|
And here's another one:
Antagonize has been nerfed. Nerfed into uselessness, some might say. But still... in the current definition, there is no mentioning of range, visibility or audibility. "You cannot make this check against a creature that does not understand you or has an Intelligence score of 3 or lower.". Just understanding is required. Not actual hearing.
One could argue that someone who couldn't hear or see you cannot understand you. RAW could be interpreted either way (although everyone I know would likely read it as I do).
well, the key is 'another' weapon, meaning 'different' weapon, meaning not a shield, as opposed to 'a second weapon of any sort'.
While it could certainly be interpreted like that, there is nothing to indicate that it MUST be interpreted like that. While I'm sure that no DM would allow it (although, being theorycraft, that isn't the point), by RAW it's legal as written. "Another" is in no way synonymous with "different type of weapon," it simply means "other than the specific weapon you're holding." Shields are weapons if they are wielded as such.
13th level wizard, with reach spell metamagic, major creation and a dose of black lotus poison.
Thurval the Black looked down at the army below from his tower, thousands and thousands of men all sent to kill him. He carefully picked up the vial of the extract of the black lotus, and started chanting. 10 minutes later, the inside of every soldier's suit of armor was coated with the evil substance, spreading its poison through the bodies of the men. In just a few minutes, over half of the soldiers were dead, and most of the rest were badly sickened, and had ripped off all their armor.
Smiling to himself, Thurval reached for the vial of tears of death...
That's neat, but minor/major creation clearly states ONE object, no plural references at all. How are you coating multiple suits?
well, the key is 'another' weapon, meaning 'different' weapon, meaning not a shield, as opposed to 'a second weapon of any sort'.While it could certainly be interpreted like that, there is nothing to indicate that it MUST be interpreted like that. While I'm sure that no DM would allow it (although, being theorycraft, that isn't the point), by RAW it's legal as written. "Another" is in no way synonymous with "different type of weapon," it simply means "other than the specific weapon you're holding." Shields are weapons if they are wielded as such.
If you accept the fact that the text can be interpreted in two different ways, how do you jump to the conclusion that one of the is the RAW legal solution..?
The dual-wielding shield builds, also need to get around the fact that shields aren't exactly[/] weapons. They are armor that is able to make shield bash attacks, [i]using it as an offhand weapon.
Three important distinctions here:
A) You don't wield a shield. In the text you either use it or wear it. As such it doesn't qualify for being the other weapon for Shield Master.
B) As something usable as an offhand weapon, nothing suggest you can actually use a shield as a primary weapon.
C) Supporting B, the rules have this part, which would be unnecessary if a shield was in fact a weapon: "For the purpose of penalties on attack rolls, treat a heavy shield as a one-handed weapon and treat a light shield as a light weapon". There are only treated as those weapon, when considering the penalties to attack rolls.
|
Not the question I was asking.
The question is:
a) spell with a range of personal can't target someone that isn't the caster (barring things with the share spell ability).
b) Gobo suggested to use a infusion with a range of personal to affect another creature. It being a infusion somewhat bypass the spell limitation or not? I don't see any rule that say that the alchemist can bypass the rules limiting the targets he can affect.
c) If it isn't an infusion it cease function as soon as it leave the alchemist aura, so it will have 0 effect on the target.A) The alchemist doesn't cast spells. He has a similar ability, that for the most part works entirely in its own way.
B) Extracts has its entirely own rules concerning which targets they can affect. Thus the spell casting limitations for a very specific spell-range can hardly be applied, when the rest of them is changed.
C) I think we are only talking about Infusion here, anyway.Is it be unintentional that applying personal spells to others can be done through infusions? Maybe, maybe not. Generelly it is not problematic, just a little thing that makes the alchemist special.
The problem only arises when skinsend is considered. Two 2nd lvl spells to get a touch attack, that is taking half a monster's hit points, if not killing it outright, without any save... Terrible enough to disallow at the table.
An alchemist extract mimic potions and it is not possible to make potions of spells with a personal range. On the other hand James Jacobs has confirmed that aa alchemist can make a infusion mimicking a spell with a personal range.
