, it counts as it's own weapon, Which is just what a double weapon does.
The spike does not add a size bonus. It increases damage as if it were larger. That's not the same thing.
Check how the wording for spiked shields and bashing differ from the wording of Enlarge Person.
|
|
The spike does not add a size bonus. It increases damage as if it were larger.
I agree with the distinction.
What I counter, however, is that the BASHING quality uses the exact same wording.
Thus it is left the GM to establish a) does this mean that you can stack the two size increases worded in the same fashion? or b) does this mean that each stated increase is based off the original templated item, and a GM can pull from other similar instances when two size increases are potential and follow the same precendent already well established in black and white?
I personally see the wisdom in following the second. This is not a house rule - this is an extension of an existing rule. This is using logic that already exists and applying it to a different but quite similar scenario. As far as I can tell, it is meant to apply to the original item.
If two creature templates applied to the same creature increases the size of a creature, it still only increases once.
I don't see this as all that disimilar. The changes are relative to the 'base creature' in this instance, and the size based damage for a the shield protagonist of this thread is relative to the 'base item'.
Robert
common sense tells me 2d6 is a bit much, otherwise I cant really find fault with the raw as is, seems to me bash is a leftover from an early draft that is forgotten and never really bothered to change it since 3.0
enchanting a shield as weapon seems even sillier to me though and does not seem to combine well with this ability, I cant conjure an image to mind that would make a weapon enchanted shield cool...
By all means make any house rule you want. But come on, the rule existed in this state for the duration of 3.5. Nothing changed. Was it so much abused over the years? I have to believe Pathfinder copied the rules exactly because they didn't believe their was a problem with the rules as defined by 3.5.
It is no more a house rule then using a 3.5 FAQ as proof. Bonus do not stack. The spike adds a size bonus, the bashing adds + 2 size bonus, you would take the larger of the two, not add them together, unless it is stated you do, which it is not
You can't have a +3 crossbow, then use a +2 bolt and expect to gain a +5,
No it's stated, you enchant it as a separate item, which makes it done like a double weapon. Same with the spike, which is counted as a separate weapon as well. This is made clear, it counts as it's own weapon, Which is just what a double weapon does.
The cost for enchanting a double weapon is spelled out in the craft magic weapon section. The cost for enchanting a shield as both a weapon and shield is not, so you fall back on the default table 15-29 and the adding new abilities section.
Actually, it does not add a "size" bonus, the bonuses are untyped.
Size bonuses are what Beast shape etc... give you
Robert:
As Ressy commented related to an another comment, even if one were to accept that spike shield and bashing both provied 'damage bonus,' there is no listed type.
As a non-typed bonus, they can stack, so long as they don't come from the same source. Bashing enchantment and putting a spike on a shield are different sources.
But I'd also content the basic concept; enlarge person, for example, doesn't actually provide a bonus to damage. You'll note nowhere in the description is 'size bonus to damage.'
There is no such thing as a size bonus to damage, or it'd be something like '+3 size bonus to damage.'
Actually, it does not add a "size" bonus, the bonuses are untyped.
Size bonuses are what Beast shape etc... give you
But it does, You count as 1 size larger. The bashing counts the shield as 2 sizes larger. It states size, not damage. It could say the next higher damage dice. It does not it calls out size.
You make an item large, and up the damage, then make it huge and take damage from huge. You do not however add them together. You take the highest of the 2, not the combined total.So we have 2 effects that make the damage a size larger. you take the largest bonus not the total.
If this works then so should adding two spikes to a shield, as they stack. Heck why not 3 spikes then bashing, lets add bashing twice or maybe 3 times as you say it stacks and all
Until ya can show me where it says "this is the exception to the normal rule " they do not stack
Actually, it does not add a "size" bonus, the bonuses are untyped.
Size bonuses are what Beast shape etc... give youBut it does, You count as 1 size larger. The bashing counts the shield as 2 sizes larger. It states size, not damage. It could say the next higher damage dice. It does not it calls out size.
