| 3 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
For the purposes of things like masterwork pricing, is the klar considered a shield first? Or a weapon first?
Does it being masterwork grant it a +1 enhancement bonus to attack rolls AND reduce it's armor check penalty?
What about magical enhancements? Does it enhance the attack and damage like a weapon, the shield bonus like a shield, or both? Perhaps I have to enchant it separately like a shield?
There's just not enough info in the Inner Sea Guide's write up.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It is both a weapon and a shield.
If you pay 150 gp, you gain masterwork shield benefits.
If you pay 300 gp, you gain masterwork weapon benefits.
If you pay 450 gp, you gain masterwork all benefits.
Enchantments are the same. Essentially it carries two parallel sets of enchantments, one as a weapon, one as a shield.
It is both a weapon and a shield.
If you pay 150 gp, you gain masterwork shield benefits.
If you pay 300 gp, you gain masterwork weapon benefits.
If you pay 450 gp, you gain masterwork all benefits.
Enchantments are the same. Essentially it carries two parallel sets of enchantments, one as a weapon, one as a shield.
+1
This is true for all shields that can bash.
That makes sense, but is there any official support for that interpretation? My gaming group is a stickler for the RAW/RAI.
As far as I can tell, you could get a masterwork shield for 150gp, and though that might not get you an enhancement bonus to attacks, you could go right on ahead and enchant it as a weapon after that.
That makes sense, but is there any official support for that interpretation? My gaming group is a stickler for the RAW/RAI.
That's how all things that are two things work. Spiked shields, spiked armor, double weapons.
P 208 of the PF campaign setting book says you must enchant it as two separate items one for armor/ shield one for weapon.
AKA spiked shield, armor spikes and the Madu
|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
That makes sense, but is there any official support for that interpretation? My gaming group is a stickler for the RAW/RAI.
As far as I can tell, you could get a masterwork shield for 150gp, and though that might not get you an enhancement bonus to attacks, you could go right on ahead and enchant it as a weapon after that.
Darkwind's post matches my understanding.
The text is contradictory.
So, "you cannot create a masterwork version of (a shield) that confers an enhancement bonus on attack rolls." And, "The masterwork quality of a..shield never provides a bonus on attack or damage rolls." But, "only a masterwork weapon can become a magic weapon," and "..the shield can be made into a magic weapon in its own right."
I cannot provide you with an interpretation with this other than what was provided above that makes sense to me and satisfies your group's sensibilities.
Creative Director
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
That makes sense, but is there any official support for that interpretation? My gaming group is a stickler for the RAW/RAI.
As far as I can tell, you could get a masterwork shield for 150gp, and though that might not get you an enhancement bonus to attacks, you could go right on ahead and enchant it as a weapon after that.
Does there have to be "official support?"
Common sense says that Kain's right. A klar is essentially a shield plus a shield spike, and that's how that combo works. If you masterwork a shield part of a klar, you can further enhance that part with magic, but you can't do the same to its weapon component until THAT is masterwork as well.
Costs +450 gp to masterwork an entire klar. Just like how it costs +450 to masterwork an entire spiked shield.
.
..
...
....
.....
''Why must there be official support?''
WHAT HAVE YOU GOT TO HIDE GIANT (POSSIBLY) REPTILIAN ENTITY?
::
Without official support how can we be technically correct?
*THE* best kind of correct!
Two things are always two things. I don't know of any exceptions to the rule.
.
..
...
....
.....
Two things are always two things. I don't know of any exceptions to the rule.
How about when two become one?
That makes sense, but is there any official support for that interpretation? My gaming group is a stickler for the RAW/RAI.
As far as I can tell, you could get a masterwork shield for 150gp, and though that might not get you an enhancement bonus to attacks, you could go right on ahead and enchant it as a weapon after that.
Does there have to be "official support?"
Common sense says that Kain's right. A klar is essentially a shield plus a shield spike, and that's how that combo works. If you masterwork a shield part of a klar, you can further enhance that part with magic, but you can't do the same to its weapon component until THAT is masterwork as well.
Costs +450 gp to masterwork an entire klar. Just like how it costs +450 to masterwork an entire spiked shield.
You may want to release some FAQ or Errata on the matter, as the written rules do not support you.
So, "you cannot create a masterwork version of (a shield) that confers an enhancement bonus on attack rolls." And, "The masterwork quality of a..shield never provides a bonus on attack or damage rolls." But, "only a masterwork weapon can become a magic weapon," and "..the shield can be made into a magic weapon in its own right."
