Text has always trumped table, however.
Where is that stated in the rulebook?
The spiked shield is a weapon. It's not an effect.
It's not stated in the books, but it's how the devs have always ruled on such issues as far as I'm aware. Even in 3E/3.5 the same rulings applied as it is the order of precedence.
Tables are more easily in error than text is, so the text is the 'most correct' version. I believe a fairly famous example is the Rainbow Servant prestige class from 3.5 in which the table gave partial spell casting progression, while the text gave full progression. Later printings in other books fixed the table to match the text.
It's also been ruled that way several times in Pathfinder because tables often have a very condensed summary of something in the rules (feats for example).
Think of tables being not unlike advertisements. They are there to draw attention to the rule item to get you to read up more on it.
And feel free to do so, but claiming RAW is tenuous at best.
If I remember correctly, a really archaic ruling for shield spikes (like, 3.5 era) had it that they were basically Armor Spikes on a Shield, thus had their own Stats to them & could be Enchanted and Enhanced completely separately from the armor/shield themselves.
The difference, however, is that while Armor Spikes have a set damage dice, Shield Spikes are variable, based on the Shield (that being one damage dice higher than the Shield).
Looking at it in THAT regard, it works fine, because Impact would be placed on the Spike, and the Spike isn't counting itself as larger - it's simply variable based on the Shield it's attached to.
---
That being said, that's in RAW conflict to how the Shield Spike is presented in the Core Rulebook, so there might need to be a further ruling on this.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Scarred Wanderer from the NPC Codex is one.And I believe, since we've discussed this before, that he's the only such example.
Considering that NPC would have been written by an intern or staff tasked with making some NPC (not dev team members), we can't put much stock in why they had it to stack or not.
Saying that it was written by an intern and likely not as valid is a bit too dismissive. Keep in mind, in a book largely dedicated to stat blocks, that was a lot of vetting and editing that all got approved and is what we see. It's not just some intern's work we might see. There are several pairs of eyes that looked at it and waved it on.
Doesn't the NPC Codex contain a character that calls out using Spring Attack and Vital strike together?
[Edit] I should mention, people listed the many times that Monks used a weapon 2-handed during a Flurry when the flurry of blows blog post came out and it got over turned.
I don't consider stat blocks amazing evidence for an argument, but they do tend to give credence.
Wasn't there also a ruling years back about spiked shields and bashing stacking in 3.5 by design? I know Paizo is no longer held in constraints by backwards compatibility, but it's worth noting I think.
|
Nefreet, I'm curious. If this has came up before, who wrote much of the stat blocks in that book?
I stopped using his name. It's not necessary to keep calling him out. His name can be discovered if you really want to search for it.
Though, I will still add it to the pile of evidence that people claim allows Bashing and Shield Spikes to stack.
(I just still think it's a smaller pile than those on the other side)
Earlier in this thread, I asked for statblocks. I'd be a hypocrite if, after finding said requested statblock, I refused to consider it, citing that statblocks have been known to contain errors.
And I'm still hoping someone can find a listed price of a shield that has been enchanted as a weapon. Even if it's listed in an obscure splatbook.
I kind of like the change, though I think a few not-so-corner cases could use some clarification (like the interaction between the bashing property and shield spikes).
Probably the first FAQ that I can say that about even though it negatively hit some of my characters hard.
...it just occurred to me that Lead Blades and Bashing work on a spiked heavy shield per RAW because the spiked heavy shield is a weapon in its own right and it list a damage die. It's only the armor section that it says:"...as if the shield were designed for a creature one size category larger than you..."
A spiked heavy shield is a weapon in the weapons table. It lists a die for damage. Per the weapons table, it is affected normally by Bashing and Lead Blades.
I don't know that this is correct, and would like clarification on the matter, but I certainly like the logic behind it. It would kill these weird conceptual discrepancies without the need for more FAQ/errata.
|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Does the Mammoth Rider's Gigantic steed ability prevent the size increase from using a Dire Collar or the spell Animal Growth while retaining the bonus and penalty to stats?
Looks like it's been a bit. Has there been any further clarification regarding whether a spiked shield is a base damage item or an effect? Or has this issue been dropped?
For convenience and because I wasn't sure about the FAQ section myself:
Link to the Core Rulebook FAQ in question
As per the rules on size changes, size changes do not stack, (...) only the largest applies. The same is true of effective size increases (...). They don’t stack with each other, just take the biggest one. However, you can have one of each and they do work together (for example, enlarge person increasing your actual size to Large and a bashing shield increasing your shield’s effective size by two steps, for a total of 2d6 damage).
Yes, I saw that FAQ and understand the concept between "actual" vs "effective". No problem there.
