| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
I just figured this out.
Tell me if i am wrong according RAW.
No i wouldn't do it myself but i think i found a loophole similar to a 3.5 loophole.
Guardian enchantment, it's a melee weapon enchantment in the PFS guide, and i think that without a FAQ or re-word we can found ourselves in a very bad position.
Aura moderate enchantment; CL 9th; Price +1 bonus
Description
A guardian weapon infuses its wielder with protective wards and great resistance to danger, allowing the wielder to transfer some or all of the weapon’s enhancement bonus to his saving throws as a bonus that stacks with all others. As a free action, the wielder chooses how to allocate the weapon’s enhancement bonus at the start of his turn before using the weapon, and the bonus on all saving throws lasts until his
next turn. The weapon must be wielded in order for this bonus to apply—it does not function while the weapon is sheathed or otherwise stowed.
Construction
Requirements Craft Magic Arms and Armor, resistance
You know the drill, it's the same as the defending weapon special ability.
Greater magic weapon on (preferably with a lesser rod of extend):
1) +1 guardian shield spikes
2) +1 guardian guantlet
3) light mithril shields* with +1 guardian shield spikes
4) +1 guardian armor spikes**
The defending weapon special ability has a FAQ saying that it requires you to actually use the weapon in order to get the AC benefit, i think that the guardian special ability needs the same treatment.
*the mithril is for arcane spellcasters, also remember that light shield do not interfere with your ability to use somatic components
** remember that in UC there are armors with no ASF
"...As a free action, the wielder chooses how to allocate the weapon’s enhancement bonus at the start of his turn before using the weapon..."
I think that covers it pretty well since you have to use the weapon (ie. make an attack roll) to get the benefits. Perhaps it could have been worded more specifically, but this is the intent RAI and RAW.
I think that covers it pretty well since you have to use the weapon (ie. make an attack roll) to get the benefits. Perhaps it could have been worded more specifically, but this is the intent RAI and RAW.
"...As a free action, the wielder chooses how to allocate the weapon’s enhancement bonus at the start of his turn before using the weapon..."
First of all that's exactly the same wording the defending weapon property has.
Second i know the RAI, that's why i asked about RAW.Third you are wrong, the sentence reads "before using the weapon" yes i will activate it before i use the weapon, in fact i won't use it in my turn at all, but still before using it is before i decide not to use it all.
I think that covers it pretty well since you have to use the weapon (ie. make an attack roll) to get the benefits. Perhaps it could have been worded more specifically, but this is the intent RAI and RAW.
"...As a free action, the wielder chooses how to allocate the weapon’s enhancement bonus at the start of his turn before using the weapon..."First of all that's exactly the same wording the defending weapon property has.
Second i know the RAI, that's why i asked about RAW.
Third you are wrong, the sentence reads "before using the weapon" yes i will activate it before i use the weapon, in fact i won't use it in my turn at all, but still before using it is before i decide not to use it all.
Defending was actually cleared up by Sean. You have to attack with the weapon to get the bonus. If guardian uses the same wording then it works the same.
@Brotato
You are right, i didn't read the sentence inside the parenthesis at Sean's post.
EDIT: Of course Sean's post says "unless otherwise specified", and that special ability specifically says "The weapon must be wielded in order for this bonus to apply—it does not function while the weapon is sheathed or otherwise stowed.".
Let's remember that use!=weild.
That means that:
1) it works with weapons that weild but not merely hold
2) it arguably works with armor spikes (i have been in enough of these threads, please let's not turn this one into such a thread please)
3) it works with shield spikes (since you weild the shield) although you can argue that you can't use the hand for spellcasting
4) it works with a guantlet, although you can argue that you can't use the hand for spellcasting.
The good thing is that with the weild part some holes have been closed for the tow handed users, specifically the guantlet one and arguably the armor spikes one.
I think that covers it pretty well since you have to use the weapon (ie. make an attack roll) to get the benefits. Perhaps it could have been worded more specifically, but this is the intent RAI and RAW.
"...As a free action, the wielder chooses how to allocate the weapon’s enhancement bonus at the start of his turn before using the weapon..."First of all that's exactly the same wording the defending weapon property has.
Second i know the RAI, that's why i asked about RAW.
Third you are wrong, the sentence reads "before using the weapon" yes i will activate it before i use the weapon, in fact i won't use it in my turn at all, but still before using it is before i decide not to use it all.
If you decide to not use the weapon, you are not using the weapon. You have, in fact, decided to NOT use the weapon, so you're... not using the weapon. You can't use the guardian property if you're not going to use the weapon on your turn because you must activate it "before using the weapon". That's pretty obvious.
I've never understood what was so difficult with that statement in regards to the defending weapon ability.
On top of that, you just said that it has the exact same wording as the defending property. Why would it act otherwise?
Not everything requires errata. Some things just need common sense, especially with precedent.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You just need to have your party wizard use a readied action to cast dominate person on your after you activate the ability but before you actually use the weapon. Then they have you throw the weapon down, you quickdraw something totally awesome, like a guitar, and you totally melt everythings face.
@ThatEvilGuy
If you decide to not use the weapon, you are not using the weapon. You have, in fact, decided to NOT use the weapon, so you're... not using the weapon. You can't use the guardian property if you're not going to use the weapon on your turn because you must activate it "before using the weapon". That's pretty obvious.
I've never understood what was so difficult with that statement in regards to the defending weapon ability.
On top of that, you just said that it has the exact same wording as the defending property. Why would it act otherwise?
Not everything requires errata. Some things just need common sense, especially with precedent.