See? The rules as written explicitly forbid what you describe, so hopefully you can understand my confusion, and thus the need for official clarification.
|
|
I would say they are separate since by the design of the device itself as pictured HERE, there is a definite weapon piece and protective piece that are secured together. They are made of differing materials, thus not one single unit. This alone would be the final clarification of RAI. This is always how the Klar was depicted.
|
|
That said, that picture opens up a whole new problem of costing making different parts of it with different materials. Say you wanted the shield part mithril and the weapon part admantine. would it be +4000 (1k shield + 3k weapon). It seems to need a list of rule exceptions.
I think overall, it needs to have a separate entry that divides up its shield bits and weapon bits so that they can be dealt with for material and enhancement purposes like shields and shield spikes
It is meant to be two parallel items that just happens to be ducttaped together. Tally each one separately and just be glad you bypass the markup for having two effects in a single item slot.
The weird only begins when you find shield and weapon enchantments that enhance attack and defense respectively... Not to mention that there is a way to use the shield enhancement offensively with various feats and class features.
The description of the Klar answers the OPs question, at least as far as 'enhancement' is concerned...
Klar: You can attack an opponent with a klar, using it as an
off-hand, martial slashing weapon. For the purpose of attack roll penalties, treat a klar as a light weapon. If you use a klar to make an attack, you lose its AC bonus until your next action (usually until the next round). Both segments of a klar can be enhanced separately. An enhancement bonus on the shield does not improve the effectiveness of the blade and vice versa. (pg.13 CotCT Player's Guide)
While we're looking for answers, official or otherwise...
Can you two-weapon fight with Klars or does the 'shield' portion of it make it off-hand only? Shield BASH attacks read: "You can bash an opponent with a light/heavy shield, using it as an off-hand weapon." The Klar's weapon isn't a BASH, it's an off-handed slashing attack.
Which I guess really leads me to the question...
What is an off-hand weapon as per RAW? Is it something that can only be used in your 'off-hand' or is it something that always get a -5 penalty 'to hit', but can be used in your primary hand?
Inquring minds want to know and I've read the book quite a bit.
The description of the Klar answers the OPs question, at least as far as 'enhancement' is concerned...
Klar: You can attack an opponent with a klar, using it as an
off-hand, martial slashing weapon. For the purpose of attack roll penalties, treat a klar as a light weapon. If you use a klar to make an attack, you lose its AC bonus until your next action (usually until the next round). Both segments of a klar can be enhanced separately. An enhancement bonus on the shield does not improve the effectiveness of the blade and vice versa. (pg.13 CotCT Player's Guide)
Please note that they changed the way the weapon works in the Inner Sea World Guide by omitting much of the text you are quoting.
If you only make one attack in a round, it is a primary attack, even if you make it with your shield or boot or whatever.
Generally any attack that is in addition to what you, the player, decide is your primary attack for the round, is counted as an off-hand attack.
So the sword and boarder might use his sword as the primary attack in one round, but in the next he can choose to lead with the shield as the primary weapon and the sword as the secondary weapon.
Bootknife, shield spikes, armor spikes and similar are often used as off-hand weapons as they all count as "light" and therefore lower the penalty for fighting with more than one weapon in a single round.
Note that the sword I mentioned above, if it is a one-hand weapon, will give a greater penalty to all attacks made that round, if it is used as the off-hand weapon.
AFAIK Iterative attacks granted by high BAB can be made with whatever weapons you wield and be flexed between them in any given round as you see fit.
So the sword and boarder might use his sword as the primary attack in one round, but in the next he can choose to lead with the shield as the primary weapon and the sword as the secondary weapon.
Though I agree with this interpretation, game developers and RAW have not yet confirmed it.
Note that the sword I mentioned above, if it is a one-hand weapon, will give a greater penalty to all attacks made that round, if it is used as the off-hand weapon.
Actually, if you are using a heavy shield and a one-handed sword, or a light shield and a light weapon, the penalties are the same regardless of whether you attack with the shield or the weapon as your primary.
Your statement only becomes true when wielding a light shield with a one-handed weapon.
The description of the Klar answers the OPs question, at least as far as 'enhancement' is concerned...
Please note that they changed the way the weapon works in the Inner Sea World Guide by omitting much of the text you are quoting.
Sorry, did not know that. I only briefly flipped through the book at my FLGS, looks like very swank reading material (fluff) and some nice new artwork, but I didn't see much in the way of 'player' information (crunch) other than the PrCs. Saving my money for the 2 Ultimate books as I really don't DM and have little need for the kind of information presented.
|
Can you two-weapon fight with Klars or does the 'shield' portion of it make it off-hand only? Shield BASH attacks read: "You can bash an opponent with a light/heavy shield, using it as an off-hand weapon." The Klar's weapon isn't a BASH, it's an off-handed slashing attack.
