There's already a faq request on this in the rules question, but it's been sitting unanswered for a year. shield slam
But maybe I can get a ruling at least for society play. How do you calculate the bull rush total with shield slam?
1. Use the die roll from the attack and the attack bonuses from your shield bash.
2. Use the die roll from the attack and your bull rush CMB bonus.
I talked to most of the judges in my area, and we're in agreement on #2, but I'd like to see something more official if I can.
thistledown wrote: There's already a faq request on this in the rules question, but it's been sitting unanswered for a year. shield slam
But maybe I can get a ruling at least for society play. How do you calculate the bull rush total with shield slam?
** spoiler omitted **
1. Use the die roll from the attack and the attack bonuses from your shield bash.
2. Use the die roll from the attack and your bull rush CMB bonus.
I talked to most of the judges in my area, and we're in agreement on #2, but I'd like to see something more official if I can.
Yeah, you might want to get some official clarification on that, because I'm pretty sure you're wrong.
An attack roll represents your attempt to strike your opponent on your turn in a round. When you make an attack roll, you roll a d20 and add your attack bonus. (Other modifiers may also apply to this roll.) If your result equals or beats the target's Armor Class, you hit and deal damage. If you were to use the natural die result modified by your CMB, Shield Slam would need to have different language to support that (ie, "make a combat maneuver check using the natural die result from your attack roll", or similar). As it is, it's telling you to substitute the attack roll for the combat maneuver check you'd normally make, and the attack roll has already been defined.
Strict RAW interpretation (which is what PFS would use, since you first posted this there) would say you use #1 (which would have the advantage of being faster, since you've already done the math). #2 might have been RAI, but without official clarification, there's no justification to use that interpretation in organized play.
I agree with SCPRedMage.
I think "your attack roll" is referring to the attack roll you made in order to hit your opponent with your shield bash.
Example:
You walk up to an orc, and want to slam him.
You roll a d20, and add all your relevant bonuses to that attack. Lets say you roll a 12, and your bonuses are +5, so your attack roll is a 17. You tell the GM that your attack roll is a 17, and he tells you if it hits against the orc's AC or not. Lets say it hits. Now, you make a combat maneuver using that exact same attack roll. You tell the GM that your combat maneuver check for a bull rush is a 17, and he tells you if it succeeds against the orc's CMD vs bull rush or not.
By using the same attack roll, you keep all the same bonuses/penalties/modifiers of that attack roll for the CMB check.
Other example:
Round 1 - You cast True Strike granting yourself a +20 insight bonus on your next attack roll (before the end of the next round).
Round 2 - You walk up to an orc and slam him. This time, your bonuses are +25, so lets say you roll a 12 again, resulting in an attack roll of 37. That exceeds the orc's AC, so you hit. Now you make your free bull rush, using that same attack roll as your combat maneuver check. You're not making another attack roll, you're using that same one to do something else. So even though True Strike only works on your next attack roll, you're still using that same one, so you have a combat maneuver check of 37.
@ Grick
This interpretation is exactly why I was thinking of making a lv.2 ranger/lv.X magus. Sure he'll suffer from a small amount of ASF, but spamming True Strike with the Wand wielder arcana seems like it would be pretty nasty.
Sounds good. Grick, that's exactly how I was seing option 1 working.
I can see lots of build plans for either option and the character's still in planning, so I can still switch over with no problems. Just wanted to see which way to go.
I could have sworn I posted this in the PFS subforum.
galahad2112 wrote: Sure he'll suffer from a small amount of ASF One word: mithral. Unless you're using a tower shield, that means 5% ASF, tops, or none at all if you use a light shield.
Also, be sure to use shield spikes, since you can't enchant the shield itself as a weapon.
@ SCPRedMage
Oh, mithral absolutely. 5% ASF is no big deal (Don't roll a 1, right?), and shield spikes are the way to go. I was thinking of getting the Bashing enchant on it as well, giving 3d6 damage when enlarged. It's certainly not optimal, but it seems like it would be lots of fun.
galahad2112 wrote: I was thinking of getting the Bashing enchant on it as well Check with your GM first, many folks consider shield spikes to be separate weapons, so bashing will only apply to a shield bash, not to attacks with shield spikes.
Grick wrote: Check with your GM first, many folks consider shield spikes to be separate weapons, so bashing will only apply to a shield bash, not to attacks with shield spikes. Yeah... shield spikes would TOTALLY work with Bashing...
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: Weapons). You can't put spikes on a buckler or a tower shield. Otherwise, attacking with a spiked shield is like making a shield bash attack. Attacking with shield spikes counts as a shield bash, so the Bashing enchantment applies, making the attack's damage a total of three sizes larger than a standard shield (one for shield spikes, two for bashing).
Shield spikes make the shield damage one size larger than you.
Bashing makes the damage two sizes larger than normal not two sizes larger than shield spikes.
Quote: 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. It's the same reason why lead blades won't stack with strong jaw on a Monk.
PRD wrote: 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: Weapons). You can't put spikes on a buckler or a tower shield. Otherwise, attacking with a spiked shield is like making a shield bash attack. That looks to me like it redefines 'normal.'