You make an item large, and up the damage, then make it huge and take damage from huge. You do not however add them together. You take the highest of the 2, not the combined total.So we have 2 effects that make the damage a size larger. you take the largest bonus not the total.
If this works then so should adding two spikes to a shield, as they stack. Heck why not 3 spikes then bashing, lets add bashing twice or maybe 3 times as you say it stacks and all
Until ya can show me where it says "this is the exception to the normal rule " they do not stack
Your references are wrong.
Again.The not stacking size bit you're talking about is for spells that increase your size category (and they all explicitly state they don't stack with other size increasing magics) and a 3.5 rule where you couldn't stack effects that let you wield larger than normal weapons (such as the Goliath racial ability and Monkey Grip feats).
Neither of them apply to a weapon dealing damage as though it were a larger weapon.
In this case the intention seems to allow for the enchantment and spikes to be suitably generic that they don't need specific examples of every usage with damage numbers, such as if a splat book had come out with an exotic shield that counted as a heavy shield but had a base bash damage of 1d6 instead of 1d4. If the bashing property had a table of values instead of a dice size increase, the new shield would have to have it's own table and specific numbers.
So what is it? Is bashing untyped or not?
By the rules if they have the same type they do not stack. If they are untyped they do stack
So which is it?
So what is it? Is bashing untyped or not?
Shield Bash: A type of attack, specifically an attack with a shield
Bludgeoning: A type of damage, damage typically done by blunt weaponsBashing: A Special Ability defined thusly:
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.
Note that no type is given for the bonus, so the bonus is un-typed. (The "as a weapon of two size categories larger" is text describing how the increased damage is calculated)
and to further clarify matters the other terms used in the discussion thus far:
Size bonus: a type of bonus (like an enhancement bonus)
Enhancement bonus: a type of bonus, usually numerical (as in +2 shield)
Shield Spikes: an addition to a basic shield, similar to masterwork in that the item retains the same type, but is improved in function.
|
|
I'd be appreciative if anyone could come up with an example of either in a WotC or Paizo published book (for 3.5 or pathfinder system) of an item containing both weapon bonus and armor/shield bonus.
I already have - several posts up.
I'll repost it here.
Nope as the book points out the spike must be enhanced by it's self. The shield and spike are not the same item. As the spike my be enhanced as a weapon, without doing so to the shield.
I disagree with you here as well. Nowhere do I see the book say you can enchant the spike on a shield seperately from the shield.
Pg 462 Core Rules
"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."By enforcing that the cost is in addition to (at the cost of a weapon enhancement) the cost of the AC based enhancement, the rules infer that there's two seperate enhancements that must be placed within said shield - one for AC - one for attack/damage.
Robert
Combat Facing Rules = Both shields work and protect you from attacks.
And for Frontal attacks, their AC would stack. >.>
|
|
Robert:
As Ressy commented related to an another comment, even if one were to accept that spike shield and bashing both provied 'damage bonus,' there is no listed type.As a non-typed bonus, they can stack, so long as they don't come from the same source. Bashing enchantment and putting a spike on a shield are different sources.
But Ressy also indicated that the 'increase is not a bonus'. Thus if it's not a bonus, it can't be an "untyped bonus" and so falls outside the specific exception to the stacking rule.
But I'd also content the basic concept; enlarge person, for example, doesn't actually provide a bonus to damage. You'll note nowhere in the description is 'size bonus to damage.'
This is true, but Enlarge Person does increase the damage due to equipment gaining a larger size.
And as others have stated - it's not a "bonus" It's a benefit, but by the definition of "bonus" as it pertains to the RPG, it's not a listed "bonus" in the description of the text. It's a benefit of an effect; the effect being that it treats a weapon as larger than it is.
I'm not indicating anyone is wrong; I'm merely defending that using the logic that "size bonuses" do not stack (from other sources), neither should effects from sources that make something Act like it's size increased.