So some new rule bending: go to the local alchemist, pay him to product an infusion of Shield (at premiunm cost as it will tie up one of his extract slots) or any other spell with a range of personal he know and you will have a nice "potion" of a personal range spell, probably at a lower cost than a true potion.
The only danger for the alchemist is that, if you get killed, he has to track down the infusion to get back his extract slot.
If there was a way to de-infuse an infusion at distance it would be perfect. Selling potions with a 10 day shelf life. :-)
|
|
Another fun thing here... touch injection gives you the option of using beast shape spells with it.
You use touch injection on an infused extract of Beast Shape IV. You slap the BBEG. Since the imbiber of an extract is treated as the caster, that means that the BBEG has to quickly make a choice of what animal to turn into!
"Oh crap... I'm about to turn into an animal! Better pick a good one! TRICERATOPS!" *holds up Blue Ranger belt*
"you can assume the form of any Small or Medium creature of the animal type.", not "you must". So the BEEG would say "No way.", end of the spell.
That's neat, but minor/major creation clearly states ONE object, no plural references at all. How are you coating multiple suits?13th level wizard, with reach spell metamagic, major creation and a dose of black lotus poison.
Thurval the Black looked down at the army below from his tower, thousands and thousands of men all sent to kill him. He carefully picked up the vial of the extract of the black lotus, and started chanting. 10 minutes later, the inside of every soldier's suit of armor was coated with the evil substance, spreading its poison through the bodies of the men. In just a few minutes, over half of the soldiers were dead, and most of the rest were badly sickened, and had ripped off all their armor.
Smiling to himself, Thurval reached for the vial of tears of death...
You're making one amount of 13 cubic feet of black lotus extract. You're just spreading it really thin... If you want to really be a stickler, there is a tiny thread of poison connecting to all the suits.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
You're assuming that you can SHAPE the spell the way you want to.
There's nothing in the spell that gives you control over how stuff forms. As a matter of fact, controlling spells enough just to exclude members of your own party takes a Feat!
The same goes for Stone Shape. There's nothing that says you can SHape a strip of stone 1 inch thick by 1 inch wide by 144 feet long. The spell adds units in cubic feet, which in all cases in Pathfinder has meant you actually have to pick a one foot cube of area, not 'an amount of space equal to a cubic foot in any dimensions you so desire.'
So, Major Creation will summon you up 13 contiguous 1 cubic foot units of whatever. It's not a form manipulation tool. You can't coat the inside of people's armor with the poison...you just get a pile of it in front of you. The spell is not a delivery system.
Being able to play with the shape of a spell's effects is NOT part of normal spells. Can you imagine what would happen to castles if you passed the 50% failure against worked stone, and could do 1 inch thick planes of Transmute Rock to Mud on castle walls?
No, you have to do them in blocks, just as the spell says, you don't get to free-form manipulate form.
Now, Stone Shape might allow you to take 12 cubic feet of rock and TURN IT INTO a line of stone...because you're altering the initial form. But I can't see anything in there that allows you to start the spell out that way, any more then I see a way to reduce or alter the burst of a fireball, or make a Wall of Fire 10' high and twice as long.
So, you can put a hole into a castle wall from the initial area of casting, but you can't grab that thin line to topple a tower like you desire.
===Aelryinth
You're assuming that you can SHAPE the spell the way you want to.
There's nothing in the spell that gives you control over how stuff forms. As a matter of fact, controlling spells enough just to exclude members of your own party takes a Feat!
The same goes for Stone Shape. There's nothing that says you can SHape a strip of stone 1 inch thick by 1 inch wide by 144 feet long. The spell adds units in cubic feet, which in all cases in Pathfinder has meant you actually have to pick a one foot cube of area, not 'an amount of space equal to a cubic foot in any dimensions you so desire.'
So, Major Creation will summon you up 13 contiguous 1 cubic foot units of whatever. It's not a form manipulation tool. You can't coat the inside of people's armor with the poison...you just get a pile of it in front of you. The spell is not a delivery system.
Being able to play with the shape of a spell's effects is NOT part of normal spells. Can you imagine what would happen to castles if you passed the 50% failure against worked stone, and could do 1 inch thick planes of Transmute Rock to Mud on castle walls?