Even if you are right on the use part (i disagree but we are arguing semantics and syntax), what about this sentence "The weapon must be wielded in order for this bonus to apply—it does not function while the weapon is sheathed or otherwise stowed."?
@ThatEvilGuy
If you decide to not use the weapon, you are not using the weapon. You have, in fact, decided to NOT use the weapon, so you're... not using the weapon. You can't use the guardian property if you're not going to use the weapon on your turn because you must activate it "before using the weapon". That's pretty obvious.
I've never understood what was so difficult with that statement in regards to the defending weapon ability.
On top of that, you just said that it has the exact same wording as the defending property. Why would it act otherwise?
Not everything requires errata. Some things just need common sense, especially with precedent.
Even if you are right on the use part (i disagree but we are arguing semantics and syntax), what about this sentence "The weapon must be wielded in order for this bonus to apply—it does not function while the weapon is sheathed or otherwise stowed."?
Because let's say you decide to apply the ability and then throw your weapon, for whatever reason. Lets say it's a +3 defending dagger. You drop it down to +1, attack with it with your first attack then throw it. Your AC no longer benefits from the +2 from the weapon. Or, if you were disarmed. Or even used a standard action to attack then sheathed your weapon. Suddenly, your AC goes down before your next turn starts. That's why it is mentioned.
It's basically to simulate the fact that your weapon is specifically helping to defend you (or increase your saving throws) while you attack with it and are wielding it, but that the bonuses go away if you are not.
EDIT: There is one thing that I wish they had put into the ability. The choice to use it during a total defense action (since you cannot attack as it's a full round action). It seems to fit thematically, and would still require you to use an action to activate the power. Meh. Whatev.
@ThatEvilGuy
I know i screwd up my previous post (i quoted without actually showing it) so this is why this happened, my words are only those in the last sentence. But i have to ask, what does your last post has to do with the ""The weapon must be wielded in order for this bonus to apply—it does not function while the weapon is sheathed or otherwise stowed."" sentence of the guardian weapon property?
@ThatEvilGuy
I know i screwd up my previous post (i quoted without actually showing it) so this is why this happened, my words are only those in the last sentence. But i have to ask, what does your last post has to do with the ""The weapon must be wielded in order for this bonus to apply—it does not function while the weapon is sheathed or otherwise stowed."" sentence of the guardian weapon property?
Isn't that what I answered? The sentence is to clarify that the ability doesn't work unless you are wielding the weapon? How the weapon only magically protects you while you are attacking with it, but then doesn't if it's somehow not in your hand anymore.
I r confuzed now.
EDIT: Ah, I get it. Replace any reference to defending with guardian and replace the sentence about it "helping to defend you" with "surrounding you with a magical protective field" or something like that. Same idea, different execution, ja?
@ThatEvilGuy
I know i screwd up my previous post (i quoted without actually showing it) so this is why this happened, my words are only those in the last sentence. But i have to ask, what does your last post has to do with the ""The weapon must be wielded in order for this bonus to apply—it does not function while the weapon is sheathed or otherwise stowed."" sentence of the guardian weapon property?
Isn't that what I answered? The sentence is to clarify that the ability doesn't work unless you are wielding the weapon? How the weapon only magically protects you while you are attacking with it, but then doesn't if it's somehow not in your hand anymore.
I r confuzed now.
EDIT: Ah, I get it. Replace any reference to defending with guardian and replace the sentence about it "helping to defend you" with "surrounding you with a magical protective field" or something like that. Same idea, different execution, ja?
Yes i was confused by the use of an example with a weapon property that doesn't have that sentence.
Also weilding a weapon isn't the same as using the weapon to attack.I must be weilding a weapon in order to make an AoO with that weapon, not attacking with that weapon or have attacked with that weapon during my round.
Yes i was confused by the use of an example with a weapon property that doesn't have that sentence.
Also weilding a weapon isn't the same as using the weapon to attack.
I must be weilding a weapon in order to make an AoO with that weapon, not attacking with that weapon or have attacked with that weapon during my round.
Really?
~Checks~Wow. Me and my assumptions.
Well, my statement stands for the guardian property. I could have sworn it was in there in regards to defending and, to be honest, am surprised that it isn't. I always envisioned the weapon angling itself to help deflect attacks with the defending property. Why that is, I have no clue. It just made sense, man.
It just made sense, man.
I know what makes sense, i am asking what do the rules say?
Do you think that during 3.5 people didn't know how the defending property was making sense or not? But still the system allowed using it for getting large numbers of AC.In PF it can't be done only because of Sean's FAQ.
It just made sense, man.I know what makes sense, i am asking what do the rules say?
Do you think that during 3.5 people didn't know how the defending property was making sense or not? But still the system allowed using it for getting large numbers of AC.
In PF it can't be done only because of Sean's FAQ.
Sean just explained how it works, the abilities wording never changed.
EDIT (My sentence really had nothing to do with what you said and came across as kinda hostile): To be fair, it couldn't be done if other GMs read it the same way I, and others I'd imagine, did.
The wording can be construed as vague, I concede that much. I never thought it was and I tend to role with what I believe RAI is supposed to be. To me, it was pretty clear, but I can see how it wasn't to enough people to warrant a FAQ.
Aaaaaaanyways, we could go along posting these things for another 452 posts and I dun wanna. Just said my peace. If it needs to be Errata/FAQ'd, coo' but since it's basically the defending property with saving throws instead of AC, and an additional requirement of wielding the weapon, well, I don't see why there'd be any difference in how they worked mechanically.