Shield Weirdness?


Rules Questions

51 to 100 of 132 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

Aelryinth wrote:
But at the official tables, they aren't going to stack.

I can guarantee you there are PFS GMs who will let them stack regardless of your interpretation.


N N 959 wrote:
Aelryinth wrote:
But at the official tables, they aren't going to stack.
I can guarantee you there are PFS GMs who will let them stack regardless of your interpretation.

It's not an interpretation, it's explicitly called out.

Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
Quote:
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.
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.
Quote:

Size increases and effective size increases: How does damage work if I have various effects that change my actual size, my effective size, and my damage dice?

As per the rules on size changes, size changes do not stack, so if you have multiple size changing effects (for instance an effect that increases your size by one step and another that increases your size by two steps), only the largest applies. The same is true of effective size increases (which includes “deal damage as if they were one size category larger than they actually are,” “your damage die type increases by one step,” and similar language). 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).

Just because a PFS GM lets you cheat, doesn't mean it's not cheating.


And for the umpteenth time, a spiked shield is a weapon, not a virtual increase.

On shield spikes, there you might be right. I'll make sure and ask anyone if they bought a spiked shield, or if they put spikes on their shield.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

Agreed. Without a specific exemption, they don't stack. There's no differentiation between magic and non-magic virtua size increases.

I'll ignore it in home games, but the rules are very firm. Without the exclusion, they don't stack.

==Aelryinth

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

N N 959 wrote:

And for the umpteenth time, a spiked shield is a weapon, not a virtual increase.

On shield spikes, there you might be right. I'll make sure and ask anyone if they bought a spiked shield, or if they put spikes on their shield.

And for the Umpteenth+1 time, the rules overrule your opinion.

The language is RIGHT THERE. You can ignore it in a home game, but that's you.

==Aelryinth


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.
PRD wrote:

Shield Master (Combat)

Your mastery of the shield allows you to fight with it without hindrance.

Prerequisites: Improved Shield Bash, Shield Proficiency, Shield Slam, Two-Weapon Fighting, base attack bonus +11.
Benefit: You do not suffer any penalties on attack rolls made with a shield while you are wielding another weapon. Add your shield's enhancement bonus to attacks and damage rolls made with the shield as if it was a weapon enhancement bonus.

If a person has STR ability damage, do you apply that to shield bashes under Shield Master? If you do, you're house ruling.

... the rules overrule your opinion.

The language is RIGHT THERE. You can ignore it in a home game, but that's you.


N N 959 wrote:

And for the umpteenth time, a spiked shield is a weapon, not a virtual increase.

On shield spikes, there you might be right. I'll make sure and ask anyone if they bought a spiked shield, or if they put spikes on their shield.

You can't buy a spiked shield.

Per the PRD and CRB shields and spiked shields have A price listing as special in the weapons table.

So we go to the armor section.
Shields have a price listing but there is no listing for spiked shield
There is however a listing for shield spikes under extra in the armor chart +10gp So by the PRD and CRB spikes are added to a shield, so is a virtual size increase.


Rules say I can enchant a spiked shield as a magic weapon in its own right. The PDT openly states a "spiked shield" is a martial weapon.

Others in this thread agree that a spiked shield is a weapon in its own right. I can buy a spiked shield. Going to another table to determine price has no bearing on whether it's a weapon in its own right.

Play the game as you see fit.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

N N 959 wrote:
PRD wrote:

Shield Master (Combat)

Your mastery of the shield allows you to fight with it without hindrance.

Prerequisites: Improved Shield Bash, Shield Proficiency, Shield Slam, Two-Weapon Fighting, base attack bonus +11.
Benefit: You do not suffer any penalties on attack rolls made with a shield while you are wielding another weapon. Add your shield's enhancement bonus to attacks and damage rolls made with the shield as if it was a weapon enhancement bonus.

If a person has STR ability damage, do you apply that to shield bashes under Shield Master? If you do, you're house ruling.

... the rules overrule your opinion.

The language is RIGHT THERE. You can ignore it in a home game, but that's you.

That's actually a horrible example, since Str Drain is not a penalty to attack rolls, it's a penalty to Str. The lower Str then imposes a penalty if you drop below 10.

You should have used Curse, or Exhaustion, or a Size L Shield, or a Str score under 10, just to illustrate that its obviously not defined correctly.

And you know what? We agree with you. It's obviously wrong, it wasn't supposed to mean that, yet it does. And pretty much everyone alive is going to agree with that....them's the rules, yep, and THE RULES ARE WRONG.

On the other hand, the FAQ correcting Bashing addresses the very issue, and while most people want them to stack, the rules specifically state they don't, and you still want the official FAQ to be what you want, when that's not what the rules say.

Them's the rules AND I DON"T LIKE THEM is not the same thing. But they are consistent and make sense and are balanced, and I can live with it.

Being able to wield a Gargantuan Heavy Shield with no penalty to bash with? Not so much.

===Aelryinth


I don't really have more to add on this topic.

Play the game as you see fit.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

N N 959 wrote:

Rules say I can enchant a spiked shield as a magic weapon in its own right. The PDT openly states a "spiked shield" is a martial weapon.

Others in this thread agree that a spiked shield is a weapon in its own right. I can buy a spiked shield. Going to another table to determine price has no bearing on whether it's a weapon in its own right.

Play the game as you see fit.

as was pointed out, you can't buy a spiked shield. You can buy a shield with spikes added to it.

And since you can't buy a spiked shield, RAW, it doesn't exist, so the damage on the table is in error, as no such weapon exists.

I guess we're going to have to go back to the 'Text Trumps Table' rule, since SPiked shields don't exist.

And what do those rules say?

Oh, you can add spikes to a shield...okay, that matches the purchase tables...and they change damage to piercing and as if a size larger.

Well! There you go.

Non-existent spiked shields are irrelevant, since you can't acquire them, and without a price, you can't even MAKE them. They don't exist!