No, you have to do them in blocks, just as the spell says, you don't get to free-form manipulate form.
Now, Stone Shape might allow you to take 12 cubic feet of rock and TURN IT INTO a line of stone...because you're altering the initial form. But I can't see anything in there that allows you to start the spell out that way, any more then I see a way to reduce or alter the burst of a fireball, or make a Wall of Fire 10' high and twice as long.
So, you can put a hole into a castle wall from the initial area of casting, but you can't grab that thin line to topple a tower like you desire.
===Aelryinth
I can see your reasoning, and if you were my GM, I'd accept the ruling and move on, but I interpret it differently. While the major creation spell doesn't say you can exceed the 1 foot square cubes per level, it doesn't say you can't either. All the spell says is that the volume of the item cannot exceed one cubic foot per level. By your interpretation, at 9th level when I get the spell, I couldn't make a 20' pole, 1 inch in radius, even though the volume of the item is only 754 cubic inches, or .44 cubic feet.
I'll also point out that Secure shelter (a 4th level spell) makes an object that is 4000 cubic feet (20 foot square, with 10 foot high ceilings... maybe a little less if it is an 8 foot high ceiling with a slanted roof). I couldn't make a twin bed for the shelter by your interpretation until 12th level (2 foot by 6 foot), and it better not be more than a foot off the floor either.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I disagree Aelryinth. None of the spells you mention say anything about being restricted to "blocks."
Masterwork studded leather or mithril chain barding for animal companions
When you're not proficient with an armor, you take the armor check penalty on attack rolls and most skill checks.
The ACP on mw studded leather or mithril chain barding is 0. So unless you're going to eventually get medium or heavy armor proficiency there's no point in getting light armor proficiency on a critter.
The dual-wielding shield builds, also need to get around the fact that shields aren't exactly[/] weapons. They are armor that is able to make shield bash attacks, [i]using it as an offhand weapon.Three important distinctions here:
A) You don't wield a shield. In the text you either use it or wear it. As such it doesn't qualify for being the other weapon for Shield Master.
B) As something usable as an offhand weapon, nothing suggest you can actually use a shield as a primary weapon.
C) Supporting B, the rules have this part, which would be unnecessary if a shield was in fact a weapon: "For the purpose of penalties on attack rolls, treat a heavy shield as a one-handed weapon and treat a light shield as a light weapon". There are only treated as those weapon, when considering the penalties to attack rolls.
A. and C. Funny how you say this but completely ignore that you need the Martial Proficiency to use a shield as a weapon.
B. I do believe that was handled in the FAQ. This was simply stated as it would be the norm.p.s. In any case there is no rules specifically stating that you can't use it as a primary hand attack.
Stockvillain: for a wizard a buckler is better than a Light Shield. The light shield has limits on what you can do with that hand that the buckler does not have. Since wizards are not proficient with shield bashing it really doesn't make much sense to have the larger shield.
- Gauss
why oh why do people feel the need to bend the rules or cheat. What's the point, I don't care if it's legal or not it's still cheating and darn right annoying and rude for everybody else at the table.
It ruins the game for everyboddy else, if you don't like the game do something else.
It should be all about having fun with a group of friends not anatagonising other players and GM's!
Get a grip.
Rant over
Never forget that the best way for GMs and other players to anticipate rule bending and unsportsmanlike shenanigans is to have them exposed, studied, and dismantled in the forums. If nobody made threads like this, some broken silliness would still make it to the table -- but the most egregious abuses will be fixed in errata, or often enough revealed to be somehow in error about how they work.
Buck up, friend. And I'm sincere when I say that!
For example, when I first started seeing Ravingdork's threads... I was outraged. Dare I say I even felt a certain revulsion... granted, I'm still not sure if I would enjoy playing with him -- but I realize the absolute vital role players like RD play in forums like these. In his anarchic Kitchen (and others like him) the worst aspects of the game (some of which you might never think of) are discovered, shared, and laid bare. If they are really all that bad, they might be fixed much sooner in subsequent versions or errata than they ever might be.
