|
| 3 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
So, I was looking through my books to find some options for my PFS Barbarian/Martial Artist Monk, when I came across the Tekko-Kagi (emphasis mine):
Tekko-Kagi: Also known as an iron claw, this device consists of a fanlike structure of three or more 10-inch blades secured to a sturdy handle strapped to the forearm of the off hand. It can be used as an offensive weapon or defensively like a buckler, or used to disarm an opponent without provoking an attack of opportunity. It provides its owner with a +2 circumstance bonus on attempts to disarm or sunder swords or other slender-bladed weapons.
So, would a Monk lose his Monk's AC bonus while wielding a Tekko-Kagi? (I'm not sure what "defensively like a buckler" is supposed to actually mean anyways)
I tried searching for this topic, and while I did find answers, I haven't found any clarification on the matter. Is it a weapon only? Is it a shield?
I'm mainly asking because if I don't find an answer to this question, then I might have to always ask the GM before the PFS scenario begins.
I'm leaning towards it being a weapon and not a shield at all (since it is listed in the table as being a weapon, and not listed in the shield entries, like a spiked shield or madu), and thus a Monk would not lose his bonus to AC. What does everyone else think?
|
|
Well, is it listed as a shield?
According to UC & UE, it is listed only in the weapon table.
Can it be enchanted as a shield?
Your guess is as good as mine on that one. :)
Does it provide a shield bonus?
Not sure. If you use the words "defensively like a buckler", then it might provide a +1 Shield bonus.
Based on those questions, I'm more certain it is a weapon and not a shield (due to the fact that it is not listed in any armor table). Now, what the text of the shield means, I have no idea.
Confusing, these weapons are.
I think he's trying to get you asking the relevant questions to your original question...
The answer is that although it suggest you can use it defensively, there is no mechanical rule that says you can. IE it's just a weapon and never a shield.
Well, not really. "Can be used...like a buckler" is theoretically mechanical text; it's just poorly written which is the OP's problem. Theoretically, "can be used as an offensive weapon or defensively like a buckler" means that you can choose to treat the weapon as a weapon (using its normal stats) or as a buckler (using a buckler's stats).
Of course it gives no indication of when this choice is made or what kind of action it takes, etc. But still, it must almost certainly mean that the tekko-kagi can grant you a shield bonus. What else could "can be used... defensively like a buckler" possibly have been intended to mean?
Your interpretation, lantzkev- "it's just a weapon and never a shield"- completely ignores that section of text in the tekko kagi's entry, which has to be just as bad as reaching a little when making assumptions about the mechanical effects.
But the bottom line, Entilzha, is that you have understood this weapon as fully as it can be understood from the rules as (poorly) written, and so yes, you are probably just going to have to ask your GM before every game.
How do they get away with writing some of this stuff?
Incidentally, the other annoying section of text in the tekko-kagi is " It provides its owner with a +2 circumstance bonus on attempts to disarm or sunder swords or other slender-bladed weapons."
Is the circumstance bonus intended to be added to the +2 untyped bonus the weapon is already getting for having the disarm special quality? By RAW I would think yes, but you just know some GMs are going to look at you askance when you try to convince them the thing gives you a +4 bonus to your disarming CMB.
Also, I don't believe there's actually any mechanical meaning to "slender-bladed weapons" so, once again, this weapon is provoking you to haggle with GMs.
|
Your interpretation, lantzkev- "it's just a weapon and never a shield"- completely ignores that section of text in the tekko kagi's entry,
When you go to the armor section is the weapon listed there under shield? Nope... however other enteries are in both sections...
which has to be just as bad as reaching a little when making assumptions about the mechanical effects.
no ignoring non mechanical text to determine its mechanical benefit is not as bad as adding your own mechanical benefit when it simply isn't written.
Of course it gives no indication of when this choice is made or what kind of action it takes, etc. But still, it must almost certainly mean that the tekko-kagi can grant you a shield bonus. What else could "can be used... defensively like a buckler" possibly have been intended to mean?
if it bothers you too much you can play it that way, but rule wise it has no actual defensive properites since it doesn't list any.