The Klar is a weapon and a shield. I'm pretty sure you can to TWF with them but the shield bonuses don't stack with each other.
Which I guess really leads me to the question...
What is an off-hand weapon as per RAW? Is it something that can only be used in your 'off-hand' or is it something that always get a -5 penalty 'to hit', but can be used in your primary hand?
-5 penalty is for natural attacks,
For a second weapon you use [url=paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/combat.html#two-weapon-fighting]Two weapon fighting
rules.
Essentially you pick one weapon to be your primary and one to be your secondary. A lot of the details are left for you to decide. If you are fighting with a shield your shield is always considered your off hand. Since a Klar actually has a weapon component you should be ok using it as a primary weapon.
That makes sense, but is there any official support for that interpretation? My gaming group is a stickler for the RAW/RAI.
As far as I can tell, you could get a masterwork shield for 150gp, and though that might not get you an enhancement bonus to attacks, you could go right on ahead and enchant it as a weapon after that.
Does there have to be "official support?"
Common sense says that Kain's right. A klar is essentially a shield plus a shield spike, and that's how that combo works. If you masterwork a shield part of a klar, you can further enhance that part with magic, but you can't do the same to its weapon component until THAT is masterwork as well.
Costs +450 gp to masterwork an entire klar. Just like how it costs +450 to masterwork an entire spiked shield.
You may want to release some FAQ or Errata on the matter, as the written rules do not support you.
So, "you cannot create a masterwork version of (a shield) that confers an enhancement bonus on attack rolls." And, "The masterwork quality of a..shield never provides a bonus on attack or damage rolls." But, "only a masterwork weapon can become a magic weapon," and "..the shield can be made into a magic weapon in its own right."See? The rules as written explicitly forbid what you describe, so hopefully you can understand my confusion, and thus the need for official clarification.
I don't think this discussion needs to be included in any errata or FAQ. Seems common sense to others and myself.
So the sword and boarder might use his sword as the primary attack in one round, but in the next he can choose to lead with the shield as the primary weapon and the sword as the secondary weapon.Though I agree with this interpretation, game developers and RAW have not yet confirmed it.
I believe RAW does explain this quite well enough. There is no case where an action you take in one round limits you in the next.
In addition, there is no handed-ness, so primary hand is what you choose it is.
In any given round you only have one Primary hand, but there is nothing in RAW that stops you from picking another in following rounds.
Note that the sword I mentioned above, if it is a one-hand weapon, will give a greater penalty to all attacks made that round, if it is used as the off-hand weapon.Actually, if you are using a heavy shield and a one-handed sword, or a light shield and a light weapon, the penalties are the same regardless of whether you attack with the shield or the weapon as your primary.
Your statement only becomes true when wielding a light shield with a one-handed weapon.
On this part your clarification is correct, my comment did assume the user would try to do that classic one-handed mainhand and light off-hand combo.
Seems common sense to others and myself.
Funny how you can say that even though there are people who disagree with you on the matter. Guess common sense isn't so common.
God I hate that phrase. It's not an argument or a defense for lack of clarity in the rules.
From my understanding, while the armor and shield cannot be made into a masterwork weapon, the spikes on spiked armor or a spiked shield can be made into masterwork weapons. (And in fact, must be, if they are to carry an attack enhancement)
If so, the same would apply to the klar.
|
|
From my understanding, while the armor and shield cannot be made into a masterwork weapon, the spikes on spiked armor or a spiked shield can be made into masterwork weapons. (And in fact, must be, if they are to carry an attack enhancement)
If so, the same would apply to the klar.
I cited the rules above. A shield can be made into a magic weapon in its own right (not just magic armor). And, a weapon has to be a masterwork weapon to be made magic; masterwork armor quality isn't the same thing and bears a different price. Therefore, it must be possible to make a shield that is a masterwork weapon. None of this involves spikes.
The only reconciliation that I can see other that what has already been posted is that a shield that is a masterwork weapon gains no advantage to hit, despite being a masterwork weapon. This fits a literal reading of the rules, but makes no sense to me at all within the context of the game as whole.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think this discussion needs to be included in any errata or FAQ. Seems common sense to others and myself.
+1
Honestly, if the game developers over-clarified everything to the ludicrous extent some people require, non of us could afford such an enormous book.
I don't think this discussion needs to be included in any errata or FAQ. Seems common sense to others and myself.+1
Honestly, if the game developers over-clarified everything to the ludicrous extent some people require, non of us could afford such an enormous book.
Probably not, but everyone can afford a free online FAQ/Errata page.