A *LEGION* of people NOT being such a devil's advocate or simply hell bent on avoiding controversy or "being nice" will not contribute the same degree of enlightenment or refinement to the game that a single ravingdork might.
So yeah... some of these guys are total snakes. But as Arcturus Mensk was so fond of saying... they're OUR snakes. <3
Deuxhero: Interesting, it can be on the dagger/staff just as easily. :) Still, I hadn't considered your option. Nice idea but still a small niche case.
- Gauss
A little rules-detail, that is not useful for PCs, but might be fun for an evil GM:
- Armor for non-humanoid creatures cost double for medium characters. That includes armor for tieflings, aasimar and all the other non-humanoid player races the game has introduced.
Even better put the dueling property on a cestus.
One exception: Light shield can be enchanted as a weapon (Dueling's initiative boost comes to mind as a good use for this), a buckler can't.
Or even better (and sillier), through the proporty on the armor spikes you put on your silken ceremonial armor.
Why would you use silken ceremonial armour? A haramaki has the same bonuses but without the weight and cost.
Why would you use silken ceremonial armour? A haramaki has the same bonuses but without the weight and cost.
Good point. I somewhat feel they weight of those should be switched around, given that the haramaki has chainmail or plates around the stomach, while the ceremonial armor is cloth with studs.
A little rules-detail, that is not useful for PCs, but might be fun for an evil GM:
- Armor for non-humanoid creatures cost double for medium characters. That includes armor for tieflings, aasimar and all the other non-humanoid player races the game has introduced.
.
Yup. Taking this logic further leads to 'Armor found on defeated enemies is only usable by creatures of their type and size'. (At least, there is a line between 'humanoid' and 'other'
Which leads to the Aasimar Pally being unable to equip the +3 full plate taken off the BBEG.
The Strix, being humanoid, however, has no problem at all with this. Wings? Shwings.
*sigh* The more these things come up, the gladder I am that all the groups I am playing in have houseruled Aasimar / Tieflings / Sylphs / Ifrits / etc as being Humanoid [planetouched], rather than Outsider [native].
It just removes a lot of unneded trouble.
A. and C. Funny how you say this but completely ignore that you need the Martial Proficiency to use a shield as a weapon.
Less munchkiny answer: No you do not. Anyone can use a shield as a weapon, just as anyone can swing a greatsword or a manriku gusari: they just suffer a -4 penalty for not being proficient.
More munckiny answer: Many classes entries say they are proficient with shields. It does not technically specify whether they are proficient with shields as armor or as with weapons.
A. and C. Funny how you say this but completely ignore that you need the Martial Proficiency to use a shield as a weapon.
Less munchkiny answer: No you do not. Anyone can use a shield as a weapon, just as anyone can swing a greatsword or a manriku gusari: they just suffer a -4 penalty for not being proficient.
More munckiny answer: Many classes entries say they are proficient with shields. It does not technically specify whether they are proficient with shields as armor or as with weapons.
True, but they are listed as martial weapons.
True, but they are listed as martial weapons.
A. and C. Funny how you say this but completely ignore that you need the Martial Proficiency to use a shield as a weapon.
Less munchkiny answer: No you do not. Anyone can use a shield as a weapon, just as anyone can swing a greatsword or a manriku gusari: they just suffer a -4 penalty for not being proficient.
More munckiny answer: Many classes entries say they are proficient with shields. It does not technically specify whether they are proficient with shields as armor or as with weapons.
No they are listed in the martial weapons table to show what damage they deal.
"You can bash an opponent with a heavy shield. See “shield, heavy” on Table: Weapons for the damage dealt by a shield bash. Used this way, a heavy shield is a martial bludgeoning weapon."
"Used this way" suggest that it in itself isn't a martial weapon like any other. As such they are something else.
I disagree Aelryinth. None of the spells you mention say anything about being restricted to "blocks."
None of the spells say anything about being able to form the results freely in multiple dimensions and scatter them.
Stone Shape does specifically cite 1 cu foot increase a level. It doesn't say anything about being able to redefine that cubic foot doesn't mean a '12"x12"x12" cube' to your own benefit, which is what you are trying to do.