I wonder how that non-existent weapon got onto the damage tables? Strange.

==Aelryinth

Community Manager

Removed posts and their replies. Accusations of cheating don't help the discussion.


@ N N 959: Actually, I can. One weapon is sized for a Large creature. A Medium or Huge creature trying to wield it suffers penalties to hit. The other weapon is sized for a Medium creature, but deals damage as if it were a Large-sized weapon, meaning Small, Large, and Huge-sized creatures suffer penalties for wielding it. That's what an Effective Size bonus is, that's what Shield Spikes emulate, and that's why Bashing (a higher-level Effective Size bonus) and Shield Spikes do not stack.

Correct, rules if left to pure RAW generally make the game unplayable, and thus RAI keeps that in check, though RAW still serves a non-RAI precedent; the PDT FAQs and Erratas are the official RAI on subjects whose RAW is unclear or inconsistent, and overturns all other RAI. Including yours. Including mine. Including everybody and their grandma's RAI.

So the PDT interpreted actual and virtual size increases, regardless of their source, to not stack with each other, the same way that bonuses of the same type do not stack with each other (which is also the reasoning behind this FAQ). The FAQ doesn't care what source the actual/virtual size increases come from, whether it's magical, mundane, or whatever; it applies to all of these things equally. Because after all, your ruling would allow us to stack Bull's Strength with Belts of Giant's Strength, Masterwork quality with Greater Magic Weapon (or even a magic + Enhancement weapon), and other stupid shenanigans, since the lack of that FAQ breaks their other precedents. Last I checked, going the more conservative route is generally the more favored way to go in regards to rules interpretations, especially when it comes to the PDT making a FAQ ruling. So, because your ruling results in ridiculous, obviously unintended shenanigans, the concept is quite clear.

The PDT provided their rationale, it's listed in the FAQ. Size bonuses are still a bonus, and bonuses of the same type do not stack. The rules regarding Size bonuses also apply to Effective Size bonuses, as per the FAQ. So you can stack a single Size bonus and a single Effective Size bonus, the same way you can stack a single Natural Armor bonus and a single Enhancement to Natural Armor bonus. The RAI regarding those subjects are identical, so if you break the former, you should also break the latter.

Disregarding the FAQ, you're still not beating Specific Trumps General. The specific written rules regarding Shield Spikes overrules any sort of cheese you might come up with in regards to what's listed in the weapons table, so this includes Spiked Clubs/Maces and Spiked Chains and Spike Traps and whatever. You can't apply Shield Spike rules to those other weapons because Shield Spikes apply only to shields. That's why they're called SHIELD spikes. To denote that they're a type of spike that's separate from the others, both in mechanics and in application, the same way Spells and Spell-Like Abilities are different, even though they are functionally and realistically the same thing.

After all, your cheesy ruling would suggest that I could come across a Spiked Pit trap, remove all of the spikes by hand (because who needs a Disable Device check when I can Sunder every single spike that's down there), nullify the trap (if there's no spikes, it's no longer a Spiked Pit trap), put them on my Shield without any sort of issue or downtime at all, and have it become the same effect as Shield Spikes on a Shield. Except you know that's 100% cheese and no sane GM, both PFS and homebrew, would allow that sort of crap to fly in their games. Whereas it's much simpler (and less rules-consistency-breaking) to say "Yup, these don't stack, so it's XDY damage."

If you're still not convinced, go to an "Ask (random dev) all your questions here!" thread, post your predicament, see what they say. If you want to take a more active approach, build a PFS character, play him for the specific purpose of purchasing a Spiked Bashing Shield for a triple Effective Size bonus to your damage dice, and see if the PFS GMs will let it fly at their table. If they tell you the same damn things I have, then you're just gonna have to suck it up and face that you've been homebrewing your rulings this whole time.


Lets see the rules shall we?

wrote:


Spiked Shield, Heavy or Light

Description: You can bash with a spiked shield instead of using it for defense.

Shield Bash Attacks

You can bash an opponent with a shield, using it as an off-hand weapon. Used this way, a shield is a martial bludgeoning 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.

wrote:


Shield Spikes

Benefit: 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.

An enhancement bonus on a spiked shield does not improve the effectiveness of a shield bash made with it, but a spiked shield can be made into a magic weapon in its own right.

For the part in italics: Is it so that the shield becomes a different weapon, or is it a flavor text for a size increase? You could easily rule that the spiked shield is a different weapon entirely due to its own entry in the weapon table. ( why does it have its own entry instead of using the weapon size table that is in the same chapter? )

For the part in bold: This discussion is still prevalent and for some unclear due to the part that attacking with a spiked shield is *still* a shield bash despite being counted as a martial weapon in its own right.

Also the description on a spiked shield still refer to doing bludgeoning damage, while the spikes addition say it turn into piercing. Might be a writers error, or its merely copy/pasted from the section about shield bashing.


Dracoknight wrote:

Lets see the rules shall we?

wrote:


Spiked Shield, Heavy or Light

Description: You can bash with a spiked shield instead of using it for defense.

Shield Bash Attacks

You can bash an opponent with a shield, using it as an off-hand weapon. Used this way, a shield is a martial bludgeoning 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.

wrote:


Shield Spikes

Benefit: 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.

An enhancement bonus on a spiked shield does not improve the effectiveness of a shield bash made with it, but a spiked shield can be made into a magic weapon in its own right.

For the part in italics: Is it so that the shield becomes a different weapon, or is it a flavor text for a size increase? You could easily rule that the spiked shield is a different weapon entirely due to its own entry in the weapon table. ( why does it have its own entry instead of using the weapon size table that is in the same chapter? )

For the part in bold: This discussion is still prevalent and for some unclear due to the part that attacking with a spiked shield is *still* a shield bash despite being counted as a martial weapon in its own right.