A Shield Bash with a shield deals bludgeoning damage at 1dX+bonuses.
A Shield Bash with a Spiked Shield deals piercing damage at one size larger than the size of the shield.
A shield enhanced with the Bashing deals damage as if it were a weapon of two size categories larger.
A Spiked Shield is still a Shield (which deals more damage than a normal shield), and can still have Magic Shield enhancements.
Quantum Steve wrote: Shield spikes make the shield damage one size larger than you.
Bashing makes the damage two sizes larger than normal not two sizes larger than shield spikes.
Quote: 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. It's the same reason why lead blades won't stack with strong jaw on a Monk.
Yeah... I'm not seeing it. The Bashing enchantment, which you quoted, doesn't use the word "normal", just "two size categories larger". The damage figures are examples, and no examples of spiked shields are provide, and are thus inconclusive, at best, as to the intent.
Furthermore, the reason Strong Jaw and Lead Blades don't stack with each other is that they're both spells; particularly:
Same Effect More than Once in Different Strengths: In cases when two or more identical spells are operating in the same area or on the same target, but at different strengths, only the one with the highest strength applies. In this case, this is mundane equipment and a shield enchantment.
A non-magical heavy shield with shield spikes does 1d6 damage with a shield bash; that you arrive at that figure by increasing the damage size doesn't matter for the Bashing enchantment, because it isn't a magical effect.
Furthermore, the fact that shield spikes wouldn't increase the damage on a +1 Bashing Heavy Shield flies in the face of all common sense, because spikes freaking hurt.
SCPRedMage wrote: ]
Yeah... I'm not seeing it. The Bashing enchantment, which you quoted, doesn't use the word "normal", just "two size categories larger".
Larger than what? They have to be larger than something, they can't be larger then nothing.
Larger than... Tiny? That doesn't really work.
A bashing shield deals damage as if it were a weapon of two size categories larger than it actually is. It's the only thing you can fill in the blank that makes sense.
Edit: And if you don't like lead blades and strong jaw then use lead blades and an Impact weapon.
Both increase the size of the weapon starting at the baseline. That's why they don't stack.
Exactly Quantum Steve.
A Bashing Spiked Shield deals damage as if it were a weapon of two size categories larger than it actually is.
Take Spiked Shield of Medium size. Enchant it with Bashing. It now deals damage is if it were a Huge Spiked Shield.
Quote: A bashing shield deals damage as if it were a weapon of two size categories larger I don't see anything in that which specifies it deals damage as a 'normal shield' or even a 'shield' of two size categories larger.
It clearly says it deals damage 'as if it were a weapon of two size categories larger.'
A medium light spiked shield deals 1d4 damage. A Huge spiked shield deals 1d8 damage. A Medium Spiked Shield of Bashing deals 1d8 damage.
For what it's worth HeroLab seems to think they stack and I'm pretty sure the issue has been brought up to them before.
Heavy Shield - 1d4
Shield Spiked Heavy Shield - 1d6
Heavy Shield (Bashing) - 1d8
Shield Spiked Heavy Shield (Bashing) - 2d6
Shield Spiked Heavy Shield (Bashing) with Enlarge Person - 3d6
Personally when I'm in doubt and I can use HeroLab to validate the rules I do so. It makes my life easier many times plus I can show it to others and know it is impartial. If they change it later then so be it.
kyrt-ryder wrote: Exactly Quantum Steve.
A Bashing Spiked Shield deals damage as if it were a weapon of two size categories larger than it actually is.
Take Spiked Shield of Medium size. Enchant it with Bashing. It now deals damage is if it were a Huge Spiked Shield.
Quote: A bashing shield deals damage as if it were a weapon of two size categories larger I don't see anything in that which specifies it deals damage as a 'normal shield' or even a 'shield' of two size categories larger.
It clearly says it deals damage 'as if it were a weapon of two size categories larger.'
A medium light spiked shield deals 1d4 damage. A Huge spiked shield deals 1d8 damage. A Medium Spiked Shield of Bashing deals 1d8 damage.
First, a huge spiked shield isn't a weapon. It's a huge shield with shield spikes.
A medium shield with shield spikes deals damage as if it were a shield sized for a large creature. i.e. a large shield
If you enchant it with Bashing it deals damage as if it were two size categories larger, i.e. a Huge shield. You start counting at the size that it is. Medium, Large, Huge. You don't start counting a Large because it isn't large, it deals damage as if it were large (thanks to the shield spikes) but it's a medium weapon.
Both modifications increase the damage, but they don't actually increase the size of the shield, so the both start counting from the baseline.
To be fair, they do mess up with statblocks before.. but that IS proof.. on two fronts
EDIT: With a quick look through the only thing I see wrong is the TWF minuses
Quantum Steve wrote: Larger than what? They have to be larger than something, they can't be larger then nothing.
Larger than... Tiny? That doesn't really work.
A bashing shield deals damage as if it were a weapon of two size categories larger than it actually is. It's the only thing you can fill in the blank that makes sense.
Edit: And if you don't like lead blades and strong jaw then use lead blades and an Impact weapon.
Both increase the size of the weapon starting at the baseline. That's why they don't stack.