As I said - sometimes you just have to use common sense and logic to make a decision.
There's nothing specifically allowing this, and there's nothing specifically disallowing it; I'm just erring on the side of caution and using judgement based on previous rules.
If the Bashing said' "Adds +2 size bonus" and the shield spikes said "Adds +1 size bonus" and the bonus types lists "size bonus" as something that is stackable, then I'd say without a doubt that they should stack.
But it doesn't. It doesn't use the term Bonus at all - and thus should not follow the rules for bonuses and stacking - or to the exception of what is stackable - thus it is not an untyped bonus.
Saying "this gives a +2 bonus" is an untyped bonus.
These things give "effects" Much like damage reduction or energy resistance. These aren't bonuses; they are effects or qualities. So too is gaining Darkvision on something that already has it - it generally does not stack (unless otherwise indicated); you merely take the greater of the two. Effects and qualities have a precedence of not stacking. Things that alter size (of creatures) have a precedence of not stacking.
It is therefore not merely a leap of faith to extapolate from these then that effects that make something seem bigger do not stack either.
Robert
|
|
Ok. First the rules which you refuse to cite or quote.
Bonus Types: Usually, a bonus has a type that indicates how the spell grants the bonus. The important aspect of bonus types is that two bonuses of the same type don’t generally stack. With the exception of dodge bonuses, most circumstance bonuses, and racial bonuses, only the better bonus of a given type works (see Combining Magical Effects). The same principle applies to penalties—a character taking two or more penalties of the same type applies only the worst one, although most penalties have no type and thus always stack. Bonuses without a type always stack, unless they are from the same source.
...
Stacking Effects: Spells that provide bonuses or penalties
on attack rolls, damage rolls, saving throws, and other attributes usually do not stack with themselves. More generally, two bonuses of the same type don’t stack even if they come from different spells (or from effects other than spells; see Bonus Types,
Which I contest is irrelevant because the benefits are not listed as a 'bonus' type or untyped at all.
Robert
|
|
I already have - several posts up.
I'll repost it here.
I see how that can be interpreted as a flat expense. I really do, and I know I am in the minority on pricing this way, but I see it as add an enchanment to an already magic item. So when I add the second enchantment I pay a 50% penalty on whatever the cheaper enhantment is. What I was hoping for was an actual magic item printed out. That gave bonuses both ways and had a price attached.
But alas the item is so unpopular I don't see it printed in any of the books and adventures I have purchased.
Fair enough.
The way it works is a +2 shield that also has a +2 attack/damage enhancemnt would cost:
4000 gp for the AC enhancement
8000 gp for the Attack/damage enhancement
This would take care of the
"A shield could be built that ALSO acted as a magic weapon"
Then a 50% increase on the 4000 (the cheaper) would be incurred for a 2000 gp increase.
Total 14000 (Plus cost of shield/material/masterwork).
The same total would be true for a +1 shield of Bashing w/ +2 Weapon Enhancement (It would need to made +2 at least to give it any more of a bonus to hit damage than it was already getting from the Bashing Property.)
Robert
Stuff about stacking
Eh it's what I get for not checking and going off memory
However, I still see them as the same kind of " bonus" , even if it does not use that wording
If it said "1 higher damage dice". thats untyped just like something says +2 with no type. It does not, it calls out how it gained the damage{counting as 1 size larger], that is typed
1 takes the size up by 1 size, the other takes the same items size up by 2 sizes. To me I just do not see them stacking as you take the bigger incress not add em together
|
|
These things give "effects" Much like damage reduction or energy resistance. These aren't bonuses; they are effects or qualities. So too is gaining Darkvision on something that already has it - it generally does not stack (unless otherwise indicated); you merely take the greater of the two. Effects and qualities have a precedence of not stacking. Things that alter size (of creatures) have a precedence of not stacking.
Other examples that I just thought of:
Spell Resistance. Take the greater of the two.