Also the description on a spiked shield still refer to doing bludgeoning damage, while the spikes addition say it turn into piercing. Might be a writers error, or its merely copy/pasted from the section about shield bashing.

Outdated rules set is outdated. It's more accurate to use the Paizo PRD, since Paizo themselves keep their stuff updated with their own official Erratas. Other sites, although good for finding material, also has their official stuff not so up-to-snuff, as evidenced by the first item quotation (FAQ and Errata doesn't include the "off-hand" junk).

Here's the PRD for Equipment, this includes both Weapons and Armor and whatever attachments, such as Shield Spikes. This actually has the weapon descriptions for both Shields and Spiked Shields the exact same. To quote for reference:

Shield, Heavy or Light wrote:
You can bash with a shield instead of using it for defense.
Spiked Shield, Heavy or Light wrote:
You can bash with a spiked shield instead of using it for defense.

That's all that's listed for weapon descriptions. The Armor section has the other descriptions.

The italicized part is an Effective Size bonus to your damage dice, that is, the shield sized for a Medium creature bashes as if it were a shield for a Large sized creature, meaning you use a higher base damage die, but it doesn't actually require the character to be larger in size to use properly, which is why it's called an Effective Size bonus, because the actual size of the item does not change, only its effectiveness does. The reason why it has its own entry is for ease of reference, the same reason Agile Breastplate and Breastplate have their own separate entries, even though they're basically the same damn thing with unique benefits.

The FAQ gives examples as to what constitutes an Effective Size bonus, and Shield Spikes fall under one of the examples. Effective Size bonuses are like any other bonuses, and do not stack with themselves under any circumstance, the same way stat belt/headbands and their corresponding spell buffs don't stack together; because they're both of the same type, and same type bonuses (barring certain exceptions, of which both Effective Size and Enhancement bonuses aren't one of them) don't stack. Period.

The source of the bonus does not matter, the reasoning behind this ruling is already set in similar, previous precedents (stacking the same types of things over and over indefinitely), and breaking this ruling would result in breaking the other rulings, since you're not only breaking the rule in question, you're breaking the precedent behind the rule that the PDT's design values follow.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

1 person marked this as a favorite.
N N 959 wrote:


I have a hard time believing that the PDT completely overlooked spiked shields when they wrote this FAQ, so I am not sure why they didn't address spiked shields specifically

Well the FAQ was in response to "does spiked and bashing stack? Does Ina and strong jaw stack?"

So the generic answer applies to both.


Nefreet wrote:
Scott Wilhelm wrote:
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
Everyone pointing out that the FAQ does not address shield spikes and bashing are ignoring the fact that if the devs wanted them to stack, could have easily called out an exemption for shield spikes and bashing in that very same FAQ.

The devs don't have to create a special exemption for spiked shields if the rulebooks say Shield Spikes already stack with the Bashing Enchantment. The Barbarian in the NPC Codex makes it clear that those shield spikes do not constitute a real size increase. His Heavy, Spiked, Bashing Shield does 2d6, and so shall my PFS characters'.

Three things:

1) The NPC Codex is riddled with errors. The most egregious of these are in the Animal Companion statblocks, which had the same author as the Dwarf in question. It's not a very strong foundation to stand on.

2) Statblocks do not create rules. Look to the Additional Resources document and look to see if that 2d6 shield is available in PFS (it's not).

3) PFS GMs are (supposed) to follow all official errata, forum posts, and FAQs. Your character would be required to as well. So, no, if you sit down at a PFS table, your Bashing Spiked Heavy Shield will be doing 1d8 damage.

It may be the case that the NPC Codex has errors, but errors in part or parts of the book do not discredit the whole thing or make it not an official and binding interpretation of the rules that PFS referees are supposed to follow. Even if the Scarred Wanderer has been given a 2d6 Shield Bash by mistake, that doesn't mean that that is not an official interpretation and ours to use until--if ever--Paizo changes it.

The Core Rulebook characterization of shield spikes as a virtual size increase was made before there was such a conceit in the rules as a virtual size increase that does not stack with other virtual size increases. Now that this thing exists, reviewing the real meaning of the description of Shield Spikes in the CRB is called for, because this application of the new rule has a dramatic consequence on shield-bearers that is completely counter-intuitive and we know for a fact cannot have been intended (unless the Core Rulebook was written by Nostradamus). Although admittedly, whether or not it was intended doesn't change what the rules say.

The latest official word on the subject to my knowledge, though, is the NPC Codex and the Scarred Wanderer Barbarian whose Heavy, Spiked, Bashing Shield does 2d6.

You raise the interesting point that that interpretation of the rules might be in error. But I don't think that being in error makes it not the official interpretation of how Bashing works on a Spiked Shield.

Someone--I forget who, sorry--made the interesting observation that many Paizo books over the first sever months of their release have a period of errata-editing, and the Scarred Wanderer's Shield Bash may well be diminished by the end of it. It will be interesting to see whether that happens.

Vis a vis the OP, he was almost definitely talking about a homespun campaign he was running himself, so within the context of this thread, the debate is probably just academic.

Vis a vis PFS, it probably is better to follow my earlier advice. Instead of using a Heavy, Spiked Shield, use a Klar, which although it has spikes, the weapon description in UE makes it NOT a Spiked Shield! So with no virtual size increase to not stack with, the Bashing Enchantment goes from 1d6 to 2d6. It's a shame to lose a point of Shield Bonus AC protection, but it might be worth it to avoid the risk of a GM ruling against you, perhaps falsely.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.
Scott Wilhelm wrote:
Vis a vis PFS, it probably is better to follow my earlier advice. Instead of using a Heavy, Spiked Shield, use a Klar, which although it has spikes, the weapon description in UE makes it NOT a Spiked Shield! So with no virtual size increase to not stack with, the Bashing Enchantment goes from 1d6 to 2d6. It's a shame to lose a point of Shield Bonus AC protection, but it might be worth it to avoid the risk of a GM ruling against you, perhaps falsely.