Is the circumstance bonus intended to be added to the +2 untyped bonus the weapon is already getting for having the disarm special quality? By RAW I would think yes, but you just know some GMs are going to look at you askance when you try to convince them the thing gives you a +4 bonus to your disarming CMB.
yes it's raw and rai. (see swordbreaker dagger) it's meant to be really good at what it's supposed to do.
no ignoring non mechanical text to determine its mechanical benefit is not as bad as adding your own mechanical benefit when it simply isn't
written.
1. Says who?
2. you have missed my point, which is that "can be used...as a buckler" is clearly intended to be mechanical text- it's just bad.
if it bothers you too much you can play it that way, but rule wise it has no actual defensive properites since it doesn't list any.
Yes it does. It says it has the defensive properties of a buckler. We are just left to decide what that means, exactly.
..yes it's raw and rai. (see swordbreaker dagger) it's meant to be really good at what it's supposed to do.
You're just...saying things. If you're the GM that's fine. But my entire point is that this weapon is the ultimate troll weapon- it's just bound to incite GM/player arguments on many fronts, just as it would clearly be doing between you and I were one of us at the other's table.
|
|
1. Says who?
we're done arguing over the rules if you think non-rules are as valid as rules. (this is the rules question forum)
2. you have missed my point, which is that "can be used...as a buckler" is clearly intended to be mechanical text- it's just bad.
you can argue the intent all day, but the rules do not allow it to be used as a buckler it'd contain wording similar to the klar or the madu... IF we were to take your interpretation of the fluff to be true, would we also assume we could wield a weapon while wielding it?
You're just...saying things. If you're the GM that's fine.
If you don't like rules being quoted, don't read the rules forum.
But my entire point is that this weapon is the ultimate troll weapon-
no the weapon pretty clearly states what it does....
Tekko-kagi 2 gp 1d2/1d3 ×2P Disarm, see text... It provides its owner with a +2 circumstance bonus on attempts to disarm or sunder swords or other slender-bladed weapons.
everything else is just fluff.
we're done arguing over the rules if you think non-rules are as valid as rules. (this is the rules question forum)
First of all, stop being that guy.
you can argue the intent all day, but the rules do not allow it to be used as a buckler it'd contain wording similar to the klar or the madu... IF we were to take your interpretation of the fluff to be true, would we also assume we could wield a weapon while wielding it?
I agree it should have contained wording similar to the klar, etc. But it doesn't, so we are left wondering. Look, I even agree with your overall point about fluff vs mechanics. What I am saying about this weapon is that it's a special case because "can be used...defensively as a buckler" is NOT fluff text. It is just extremely unclear mechanical text.
If you don't like rules being quoted, don't read the rules forum.
You're being that guy again here.
no the weapon pretty clearly states what it does....
Now that is just not true, as the existence of this thread goes to show.
|
|
Now that is just not true, as the existence of this thread goes to show.
the existance of a thread doesn't validate the question presented.
we have a thread about if an archaeologist gets performace... an ability it clearly gives up...
a question about if shade spells can somehow bypass the limitations presented within
if instant armor makes a monk lose his ac bonus
and this is all from the first page.
As you can tell, a threads existance hardly makes the question any more valid. (This isn't to say you shouldn't ask questions when you're unclear... but that doesn't make it unclear)
the existance of a thread doesn't validate the question presented.
I never said it did, as a rule. But this case is unlike the examples you cite. The OP is clearly a bright guy who has done some homework to try to find an answer already. I agree with him that the tekko-kagi has unclear rules text and could use some clarification.
|
|
well it's pretty clear to every poster in this thread but you that regardless of the intent there is no mechanical way to use it as a buckler presented.
The examples I cited were all examples of questions easily answered on your own, but are asked anyhow. It doesn't make them tricky or difficult questions, just something someone didn't know.
I've seen people ask how to roll a die on this forum before...
|
There are already weapons that are not shields, that can provide a shield bonus to AC.
They are weapons with the Blocking feature.
The Tekko-Kagi does not have this feature.
It is also, not a shield.
It cannot be enchanted, as a shield.
Maybe, there will be an errata, giving it the Blocking quality, or making it a full on shield.
Until then, it has no such qualities.
well it's pretty clear to every poster in this thread but you that regardless of the intent there is no mechanical way to use it as a buckler presented.
Every poster except, oh, me and the OP. That leaves, hm, you and blackblood. So what I think you meant to say is that it is clear to every poster on this thread except for half of them.