Larger than what it would otherwise do damage as.
The bashing ability has no language stating that it does damage as if it were two sizes larger than it's actual size, it's baseline size, or whatever. The 'larger than what' question is vague, as both readings are grammatically valid, which means, in absence of a specific rule stating how it works, common sense needs to be applied. It would take quite a warped sense of logic to believe a bashing shield would do the exact same damage as the exact same shield with FREAKING SPIKES.
And lead blades and Impact wouldn't stack because they're both magic. Again, the rule that says only the greater effect applies is specific to spells, which by extension would apply to magic items; shield spike are not magic, so the rules on combining spell effects don't apply. Oh, and let's not forget that lead blades is one of Impact's construction requirements, meaning that you could argue that the size category increase is from the same named effect.
@Hawktitan: Hero Lab is awesome, but it's not a rules source, and it can and IS wrong about some things. That Hero Lab shows them as stacking doesn't mean they should; it means that either the developers think they should, or there's an (possibly) unintended interaction between how shield spikes and bashing are coded.
@kyrt-ryder: As Endoralis said, they have made mistakes in the past, but that does throw weight behind what I'm saying. Normal medium-sized heavy shield does 1d4 damage, and it takes three size increases to get that to 2d6.
There's a fairly extensive list of quotes from James Jacobs on the subject here, I'm not going to re-post it because that's a lot of manual formatting.
This post here is a good FAQ candidate if anyone would like to see it officially addressed.
James isn't campaign leadership, so his posts are not binding for PFS, but you're probably going to find a lot of table variation unless there's an official statement.
Grick wrote: There's a fairly extensive list of quotes from James Jacobs on the subject here, I'm not going to re-post it because that's a lot of manual formatting.
This post here is a good FAQ candidate if anyone would like to see it officially addressed.
James isn't campaign leadership, so his posts are not binding for PFS, but you're probably going to find a lot of table variation unless there's an official statement.
Yeah... he's wrong. It's happened before, mostly because he, by his own admission, is not a rules guy.
Read his post; he calls shield spikes a separate weapon, when it's not. His justification is that spiked shields have their own entry on the weapons table; the text description, however, is quite clear that they are NOT a separate weapon, but instead modify the shield bash of the base shield.
I haven't seen an equivalent post from Paizo, but in the 3.5 days, WotC's official position was that if there was ever a conflict between text descriptions and tables, the text descriptions were right, period. The shield spike description (which I quoted earlier) makes it quite clear that shield spikes do NOT count as a separate weapon, which means his entire argument is based on a mistaken assumption.
EDIT: Also, as a note, shields can be made masterwork/enchanted as a weapon, with or without shield spikes. Shield spikes themselves CANNOT be made masterwork/enchanted, any more than the pommel on your sword could; they're not a separate entity, they're part of the shield.
Pst: In WotC text vs tables, text was always right. Tables were subject to formatting errors, were prone to quick editing slip-ups, etc.
I have a medium shield with spikes it is still a medium shield it only does damage as a large shield it is not a large shield. the as if doesn't chang ethe actual size.
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
Now I take my medium shield with spikes and add bashing which causes my shield to do damage as if it was two sizes larger (which is still only medium)
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
the damage modifies the weapons size which is still medium, this is very straight forward. The 2 don't stack.
Precisely.
A Huge Spiked Light Shield is a weapon of two size categories larger than a Medium Spiked Shield. It deals deals 1d8 damage.
A Bashing Spiked Shield deals damage as if it were a weapon two size categories larger. What is the damage of a spiked shield two size categories larger than Medium? The answer is huge.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
The spikes modify the shield's damage, making it a medium weapon that does 1d6 damage. The Bashing enchant then modifies the damage, increasing the damage the shield does as if it were 2 size categories higher. At no point in the entry for Bashing does it say normal damage, base damage, or ANYTHING that would indicate that you use the pre-spikes number.
The only time effects do not stack is when they are from the same type of bonus. Bashing is a magic bonus, while spikes area mundane bonus. By the rules of the system, they stack. Otherwise, no bonuses would ever stack.
I know this is almost a year late, but you are all forgetting that a shield IS a weapon. You don't NEED shield spikes to turn it into a weapon. You can add weapon enhancements to the shield, separate from the shield (armor) enhancements, like any other weapon.
CRB says. "Shield Bash Attacks: You can bash an opponent with a heavy
shield. See “shield, heavy” on Table 6–4 for the damage dealt
by a shield bash. Used this way, a heavy shield is a martial
bludgeoning weapon. For the purpose of penalties on attack
rolls, treat a heavy shield as a one-handed weapon. If you
use your shield as a weapon, you lose its AC bonus until
your next turn. An enhancement bonus on a shield does not
improve the effectiveness of a shield bash made with it, but
the shield can be made into a magic weapon in its own right."
So, medium shield (1d4 bludgeon dmg.) + spikes = 1d6 piercing dmg. Bashing makes the damage go to 2d6. Enlarge Person spell makes it go to 3d6. Keep in mind, w/o the Imp. Shield Bash feat, you lose the AC protection of the shield.
Recent threads in Rules Questions
|