Ah, Please, let's not start about klar's.

An attack with the slashing blade of a klar is not a shield bash, so Bashing will not work with it.

If you want to Bash with a Klar, it specifically says its treated as a light spiked shield. Bashing would stack with that use of a Klar.

So, you can bash with a Klar, or slash with a Klar, but Bashing enhancement only affects the former.

Still cheaper then a short sword + small spiked shield, however.

==Aelryinth


Now I have something to add.

James Risner wrote:
N N 959 wrote:


I have a hard time believing that the PDT completely overlooked spiked shields when they wrote this FAQ, so I am not sure why they didn't address spiked shields specifically

Well the FAQ was in response to "does spiked and bashing stack? Does Ina and strong jaw stack?"

So the generic answer applies to both.

Nefreet has repeatedly insisted this is the case. But let's look at Nefreet's specific question that he himself bolded:

Nefreet wrote:
QUESTION: Do combinations of magical/non-magical damage dice increases (such as Improved Natural Attack & Strong Jaw, or Shield Spikes & Bashing) stack together?

Now let's look the actual FAQ question:

Paizo FAQ wrote:
Size increases and effective size increases: How does damage work if I have various effects that change my actual size, my effective size, and my damage dice?.

I'm hard pressed to see how you've come to the conclusion that the devs were specifically answering Nefreet's question when they fail to name any of the abilities he was specifically asking about. Nefreet's explanation is to insist that the devs were answering in the general. Well, they were answering in the general. They were answering the general question about all the effects (spells, SLAs, and possibly feats) that use "as if" language.

Let's look at another FAQ,

Paizo FAQ wrote:

Weapon Special Ability, Impact: Does this stack with the lead blades spell?

No. The weapon special ability and the spell are similar effects; note that impact lists lead blades as a construction requirement.

What do we see here? A reference to the specific spells, not a general response. What's more...there is a rationale given for why these two spells don't. We see none of that in response to Nefreet's question.

Let's look at the beloved FAQ a little more closely...

"How does damage work if I have various effects...."

Is a spiked shield an "effect" I say it is not and I see nothing in the FAQ which says that a spiked shield is an "effect." If it is not an effect, then the metagame mechanics are not relevant. The question addresses "effects" and a spiked shield is not an effect on a shield. You don't agree? I can live with that.

That having been said, my cursory look at INA/Strong Jaw says they don't stack. In my opinion, INA is an effect. INA is not a weapon in its own right. IMO, it is irrelevant whether INA/Spiked shields use similar language to describe the mechanics. They are fundamentally different. But I'm not focused on the INA/SJ part of this discussion so someone could convince me I am wrong.


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.
Aelryinth wrote:
Scott Wilhelm wrote:
Vis a vis PFS, it probably is better to follow my earlier advice. Instead of using a Heavy, Spiked Shield, use a Klar, which although it has spikes, the weapon description in UE makes it NOT a Spiked Shield! So with no virtual size increase to not stack with, the Bashing Enchantment goes from 1d6 to 2d6. It's a shame to lose a point of Shield Bonus AC protection, but it might be worth it to avoid the risk of a GM ruling against you, perhaps falsely.

Ah, Please, let's not start about klar's.

An attack with the slashing blade of a klar is not a shield bash, so Bashing will not work with it.

If you want to Bash with a Klar, it specifically says its treated as a light spiked shield. Bashing would stack with that use of a Klar.

So, you can bash with a Klar, or slash with a Klar, but Bashing enhancement only affects the former.

Still cheaper then a short sword + small spiked shield, however.

==Aelryinth

Oh, let's.

Unless you are using a shield for a combat maneuver like Bull Rushing with Shield Slam or something, all melee attacks with shields are shield bashes.

The fact that the Klar is the only shield that does slashing damage on a shield bash is interesting, but there is no rule that creates some kind of non-bash melee attack just to nerf the Klar.

Even if you were right that a melee attack with a Klar were not a shield bash, the Bashing Enchantment would still increase the damage of the Klar from 1d6 to 2d6.

Ultimate Equipment, Bashing wrote:
A bashing shield deals damage as if it were a weapon of two size categories larger

It does not differentiate between shield bashing and the non-bashing melee attack, because the non-bashing melee shield attack does not exist, but if it did, the Bashing Enchantment would enhance that, too.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Imbicatus wrote:

I agree that per the FAQ, because of the idiotic line in shield spikes that reference size increases, that a spiked shield and a bashing shield do not stack and does 1d8 damage.

What should happen, is that the size language should be removed from spiked shields, as they are not a virtual size increase, they are a separate weapon that does more damage. Just as a Morning Star does damage as Club one size larger, that does not mean that the addition of spikes to the club made it a virtual size increase.

however, weapon focus(heavy shield) applies to both the spiked and non version, and the action is exactly the same except it does more damage, also this is the only way pathfinder has to change damage dice of weapons intuitively, for example, how do you change the damage of a large creature's shield and have it proportional to a medium creature's shield.

it wouldn't be a weapon attachment anymore if they separated it.


N N 959 wrote:


Let's look at another FAQ,

Paizo FAQ wrote:

Weapon Special Ability, Impact: Does this stack with the lead blades spell?

No. The weapon special ability and the spell are similar effects; note that impact lists lead blades as a construction requirement.

What do we see here? A reference to the specific spells, not a general response. What's more...there is a rationale given for why these two spells don't. We see none of that in response to Nefreet's question.

Let's look at the beloved FAQ a little more closely...

"How does damage work if I have various effects...."

Is a...

yes lets look at another FAQ

PRD wrote:


Exotic Weapons and Hands: If a weapon is wielded two-handed as a martial weapon and one-handed with an exotic weapon proficiency, can I wield it one-handed without the exotic proficiency at a –4 penalty?