Adding a Fly spell onto a creature with an existing Fly movement (such as a eagle). Take the greater movement of the two.
Adding Spider Climb onto something with a Climb movement. (such as a spider). Take the greater movement of the two.
These are things that don't give a "bonus type", but instead a beneficial effect and/or quality, magical or otherwise, that can be quantified. Such things don't stack.
I then deduce that multiple effects or qualities that treat something as larger (or smaller) do not stack.
Robert
Can anyone actually site a rule that says you can’t duel-wield shields, and even if you can’t shield bash with a shield in your main hand (I think you can but it doesn’t matter for this question) wouldn’t you still end with a -0 penalty when dual-wielding shields if you have the shield mastery feat.
I am not asking people to tell me what the damage would be or if I can actually attack with both shields, but for the purposes of the Shield Mastery feat I want to know what its effects are if I am using two shields.
no there isn't a rule for using two shields as such, you can just use one as a shield really since shield bonus does not stack with eachother.
"shieldmastery : You do not suffer any penalties on attack rolls
made with a shield while you are wielding another weapon.
Add your shield’s shield bonus to attacks and damage rolls
made with the shield as if it was an enhancement bonus."
well, if you want to read RAW, you would get no penalties on attack rolls and with a + 5 shields you'd get + 8 to hit and + 8 damage with no penalties to hit.
the second shield wouldn't do you any good.. since you do not actually get any shield bonus, so no bonus on damage or armor class from carrying a shield in your other hand as well. it would however negate having penalties on attack with it and you COULD enchant that shield as a weapon by RAW, so circumventing that, + 5 to hit and damage for a + 5 weapon.
you'd end up with a spiked + 5 shield of bashing for a base 2d6 damage + 8 for the shield with + 8 to hit bonus and no two-weapon penalties
(considering shield focus as well), it will count as a magic weapon because of the bashing property for purposes of DR
(not because of the shieldmaster feat)
That is how I would read RAW.
* In my opinion however it is completely ridiculous and so obviously a rule exploitation that I wouldnt even consider taking a player like that serious (or a GM that allows it).
I'd not allow the shield master feat as written either, it just doesnt make sense to me why would a shield be a better weapon than an actual weapon... I think there should be an option to negate two weapon fighting penalties to hit completely
(for light weapon in off hand at least, which a medium shield is not).
please paizo, dont make feats to make shields actually a better weapon choice than an actual weapon, though to combine it with the shield function is alright, there is no need what-so-ever to make a shield a superior weapon.
the second shield wouldn't do you any good.. since you do not actually get any shield bonus,
Yes you do, that bonus just doesn't stack with the bonus from the other shield, doesn't mean it's not there.
wow i ignored this thread for a couple days and you guys start a war with each other. . . basically my group and i agreed that we would take the rule that says you can bash with a shield in your off-hand and say you could only bash with a shield in your off-hand.
the second shield wouldn't do you any good.. since you do not actually get any shield bonus,Yes you do, that bonus just doesn't stack with the bonus from the other shield, doesn't mean it's not there.
Combat Facing >.>
Both work >.> So long as you interpret it that way.
I mean, after all, from a forward attack, you could use both shields to block.
From sides no, so yeah, but anyway >.>
I love Combat Facing, makes for more realistic, tactical combat.
I cant find anything about combat facing here, is it a houserule ?
In general people are assumed to move to block and turn all the time so they do not just face in one direction all the time, it is why there isnt such a thing as a rear attack since 2nd edition.
I do recall reading something about combat facing, do not recall where...
anyway, two shields are still silly, unless you are a marilith demon I suppose (6 armed smexy snakewoman)
Says the man, who wont let it go. I got it y'all read the rules and look at them a different way. We do not agree on how each other sees a rule.
...
You can run it how you want, but you have no more "proof" then I do on how it works. All you got is how you choose to interrupt the rule
....