Likewise, The Fabricate a pole argument, isn't. You'd create a single pole as one object, and as one final object it would simply sit there. What you're trying to do with the poison is analogous to saying "I'm going to create these poles, and I'm going to stuff them down the back of the pants of fifty soldiers out there and nail them to the ground."
Fabricate is not a delivery system, and it creates a single bundle of x cubic feet, it doesn't scatter stuff and attack with it.
The poles, and the poison, don't form a single whole, which is what the spell is directing to you to do. You could make fifty poles...and you'd get a bundle of poles. They wouldn't be laid end to end, they wouldn't form an erector set or spell out "I'm Uber" on the ground, and they wouldn't each be in their own individual holes in the ground. They certainly wouldn't pop up in an enemy's pants and make it hard for them to move.
What you're trying to do here is stretch what the spell allows. Things break REALLY easy when you do that. It's creative, sure, but the spell doesn't allow you to do that...you're basically trying to say that because it doesn't expressly say I can't, I can.
Nah, PF has dozens of examples to the contrary. That kind of thinking won't fly, and is DM adjucation in any event, not RAW. Some DM might let you get away with the Stone Shape trick, but letting you attack a bunch of people with Fabricated poison? I don't think so.
If it doesn't expressly follow the rules, it's always up to the DM, not RAW. Just because it doesn't say you can't, doesn't mean you can.
==Aelryinth
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
None of the spells say anything about being able to form the results freely in multiple dimensions and scatter them.
Stone Shape does specifically cite 1 cu foot increase a level. It doesn't say anything about being able to redefine that cubic foot doesn't mean a '12"x12"x12" cube' to your own benefit, which is what you are trying to do.
I'm going to disagree with your interpretation of stone shape. The entire point of that spell is to be able to rearrange the stone into the shape you want, and nothing in the description implies that you can only turn it into (or from) 1 foot blocks. There is a difference between a cubic foot of volume and a foot cubed. Cubic foot is a measure of volume that happens to be equal to that of a cube 1 foot on a side; it in no way implies that this configuration is the only way to achieve that volume.
As for the poison major creation trick, I highly doubt the caster has line of effect to the insides of the enemies' armor.
...I highly doubt the caster has line of effect to the insides of the enemies' armor.
Agreed. A lenient GM might allow you to coat the army in poison, but I can't think of anyone who would let you put poison on the inside of clothes/armor any more than they would let you put poison directly into the lungs.
|
|
Minor creation allow you to create "You create a nonmagical, unattended object of nonliving vegetable matter. You must succeed on an appropriate Craft skill check to make a complex item."
Major creation say: "This spell functions like minor creation, except that you can also create an object of mineral nature: stone, crystal, metal, or the like."
There is no doubt that a poison is a complex object, so you need to have enough Craft (alchemy) to succeed at your check to get anything. If you roll a 1 on the check you are in for a world of hurt.
then you go and create a nice blob of poison in one location. Your craft check allow you to create the poison, but it has no shape without a container, so you get a blob (you will create 1 item, so no poison and container). Not so useful unless you create it over the head of the enemy chief.
The most useful thing you can do with that trick is to create a poisonous gas and try to poison as many enemies as possible.
Give your wizard Knowledge (Physics) and then compress an inhaled poison into a liquid. Use the spell to make more at range, in an open area, where it disperses back into a gas creating a large cloud of inhaled poison. (Assuming that your GM's world runs on real-world physics while still allowing magic. And that you're allowed to take Knowledge (Physics).)
Edit: Ninja'd.
|
|
Give your wizard Knowledge (Physics) and then compress an inhaled poison into a liquid. Use the spell to make more at range, in an open area, where it disperses back into a gas creating a large cloud of inhaled poison. (Assuming that your GM's world runs on real-world physics while still allowing magic. And that you're allowed to take Knowledge (Physics).)
Edit: Ninja'd.
He would have to do a appropriate Craft check.
What is an appropriate craft for that? Laboratory equipment operator? Chemical plant operator?Creating a high pressure gas is not part of the normal alchemical process, so it would require some special skill.
Then there is the little problem of the effect of the liquid transforming into a gas. It absorb heat to expand, so the water present in the air would condense into drops and even snowflakes, entrapping part of the gas. Most of the poisonous gases in Pathfinder have an organic origin, so they could even break down if exposed to very low temperatures. I doubt a high pressure poisonous gas would be much efficient, at least outdoor.