No.
Note that normally you can't wield a two-handed weapon in one hand. A bastard sword is an exception to that rule that you can't wield a two-handed weapon in one hand, but you must have special training to use the bastard sword this way. Without that special training, wielding a bastard sword one-handed is as impossible as wielding a greatsword one-handed.
(The same goes for other weapons with this one-handed exotic exception, such as the dwarven waraxe.)

Edit 7/26/13: Correction of a typo in the second sentence that said "you can't wield a two-handed weapon in two hands."

except their explanation makes no sense because a bastard sword is not a two-handed weapon:

PRD wrote:

Bastard Sword: Is this a one-handed weapon or a two-handed weapon?

A bastard sword is a one-handed weapon (although for some rules it blurs the line between a one-handed and a two-handed weapon).

But NONE of this changes the fact that per the PRD and CRB, shield spikes are an effect. The one listing in the weapons table doesn't trump the rules text and the armor table.

PRD wrote:


Shield, Heavy; Wooden or Steel: You strap a shield to your forearm and grip it with your hand. A heavy shield is so heavy that you can't use your shield hand for anything else.

Wooden or Steel: Wooden and steel shields offer the same basic protection, though they respond differently to spells and effects.

Shield Bash Attacks: 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. 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.

Shield, Light; Wooden or Steel: You strap a shield to your forearm and grip it with your hand. A light shield's weight lets you carry other items in that hand, although you cannot use weapons with it.

Wooden or Steel: Wooden and steel shields offer the same basic protection, though they respond differently to some spells and effects.

Shield Bash Attacks: You can bash an opponent with a light shield. See “shield, light” on Table: Weapons for the damage dealt by a shield bash. Used this way, a light shield is a martial bludgeoning weapon. For the purpose of penalties on attack rolls, treat a light shield as a light 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.

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.

An enhancement bonus on a spiked shield does not improve the effectiveness of a shield bash made with it, but a spiked shield can be made into a magic weapon in its own right.

You will note again there is no spiked, shield description. There are light and heavy shield descriptions and shield spike descriptions. The rules text clearly says "turns" into which is an effect.


If I add eggs to flour, it "turns" the flour into batter. Eggs are not an "effect."

If I add blue dye to yellow dye, it "turns" the yellow dye into green dye. Blue dye is not an "effect."

Nevan Oaks wrote:
You will note again there is no spiked, shield description. There are light and heavy shield descriptions and shield spike descriptions. The rules text clearly says "turns" into which is an effect.

Uhhh... what?

Core p. 148 wrote:
Spiked Shield, Heavy or Light: You can bash with a spiked shield instead of using it for defense. See page 152 for details.
Core p.56 on Fighter weapon groups wrote:
Close: gauntlet, heavy shield, light shield, punching dagger, sap, spiked armor, spiked gauntlet, spiked shield, and unarmed strike.

Sorry, a spiked shield is a weapon...not an "effect" on a shield.

Play the game as you see fit.


N N 959 wrote:

If I add eggs to flour, it "turns" the flour into batter. Eggs are not an "effect."

If I add blue dye to yellow dye, it "turns" the yellow dye into green dye. Blue dye is not an "effect."

Nevan Oaks wrote:
You will note again there is no spiked, shield description. There are light and heavy shield descriptions and shield spike descriptions. The rules text clearly says "turns" into which is an effect.

Uhhh... what?

Core p. 148 wrote:
Spiked Shield, Heavy or Light: You can bash with a spiked shield instead of using it for defense. See page 152 for details.
Core p.56 on Fighter weapon groups wrote:
Close: gauntlet, heavy shield, light shield, punching dagger, sap, spiked armor, spiked gauntlet, spiked shield, and unarmed strike.

Sorry, a spiked shield is a weapon...not an "effect" on a shield.

Play the game as you see fit.

Eggs cause an effect

Effect Definition

dictionary.search.yahoo.com

n. noun

1. Something brought about by a cause or agent; a result.
2. The power to produce an outcome or achieve a result.
The government's action had little effect on the trade imbalance.

3. Advantage; avail.
used her words to great effect in influencing the jury.

tr.v.

1. To bring about; make happen; cause or accomplish.
effect a cure for a disease; effect a change in policy.

Eggs being added cause an effect ie.. batter
Adding spikes causes an effect ie.. effective size increase/piercing damage
Sorry I missed the weapons text listing for spiked shield, but that text does nothing to change the core rule text: buy a heavy wood shield 7gp add shield spikes for +10pg for the effect of wait for it... a spiked shield.

We all play the way we like but since this is a rules forum...I'm just pointing out the rule as written.

Scarab Sages

Bandw2 wrote:
Imbicatus wrote:

I agree that per the FAQ, because of the idiotic line in shield spikes that reference size increases, that a spiked shield and a bashing shield do not stack and does 1d8 damage.

What should happen, is that the size language should be removed from spiked shields, as they are not a virtual size increase, they are a separate weapon that does more damage. Just as a Morning Star does damage as Club one size larger, that does not mean that the addition of spikes to the club made it a virtual size increase.

however, weapon focus(heavy shield) applies to both the spiked and non version, and the action is exactly the same except it does more damage, also this is the only way pathfinder has to change damage dice of weapons intuitively, for example, how do you change the damage of a large creature's shield and have it proportional to a medium creature's shield.

it wouldn't be a weapon attachment anymore if they separated it.

Why couldn't it be a separate weapon that uses the same proficency, like the gladius/short sword?

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

N N 959 wrote:
I'm hard pressed to see how you've come to the conclusion that the devs were specifically answering Nefreet's question when they fail to name any of the abilities he was specifically asking about.

Call the issue English.

Because Nefreet asked two questions in one. Each of them contained a +1 size language effect and a +2 size language effect. The answered the generic "if a +1 and +2 get together do they have a +3 baby or +2 baby" and the FAQ answer is +2.