I also saw the discussions on this and other threads that seem to address the ambiguity of the FAQ with regards to spiked shields. i.e. Are the spikes an effect that offers an "effective" size increase or is a spiked shield an item in its own right that offers an "actual" increase in base damage? The CRB seems to indicate both at the same time.
Hence my question as to whether this issue was concluded. From what I've seen so far, the discussion has only seemed to be dropped.
By the FAQ and the wording on Spiked Shields, bashing and spiked do NOT stack. Both are considered virtual size increases to a shield's damage.
YOu may wish to play Spiked Shield as an item of its own merit, in which case they do stack.
==Aelryinth
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
ambiguity of the FAQ with regards to spiked shields.
There isn't any ambiguity, if you follow the FAQ and the text of the spiked shield then they don't stack.
What ambiguity that might exist stems from those that would rather look at the chart to see the derived damage and ignore the text of the shield with the size increasing language.
My apologies, I wasn't looking to respark anything. I was just noting that in my search on this topic there seemed to be much back and forth discussion on this topic which continued after the FAQ and then suddenly ended. This was why I was asking if there had been any conclusive decision either by the community or if the Developers had chimed in anywhere to clarify things.
Regarding ambiguity, I would have to say by evidence of the posts here, there very much has been ambiguity regarding the FAQ based on the argument that the rules, as given, are simultaneously showing:
#1 shield spikes as objects that offer a virtual effect to shields (therefore the FAQ applies to them)
and
#2 spiked shields as items (both on tables, and in weapon descriptions) that are not effects, but base items in their own right (therefore the FAQ does not apply to them)
I'm not arguing this point either way, but simply because one believes a certain way, this doesn't mean that ambiguity exists only in the minds of those who disagree. The very fact that a community is undecided as to what something means points to ambiguity. My purpose of resurrecting this thread was to see if that had been overcome and a conclusion was reached. So far I have only seen people on one side of the argument repost their arguments. If people who had been on the other side of the argument agree with these new posts, then I have my answer.
Thank you. :)
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
I don't believe the developers think there is any ambiguity.
I thought the consensus was that spiked shields are an example of a size increase and therefore don't stack.
I guess I can conclude that both sides just stopped talking on the threads as they believed they were right. One side concluding they don't stack and the other concluding they do.
Fair enough. So like a few other issues, we can expect table variation. Not the answer I was hoping for, but an answer none the less. <shrug>
Thank you.
=\
There shouldn't be table variation on this.
Shield Spikes are actually listed in the FAQ as an example of a virtual size increasing effect.
There will be table variation, but not in PFS, and not by the rules.
Some DM's simply will let it slide based on personal preference.
But officially, there's no debate. Spiked shields are considered a subset of shields, spiking a shield is a virtual size increase, and that's the official position.
==Aelryinth
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Shield Spikes are actually listed in the FAQ as an example of a virtual size increasing effect.There will be table variation, but not in PFS, and not by the rules.
I'd forgotten that they called out spiked shield in the FAQ. Table variance on this issue in PFS is a GM violating the rules.
=\
There shouldn't be table variation on this.
Shield Spikes are actually listed in the FAQ as an example of a virtual size increasing effect.
Perhaps that is the FAQ I am missing then. The one I saw (which is the one this thread referenced earlier) didn't say anything about spiked shields directly. Hence the entire debate that took place up-thread for these last 4 pages.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Shield Spikes are actually listed in the FAQ as an example of a virtual size increasing effect.Perhaps that is the FAQ I am missing then.
I just looked, and I couldn't find what exactly Nefreet is indicating. I think he is possibly referring to the text pattern in the spiked shield is exactly the text pattern used in the FAQ.
I thought one thread had a PDT comment or was listed as answered in FAQ, but I couldn't find it.
I did find one of the several previous comments related to spiked bashing shields.
Ah yes, I saw that one that JJ commented on. I found it odd considering 2d6 of damage on an offhand is not hard to achieve at all. Flaming shortswords anyone?
But again, in reading this thread and others, I found either side to have an interesting argument.
#1 The Shield Spikes description specifically uses the language "as if" which indicates virtual size effect taking place on shields.
or
#2 A Spiked Shield is its own thing as listed on the Weapons Table and in the description section of weapons. The "as if" language does not apply because the FAQ is talking about effects, which a spiked shield is not.
Based on JJ's response it would at least appear RAI that spikes and bashing are not meant to stack. This doesn't make sense from a roleplaying aspect since you'd think a hard flat surface slamming into you would cause less damage than a hard flat surface with pointy bits on it slamming into you. But this isn't the first time something is written in a way for the purpose of game balance, cost balance, etc. Then again shields as armor and weapons were always a bit wonky for the average player to figure out.
But again, if this topic was really just dropped, then I wouldn't be surprised to find table variation out there in either private games or public ones. I tend to prefer bashing weapons over piercing ones anyway, so probably best to make it a non-issue from the start. :)
|
|
I think he is possibly referring to the text pattern in the spiked shield is exactly the text pattern used in the FAQ.