Give your wizard Knowledge (Physics) and then compress an inhaled poison into a liquid. Use the spell to make more at range, in an open area, where it disperses back into a gas creating a large cloud of inhaled poison. (Assuming that your GM's world runs on real-world physics while still allowing magic. And that you're allowed to take Knowledge (Physics).)
Edit: Ninja'd.
He would have to do a appropriate Craft check.
What is an appropriate craft for that? Laboratory equipment operator? Chemical plant operator?
Creating a high pressure gas is not part of the normal alchemical process, so it would require some special skill.Then there is the little problem of the effect of the liquid transforming into a gas. It absorb heat to expand, so the water present in the air would condense into drops and even snowflakes, entrapping part of the gas. Most of the poisonous gases in Pathfinder have an organic origin, so they could even break down if exposed to very low temperatures. I doubt a high pressure poisonous gas would be much efficient, at least outdoor.
I would say Craft Poison. And without Poison use would have the chance of poisoning himself.
You can use Craft alchemy to produce the poison. The problem is compressing it to a high degree as MM suggested. That is something quite different from creating the poison and probably outside what the spell can do.
Yeah my bad. Craft Alchemy. But because he is changing a Poison from one form to another wouldn't he be subject to possibly poisoning himself (whether its possible to do or not)?
Minor creation allow you to create "You create a nonmagical, unattended object of nonliving vegetable matter. You must succeed on an appropriate Craft skill check to make a complex item."
That's a really good point. The item you create MUST be unattended. There's no poisoning anyone as part of the casting. It would have to appear in a vat or some such.
Also, you can't cast conjuration (creation) spells and have the effect appear in the air. It must be upon a surface that can support it.
:P Oh well. I'm neither a physicist nor a chemist. Some compounds wouldn't take that much pressure to liquify, but then they also wouldn't expand into a very large volume when released. (And I have no idea what the appropriate craft check would be, but now I'm imagining a wizard blasting a glass apparatus with cone of cold.)
If we go with alchemy instead, a fog-cloud-in-a-bottle alchemical item doesn't sound too far fetched. Mixing an inhaled poison in with that might work, but at that point, you could just chuck the thing out the window and it'd work just as well.
Alright I here is one I have been bouncing around in my head....
Mad Monkeys - There has to be SOMETHING you can do this this hilarious spell. I just cant think of what yet.
I have seen it mentioned as being a great idea from another thread...
how about a trapped Barrel. You open the lid, setting off the glyph that casts Mad Monkeys on the barrel. as the spell ends, the monkeys scramble back "into the barrel" and close the lid.
Yes, it's a Barrel of Mad Monkeys...
Very funny. I also thought of using Gate to summon 2 20HD Monkey Swarms. Good lord that's a lot of Mad Monkeys! Thousands in fact!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
None of the spells say anything about being able to form the results freely in multiple dimensions and scatter them.
Stone Shape does specifically cite 1 cu foot increase a level. It doesn't say anything about being able to redefine that cubic foot doesn't mean a '12"x12"x12" cube' to your own benefit, which is what you are trying to do.
I'm going to disagree with your interpretation of stone shape.
The entire point of that spell is to be able to rearrange the stone into the shape you want, and nothing in the description implies that you can only turn it into (or from) 1 foot blocks. There is a difference between a cubic foot of volume and a foot cubed. Cubic foot is a measure of volume that happens to be equal to that of a cube 1 foot on a side; it in no way implies that this configuration is the only way to achieve that volume.
As for the poison major creation trick, I highly doubt the caster has line of effect to the insides of the enemies' armor.
You're misinterpreting what I'm saying with Stone Shape. I already gave an example.
What RD said is that he can define the area he's INITIALLY affecting with Stone Shape as "144' x 1" x 1" sections for his 1 cubic feet, and then slice through 140 feet of a foot thick wall with a 12th level Stone Shape. Or as 72' x 1/4' x 8" sections, and take down an eight foot thick castle wall. Just turn it diagonal, and it would collapse under it's own weight.