So I am astonished, amazed, dumbfounded, and quite frankly can't imagine how you have the position you have. I'm fine with you having the position. You obviously believe you have good reasons. But you must accept that we gain the opposite meaning from the FAQ answer than each other and we both are complete unable to comprehend why the other has their view.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

Scott Wilhelm wrote:
Aelryinth wrote:
Scott Wilhelm wrote:
Vis a vis PFS, it probably is better to follow my earlier advice. Instead of using a Heavy, Spiked Shield, use a Klar, which although it has spikes, the weapon description in UE makes it NOT a Spiked Shield! So with no virtual size increase to not stack with, the Bashing Enchantment goes from 1d6 to 2d6. It's a shame to lose a point of Shield Bonus AC protection, but it might be worth it to avoid the risk of a GM ruling against you, perhaps falsely.

Ah, Please, let's not start about klar's.

An attack with the slashing blade of a klar is not a shield bash, so Bashing will not work with it.

If you want to Bash with a Klar, it specifically says its treated as a light spiked shield. Bashing would stack with that use of a Klar.

So, you can bash with a Klar, or slash with a Klar, but Bashing enhancement only affects the former.

Still cheaper then a short sword + small spiked shield, however.

==Aelryinth

Oh, let's.

Unless you are using a shield for a combat maneuver like Bull Rushing with Shield Slam or something, all melee attacks with shields are shield bashes.

The fact that the Klar is the only shield that does slashing damage on a shield bash is interesting, but there is no rule that creates some kind of non-bash melee attack just to nerf the Klar.

Even if you were right that a melee attack with a Klar were not a shield bash, the Bashing Enchantment would still increase the damage of the Klar from 1d6 to 2d6.

Ultimate Equipment, Bashing wrote:
A bashing shield deals damage as if it were a weapon of two size categories larger
It does not differentiate between shield bashing and the non-bashing melee attack, because the non-bashing melee shield attack does not exist, but if it did, the Bashing Enchantment would enhance that, too.

Uh, no.

An attack with a Klar is nowhere called out as being a shield bash. Until it is, it's just a slashing attack. You are filling in a hole which is not there.

If you choose to shield bash with it, it's treated as a light spiked shield. NOT a 1d6 slashing weapon. It's right there in the weapon description! And light spiked shields have their own rules which do not include 1d6 slashing!

What you are saying is "Oh, because on the weapon table it says 1d6 damage for the slashing blade, that completely overrides the language that says a Klar is a light spiked shield if you bash with it." And the Bashing enhancement only works with Bashes.

Text trumps table, not the other way around. You are mistaken.

So you can bash with a Klar as a light spiked shield, or do the slash damage. They are different things.

==Aelryinth

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

1 person marked this as a favorite.
N N 959 wrote:

If I add eggs to flour, it "turns" the flour into batter. Eggs are not an "effect."

If I add blue dye to yellow dye, it "turns" the yellow dye into green dye. Blue dye is not an "effect."

Nevan Oaks wrote:
You will note again there is no spiked, shield description. There are light and heavy shield descriptions and shield spike descriptions. The rules text clearly says "turns" into which is an effect.

Uhhh... what?

Core p. 148 wrote:
Spiked Shield, Heavy or Light: You can bash with a spiked shield instead of using it for defense. See page 152 for details.
Core p.56 on Fighter weapon groups wrote:
Close: gauntlet, heavy shield, light shield, punching dagger, sap, spiked armor, spiked gauntlet, spiked shield, and unarmed strike.

Sorry, a spiked shield is a weapon...not an "effect" on a shield.

Play the game as you see fit.

As noted before, Spiked Shields do not exist.

You cannot buy them. You can only buy a shield and add spikes to them. That's definitely an 'effect transaction. So 'spiked shields' as their own weapon do not exist.

Since you cannot buy a spiked shield, only a shield with spikes added, its entry on the weapon table is meaningless. Meaning you go directly to the explanation of text of adding spike to a shield do determine what they are and what they do.

Text trumps table. Next!

==Aelryinth


Scott Wilhelm wrote:
Aelryinth wrote:
Scott Wilhelm wrote:
Vis a vis PFS, it probably is better to follow my earlier advice. Instead of using a Heavy, Spiked Shield, use a Klar, which although it has spikes, the weapon description in UE makes it NOT a Spiked Shield! So with no virtual size increase to not stack with, the Bashing Enchantment goes from 1d6 to 2d6. It's a shame to lose a point of Shield Bonus AC protection, but it might be worth it to avoid the risk of a GM ruling against you, perhaps falsely.

Ah, Please, let's not start about klar's.

An attack with the slashing blade of a klar is not a shield bash, so Bashing will not work with it.

If you want to Bash with a Klar, it specifically says its treated as a light spiked shield. Bashing would stack with that use of a Klar.

So, you can bash with a Klar, or slash with a Klar, but Bashing enhancement only affects the former.

Still cheaper then a short sword + small spiked shield, however.

==Aelryinth

Oh, let's.

Unless you are using a shield for a combat maneuver like Bull Rushing with Shield Slam or something, all melee attacks with shields are shield bashes.

The fact that the Klar is the only shield that does slashing damage on a shield bash is interesting, but there is no rule that creates some kind of non-bash melee attack just to nerf the Klar.

Even if you were right that a melee attack with a Klar were not a shield bash, the Bashing Enchantment would still increase the damage of the Klar from 1d6 to 2d6.

Ultimate Equipment, Bashing wrote:
A bashing shield deals damage as if it were a weapon of two size categories larger
It does not differentiate between shield bashing and the non-bashing melee attack, because the non-bashing melee shield attack does not exist, but if it did, the Bashing Enchantment would enhance that, too.

No, let's not. Klars are their own different beast, and have no relation to this. I only brought it up because of the shenanigans you try to do and what people are trying to do now are basically the same levels of cheese; if you wanna continue this, then make it its own separate thread, there is a time and place to discuss those things, and it's not here.