I said my peace and was willing to let it go, not every one agrees on every rule interruption. In the end it's a GM's call. I'm not your'n and your not mine, so it's a moot point to argue with you over what neither of us is gonna change are mind on.
Says the person with multiple posts to my single post, apparently someone's new year is off to a rough start... My sympathies.
Eh it's what I get for not checking and going off memoryHowever, I still see them as the same kind of " bonus" , even if it does not use that wording
If it said "1 higher damage dice". thats untyped just like something says +2 with no type. It does not, it calls out how it gained the damage{counting as 1 size larger], that is typed
1 takes the size up by 1 size, the other takes the same items size up by 2 sizes. To me I just do not see them stacking as you take the bigger incress not add em together
I'm not quite shocked you hadn't read the rules honestly... Mostly as you were arguing from a "realism of combat" POV. Again you are entitled to your view, but your view isn’t backed by the rule set. I can point to the book and say “here, here and here” to make my point and the only thing worth arguing on the forums is the actual printed rule. Granted there may be differences of interpretation, but again I can point to the book and give an actual precedent for my views, where as yours are a belief based on opinion instead of what is actually in the book. So I am more than comfortable calling your “view” a house rule.
Anyways, there is a world of difference between an actual size increase and what the shield spike does. The heavy shield in question is still medium size, there is no size increase actually. It is a medium sized shield that deals the equivalent of a weapon one size larger (as per the description and table 6-5). That means it is a medium shield that does 1d6 damage instead of the 1d4, thus the entry in the weapon table. It becomes an exception to the rule that mediums sized heavy shields deal 1d4 damage, no size increase made. It isn't a large weapon, it is still medium. No size increase to stack upon, as it is still medium sized. It has become a completely different item with different stats requiring a new entry on the weapon table. That new item is now the "base" item that is going to be used from that point on - just like a template.
Now, given that you have a mundane medium weapon (heavy spiked shield) that deals 1d6 damage when you enchant it with a magical effect that causes the damage to increase further (by two steps on the table 6-5) you go and look up the adjustment, the first increase makes it do 1d8, the next increase leaves the weapon doing 2d6. You now have a medium weapon that is dealing 2d6 damage normally or 1d6 damage in an AMF (or like effect), no actual size increase has been made at all. Just rules that made exceptions to the norm and as pointed out already there isn't anything to stack, the rules of the game that deal with stacking don't pertain to this. There aren't two magical effects providing a similar bonus to cause a problem, just a base item and then a magical effect, in the most strict case this doesn't cause a problem regarding that rule.
To make the point further, look up how a monk's "size increased" unarmed damage works when enlarged. I'll give you a hint, they stack.
A bonus is a bonus is a bonus.
Enhancement bonuses do not stack with enhancement bonuses.
Splitting hairs aside, size bonuses do not stack with size bonuses.
Likewise, a shield-fighter with all his feats in place don't get to double-dip in a fully enchanted shield with fully enchanted spikes, for the very reason mentioned before: enhancement bonuses don't stack with enhancement bonuses.
|
|
To make the point further, look up how a monk's "size increased" unarmed damage works when enlarged. I'll give you a hint, they stack.
This line of thinking is faulty logic when comparing it to the issue on this thread.
In your situation, the monk IS actually increasing in size.
To compare apples to apples:
A person with a Spiked shield (that does damage as if the item is one size larger) becomes enlarged, by all means, the spiked shield would do the "one size larger" damage based off the "large-sized" creature that he currently (albeit temporarily) is - which would invariably increase it two sizes of damage from it original form - but it actually changed form and size.
I have no problem with that scenario being adjudicated as such.
What is being argued is two different instances where an item is being "Considered" larger that it actually, but whose size is not actually altered, and asking them to stack and work together. That is a different type of stacking than what you closed your comment with, and should NOT stack because they are two different aspects asking the damage to be increased in the exact same fashion.
The larger of the two should override the lesser of the two; since both are "Acting" as larger, but no actual change in size.
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.
Robert