No. When he originally selects his target, he can select 1 cubic feet of stone, in 1 cubic foot blocks, centered on where he touches. A literal DM would force him to take the nearest mass to where he touches, meaning all the rock closest to his hand, resulting, for instance on a flat surface, in him grabbing a hemisphere, or otherwise the nearest volume of rock to satisfy the volume reqs, if grabbing some irregular shape.
I'm not that literal, I'd allow 1' block increments, much like Rock to Mud has 10 x 10 x 20 foot increments. As long as they're contiguous, I'm good.
Once he's done that, he can shape that rock he's affecting however he pleases. He can make it into 144' long 1" segments, that's fine. But that involves taking the rock out of where it is and extending it 144' in some direction.
What he was saying he could do is reach out and affect a specific area of rock in any format...such as a massive thin plane so he could bring down a building. He'd Shape the stuff out of the way, moving it...somewhere...and topple a building.
Nope. He can only initially grab the material one cubic foot by level at a time, starting where he touches. So he can't shape FROM a massive thin plane, because he can't possibly GRAB the whole plane. He can turn the rock he grabs INTO a plane, sure enough...but that doesn't instantly take down a wall or tower. It just turns an existing rock into a flat plane of rock, which is not any different then making a dinner plate out of it.
The best he could do for a castle or wall is bore a 1' x 1' x level hole straight through it, pulling the stone out and stacking it to the side. That's a far cry from sheering the thing down...strong, but not broken.
Furthermore, there's nothing in the spell that says it's a movable area of effect...he can shape the initial lump of stone he's selected, and that's it. So he can't make his hole wider without casting the spell again, and grabbing a new mass of stone.
Thirdly, there's nothing that says the stone has any strength. For instance, he can't shape it under the edge of something and lift it upwards. He could form a brace under something that lifted, but the Shaping has no real force to it, and could only get out of the way of something pushing on it, or remain firm...it can't push anything out of the way that isn't part of the spell itself. Trying to form a pedestal under a lunch basket technically won't work, because the spell doesn't have the strength to lift anything, only mold stone (spells that can lift stuff all have Str scores or weight limits, see Unseen Servant and Telekinesis, etc). He could make a pedestal if nothing was atop it, but with no strength score, he can't lift anything.
Fourthly, the stone doesn't 'vanish'. It has to go somewhere. You can't just make a tunnel open in a wall...you've got to put that stone somewhere. Other stone around it isn't affected by the spell, and you can't just shove your stone in with that outside the spell and have it go away. So, if you make a tunnel, you've actually got to pull the stone out and stack it to the side, not just 'open a way'.
I love Stone Shape, but it's got some limitations on it via omitting putting additional abilities in.
If you allow RD to do what he is saying, that's akin to saying on your Rock to Mud spells that you prefer 3' x 33' x 20' sections...three feet is plenty deep to stop a cavalry charge, and you just TRIPLED the area of effect. Without a feat, just by allowing free form change of the initial area affected by the spell.
Or maybe you want to flatten your Bursting Fireball down to a disk 6' high. Do you know that if you can do that, it affects about a 60' radius?
It doesn't work that way, and it has never worked that way. Being able to freely mold the area of a spell, for instance excluding areas within it, has always been a class ability or a feat. Stone Shape is not an exception to that rule.
==Aelryinth
True, but they are listed as martial weapons.
A. and C. Funny how you say this but completely ignore that you need the Martial Proficiency to use a shield as a weapon.
Less munchkiny answer: No you do not. Anyone can use a shield as a weapon, just as anyone can swing a greatsword or a manriku gusari: they just suffer a -4 penalty for not being proficient.
More munckiny answer: Many classes entries say they are proficient with shields. It does not technically specify whether they are proficient with shields as armor or as with weapons.
No they are listed in the martial weapons table to show what damage they deal.
"You can bash an opponent with a heavy shield. See “shield, heavy” on Table: Weapons for the damage dealt by a shield bash. Used this way, a heavy shield is a martial bludgeoning weapon."
"Used this way" suggest that it in itself isn't a martial weapon like any other. As such they are something else.
Then it would be listed in a separate section.