Aelryinth wrote:
An attack with a Klar is nowhere called out as being a shield bash.

It is called out as a shield bash because the Klar is a shield on the list of other shields.

Now Look in the Core Rulebook. Look in the alphabetical listings weapons descriptions. Look for Shield, Heavy or Light, under the subheading “Shield Bash Attacks.”

Shield, Heavy or Light wrote:
You can bash with a shield instead of using it for defense.

There you go. Attacking with a shield is a shield bash. A Klar is a shield, therefore, attacking with a Klar is a Shield Bash. For how much damage?

The listed damage for the Klar's Shield Bash on the weapons table is 1d6. And with 2 size increased, that brings it up to 2d6.

Aelryinth wrote:
Uh, no.... it's just a slashing attack.

It seems to me that what you are arguing is that there is a whole new kind of attack you can make with a shield that is neither a combat maneuver nor a shield bash, and that kind of attack is just not described in the rules.

But maybe it is in the rules, and I just haven't seen it. Show me the rule that says there is just such a whole new kind of attack.

But as I said before, even if you are right that the Klar's attack described on the table is not a shield bash, the Bashing Enchantment still stacks with it.

Ultimate Equipment, Bashing wrote:
A bashing shield deals damage as if it were a weapon of two size categories larger

Even if the Klar's 1d6 Slashing is not a shield bash, it is still damage dealt by a shield, so it is still augmented normally by the Bashing Enchantment: 2d6.


Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Klars are their own different beast, and have no relation to this.... separate thread, there is a time and place to discuss those things, and it's not here.

I disagree. The OP was asking about doing 2d6 with a Shield Bash, and a Bashing Klar is a way to do that. You do have a point that we've had this out on another thread, already.

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
I only brought it up because of the shenanigans you try to do and what people are trying to do now are basically the same levels of cheese;

And since you led with a strawman argument, and followed it with an ad hominem, it's clear you have no real arguments to make on the subject, anymore.

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
No, let's not.

You don't have to. And from what you've brought to this topic so far, you shouldn't.


Scott Wilhelm wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Klars are their own different beast, and have no relation to this.... separate thread, there is a time and place to discuss those things, and it's not here.

I disagree. The OP was asking about doing 2d6 with a Shield Bash, and a Bashing Klar is a way to do that. You do have a point that we've had this out on another thread, already.

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
I only brought it up because of the shenanigans you try to do and what people are trying to do now are basically the same levels of cheese;

And since you led with a strawman argument, and followed it with an ad hominem, it's clear you have no real arguments to make on the subject, anymore.

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
No, let's not.
You don't have to. And from what you've brought to this topic so far, you shouldn't.

It's a way to do that, but it's not intended to do that. So if you want to spit on RAI, then sure, it's a fair way to do it, and this applies to both cases.

I already made all the arguments on the other thread (which, by the way, was also an irrelevant place to discuss what a Klar can and can't do). There's no reason to recite them again since you refuse to treat what I (and several others) have said as valid evidence; it's a waste of time and space.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Conversations like these are mind numbing. So many people have their pet version/interpretation of the rules and won't accept that the rules may be unclear and there may be table variance in the interpretation of the RAW (rules as written.)

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

So, now, a Spiked Shield does not truly exist, but rather, there is only a Shield, under the influence of a "Spiked" effect size increase effect?

I am getting a bit confused about explanations, and descriptions, coming from both sides of the debate.

Also, I don't give a damn if I agree, or disagree, with whatever anyone happens to be saying, don't throw out accusations of cheating.

That is known as a dick move.

Stop it.


blackbloodtroll wrote:

So, now, a Spiked Shield does not truly exist, but rather, there is only a Shield, under the influence of a "Spiked" effect size increase effect?

I am getting a bit confused about explanations, and descriptions, coming from both sides of the debate.

Also, I don't give a damn if I agree, or disagree, with whatever anyone happens to be saying, don't throw out accusations of cheating.

That is known as a dick move.

Stop it.

If you want to be more technical, the base Shield doesn't exist either, since both entries on the table don't have a price listed.

Of course, the more logical explanation behind that is you pay what is on the Armor table (both base costs and Spike attachment costs), and the entries in the Weapons Table are merely to show the stats (since by rights, you can't technically buy them as weapons, merely that you can use them as weapons.).

A lot of people would think going against the RAI of the game is cheating, and it's not an unfair accusation, considering both the RAW and the RAI, equally, are what make up the rules. It's certainly something I'd say constitutes cheating.

But it's more conventional and appropriate to say cheesing, since it's not technically cheating, but it is taking something the way it's not supposed to work, and turning into something that it's not supposed to emulate, at all, and is precisely what I'm saying people are doing if they are getting a medium-sized Heavy Shield to deal 2D6 with the Bashing property and Shield Spikes: They're not following the rules as they're intended to work, and there are FAQs and Dev Posts that support that.

And if they aren't following the rules as they're intended to work, then they essentially spit on Paizo's RAI, because they don't like it, whether it nerfs their character, it's not the "internal consistency" they value, or whatever their reasons may be, and that's fine; for Home Games.

For PFS or other similar playstyles, it's still incorrect, and trying to preach it to be correct only sets players up for disappointment and frustration, which isn't fun (or fair) for them.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:


A lot of people would think going against the RAI of the game is cheating, and it's not an unfair accusation, considering both the RAW and the RAI, equally, are what make up the rules. It's certainly something I'd say constitutes cheating.

No.

Accusations of cheating are personal attacks, and inappropriate on the Paizo boards.

We are not talking about fixed dice, or lying, or anything like that.

I don't care how one feels about either interpretation, of RAW, or RAI, the personal attacks such as accusations of cheating are improper.

Do not make, or condone, such accusations.


blackbloodtroll wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:


A lot of people would think going against the RAI of the game is cheating, and it's not an unfair accusation, considering both the RAW and the RAI, equally, are what make up the rules. It's certainly something I'd say constitutes cheating.