Although that is true as well, I misremembered Spiked Shields being specifically called out. The FAQ cites Bashing, instead.
But, in addition, going back pre-FAQ, when you look at the question I asked, which quoted that very language, and used Bashing+Shield Spikes as an example of that language, it's hard for me to see anybody interpreting the FAQ in the opposite direction.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
The "as if" language does not apply because the FAQ is talking about effects, which a spiked shield is not.
But again, if this topic was really just dropped
This issue is one of the most interesting issues I can remember. Most table variance doesn't have a FAQ using the exact phrase used in the rules. Yet we still have people rejecting the FAQ clarification?
Just so you know, an "effect" in Pathfinder rules terms is any rules element. So a spiked shield is an effect.Ah yes, I saw that one that JJ commented on. I found it odd considering 2d6 of damage on an offhand is not hard to achieve at all. Flaming shortswords anyone?
But again, in reading this thread and others, I found either side to have an interesting argument.
#1 The Shield Spikes description specifically uses the language "as if" which indicates virtual size effect taking place on shields.
or
#2 A Spiked Shield is its own thing as listed on the Weapons Table and in the description section of weapons. The "as if" language does not apply because the FAQ is talking about effects, which a spiked shield is not.
Based on JJ's response it would at least appear RAI that spikes and bashing are not meant to stack. This doesn't make sense from a roleplaying aspect since you'd think a hard flat surface slamming into you would cause less damage than a hard flat surface with pointy bits on it slamming into you. But this isn't the first time something is written in a way for the purpose of game balance, cost balance, etc. Then again shields as armor and weapons were always a bit wonky for the average player to figure out.
But again, if this topic was really just dropped, then I wouldn't be surprised to find table variation out there in either private games or public ones. I tend to prefer bashing weapons over piercing ones anyway, so probably best to make it a non-issue from the start. :)
Not 100% true, the original Feral Combat feat allowed you to use a Monk's unarmed damage instead of its base damage. This has since been reversed. It is still semi ambiguous as far as game terms go.
They removed the language from the feat itself, so its not ambiguous at all anymore. The half-elf and half-orc FAQ uses rules element as a synonym for effect, doesn't get much clearer than that.Not 100% true, the original Feral Combat feat allowed you to use a Monk's unarmed damage instead of its base damage. This has since been reversed. It is still semi ambiguous as far as game terms go.Just so you know, an "effect" in Pathfinder rules terms is any rules element. So a spiked shield is an effect.Ah yes, I saw that one that JJ commented on. I found it odd considering 2d6 of damage on an offhand is not hard to achieve at all. Flaming shortswords anyone?
But again, in reading this thread and others, I found either side to have an interesting argument.
#1 The Shield Spikes description specifically uses the language "as if" which indicates virtual size effect taking place on shields.
or
#2 A Spiked Shield is its own thing as listed on the Weapons Table and in the description section of weapons. The "as if" language does not apply because the FAQ is talking about effects, which a spiked shield is not.
Based on JJ's response it would at least appear RAI that spikes and bashing are not meant to stack. This doesn't make sense from a roleplaying aspect since you'd think a hard flat surface slamming into you would cause less damage than a hard flat surface with pointy bits on it slamming into you. But this isn't the first time something is written in a way for the purpose of game balance, cost balance, etc. Then again shields as armor and weapons were always a bit wonky for the average player to figure out.
But again, if this topic was really just dropped, then I wouldn't be surprised to find table variation out there in either private games or public ones. I tend to prefer bashing weapons over piercing ones anyway, so probably best to make it a non-issue from the start. :)
FAQs are always strictly for the item they refer to and should not be used as a basis for other rulings. I'm sure that isn't the first time you've ever heard that if you have spent any amount of time researching rules questions.
Does it set a precedent? Yes.
Does it make your blanket statement true? No.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Not 100% true, the original Feral Combat feat allowed you to use a Monk's unarmed damage instead of its base damage. This has since been reversed. It is still semi ambiguous as far as game terms go.
Monk unarmed is a rules element. So how is it not 100% true?
It would have cost them literally nothing to add a line to the FAQ which specifically says spiked shields and bashing do not stack.
A spiked shield is a weapon in its own right, it is not an effective size increase any more than a medium sword is an effective size increase to a short sword....
Except that they intentionally didn't name one rules element and instead used phrases fragments to describe. If they had named Spiked Shields then Strong Jaw people would say it doesn't apply to them.
I totally disagree with you in every way regarding this issue. I'm ok with you having the opinion that somehow despite using a phrase called out it isn't applicable, but I absolutely wouldn't allow that interpretation at any table I'm a player or GM. If I'm a player and the GM uses that interpretation, I'm done with his game.