Maybe, there will be an errata, giving it the Blocking quality, or making it a full on shield.
Until then, it has no such qualities.
But I can still use it defensively as a buckler. It says so. So I'm in your game and I decide the time has come and I use my tekko kagi defensively as a buckler. What happens? Nothing? Then you have to prove to me that "you may use the tekko kagi defensively as a buckler" is a statement entirely devoid of meaning. Otherwise, damn it, I am using my tekko kagi defensively as a buckler!
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sounds like the weapon is missing the Blocking quality.
If it was my game, I would houserule it to have such quality.
It would be a good houserule, but I wouldn't call it RAW.
I would argue, that it is RAI though.
|
|
So I'm in your game and I decide the time has come and I use my tekko kagi defensively as a buckler. What happens? Nothing? Then you have to prove to me that "you may use the tekko kagi defensively as a buckler" is a statement entirely devoid of meaning. Otherwise, damn it, I am using my tekko kagi defensively as a buckler!
If you're at my PFS table, nothing happens, your guy fights with one "blocking" punches and weapons with it, but mechanically he gets no benefit.
If you're at my table, you can treat it as a buckler that you can't wield other things in your hand.
Sounds like the weapon is missing the Blocking quality.
If it was my game, I would houserule it to have such quality.
It would be a good houserule, but I wouldn't call it RAW.
I would argue, that it is RAI though.
With the blocking quality it would only work as a buckler while fighting defensively.
As I understand the weapon you can use it for defence while otherwise attacking normally.But I understand it that is gives a shield bonus without counting as a shield. As such the monk would retain his monk abilities while doing so. Same as with a blocking weapon.
Hey! I was just talking about nigh unusable weapons due to poor wording!
|
|
I think at this point, I'm looking at needing to ask the PFS GM before every game what he/she thinks on the matter, since there is definitely a grey area on how exactly the Tekko-Kagi functions.
However, one thing I am heavily leaning towards is that, since every (non-magical) shield would be listed within an armor table, that it is only a weapon, and not a shield.
Thanks for everyone's opinion. Feel free to keep up the discussion if you all still want. I'm going to hit FAQ to flag this just in case.
BTW, giving it the Blocking quality and clarifying that the "defensively like a buckler" would probably be the best way to explain it.
We give it blocking in home games (plus we give all fist-load/worn weapons the, "cannot be disarmed," quality similar to gauntlets).
I wouldn't bring a tekko-kagi character to a public PFS game unless I planned to only use it as a weapon with the listed mechanics. Public GMs deserve to have as few rules headaches as possible dropped in their lap.
|
|
We give it blocking in home games (plus we give all fist-load/worn weapons the, "cannot be disarmed," quality similar to gauntlets).
I wouldn't bring a tekko-kagi character to a public PFS game unless I planned to only use it as a weapon with the listed mechanics. Public GMs deserve to have as few rules headaches as possible dropped in their lap.
Yeah, I agree. I normally try to avoid bringing anything that has any issues with mechanics. Lucky for me, my character won't be based around using a Tekko-Kagi. Rather, it's an option for me to use when I have to move and can't flurry. (And the only resource I will use will be the gold to buy a Cracked White Opalescent Pyramid Ioun Stone.)
If the GM has any real issues with the weapon, then I just won't use it that session (but rather will just leave it at the Pathfinder Society Lodge or something).
|
|
yeah I will say this, regardless of how you look at it, it's not a shield option for monks right now.
If it acts as a buckler for you, it's a buckerl shield... ie shield no monk ac bonus.
It lacks the blocking property outright, so there's no defensive gain from this for monks that can't be had elsewhere.
|
|
What may be more problematic for the Monk is that it says that it's "strapped to the forearm of the off-hand"... Monk's don't have "off-hands"...
Now, I believe that the no "off-hand" thing pertains to the damage done by a monk, but I know in the core of my soul that there is a GM sitting at a PFS table somewhere waiting to squash this idea...
|
|
What may be more problematic for the Monk is that it says that it's "strapped to the forearm of the off-hand"... Monk's don't have "off-hands"...
Now, I believe that the no "off-hand" thing pertains to the damage done by a monk, but I know in the core of my soul that there is a GM sitting at a PFS table somewhere waiting to squash this idea...
Outside of two weapon fighting, the off-hand does not exist.
So, there is no problem.