No.

Accusations of cheating are personal attacks, and inappropriate on the Paizo boards.

We are not talking about fixed dice, or lying, or anything like that.

I don't care how one feels about either interpretation, of RAW, or RAI, the personal attacks such as accusations of cheating are improper.

Do not make, or condone, such accusations.

I'm not calling anyone a cheater, I'm stating what I would personally constitute cheating, and that many others would agree with my interpretation of what 'cheating' is, and that quite frankly, there's a very fine line, perhaps the width of a single strand of hair, between running the rules incorrectly, and cheating the rules. If I was calling someone a cheater, I'd simply come out and say it.

But I didn't. I may have used the word 'cheese' to constitute trying to monopolize the rules, but that's all. If cheese means the same thing as cheat, for both the intent and consequences of using that word, then quite frankly a lot of these forum members, perhaps yourself included, would fall under the very thing you say is intolerable on these boards.

What I've been saying this entire time to the side that says so-and-so stacks, is that they're playing the rules incorrectly if they follow that ruling. When I provide official FAQs regarding the associated game terms and how they interact, my own personal foresight (which I am certain is shared by the Devs, since it still follows the intent of the FAQ), and people are still not convinced things work the way I (and the FAQ) say(s) they're supposed to work, well...

In either case, this will be the last post I make on this matter, since it appears it's devolving into something a lot more sinister than a discussion of whether things stack or not. I've provided all the evidence and rules-intent that I possibly could, so it no longer becomes fruitful to continue in a conversation that's (apparently) fated to end badly.


Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
It's a way to do that, but it's not intended to do that. So if you want to spit on RAI, then sure, it's a fair way to do it, and this applies to both cases.

Interesting point, I'm not sure how much I agree with it.

You brought this up before, citing Jacobs as the creator of the Klar, and quoting him specifically. But not only was Jacobs not making an official rules post in your quote, and I don't think he was the author of the rules. And that means that the intentions of Jacobs may not be RAI, either, since it is the author, not Jacobs, who had the intentions behind the rules he was writing.

"Spit on RAI" seems a little harsh, but I think I'll go ahead and own that. We're not playing Risk here. Pathfinder is a fantasy roleplaying game, and we are supposed to use our imaginations. If I imagine a new way to play the game that the creators did not intend, that's not really a bad thing at all, but the very heart and soul of the game! People have argued that that creativity should not extend to the use of the rules themselves, but I disagree: this game is made of rules, volumes of rules. Pathfinder is positively baroque in it's array of rules, special abilities, feats, equipment, enchantments, and prestige classes proliferate, and these are not chiselled scupltures, these are the paint, brush, and canvass for us to create with.

So I do have my own creative vision. It might not be Jacobs's vision, but I still think my creative visions are just swell. You can keep your personal remarks to yourself.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

You know, I have seen FAQs, and Errata, that directly contradict RAI, as it was stated by Devs in some posts.

So, sometimes, RAI, is not the same thing throughout Paizo.

We may guess the general RAI, of most of them, but not all.

This might change as well.

Look at the Spell-like Abilities as Prerequisites FAQ.

Were not both FAQ RAI?


James Risner wrote:
Conversations like these are mind numbing. So many people have their pet version/interpretation of the rules and won't accept that the rules may be unclear and there may be table variance in the interpretation of the RAW (rules as written.)

It's a PFS/homespun problem. Table variance is a trivial problem and completely expected in a GMs own campaign. I only think it's a problem if the GM is not consistent with himself, and I don't usually grouse about it much even then. I use these forums to work out my most argumentative nature.

It's really just in PFS that RAW is so important. My PFS lodge influences a significant portion of my state, and I would really like it if I could query the community of GMs on the local forum, and the sense of the forum would decide, the venture lieutenants would have adjudicatory power over the forum community, and the Venture Captain would have override power over the Venture Lieutenants. I could vet my ideas in advance, and then I could plan my character accordingly. The venture officers in my area all insist that they can't do that, so that means I might have to argue my points every time I bring my character to the table, and that ruins the game for everybody.

A lot of advance planning goes into a character build, and certain effects can take many levels to develop, and springing it on the player months later that his idea won't work just sucks. I can't take an extra Feat as a human and get Quick Draw after I decided to be a Tiefling with a tail. I can't buy the Returning Enchantment on my Throwing Shield with the money I already spent on a Blinkback Belt. If having the Throw Anything Feat doesn't mean that I can put the Returning Enchantment on my Shield unless it is a Throwing Shield, then I really think that if I ask the GM in advance, he should tell me BEFORE I take the Throw Anything Feat. (Gentle readers, the examples in this paragraph are rhetorical, I am not really asking how Tiefling tails or Returning Enchantments work.)

PFS should make every effort to eliminate table variation. Table variance DESTROYS the quality of the PFS product. I seem to recall that in your gaming store you do have your PFS GMs adjudicate the rules in much the same way as I am calling for. Good on you.

Sczarni

Starfinder Charter Superscriber

When your character build relies on the "optimal" end of the spectrum of rules interpretations, and you sit at a table with a GM that has a more conservative view, you're setting yourself up for failure. That's not the fault of PFS, the rules, or the GM.

If instead you build your character towards the conservative end of the spectrum, you'll be prepared no matter what your GM says. You'll either be at or above par.

Shield builds are still viable. 2d6 vs 1d8 doesn't make a build useless. Don't shelve your character if you can't have it one way.

Much of this hostility could be alleviated if ppl just chilled out and changed their POV. What little table variation exists wouldn't cause such an uproar.


Nefreet,

I don't think there is any such thing as conservative character build that nobody will find some legal problem with. People can always find problems with everything.

Everyone I've seen play PFS uses the rules aggressively to try to create powerful characters.

As to the hostility, you are preaching to the choir. People have been accusing me of cheating, of "spitting on the RAI," and called my playing style "cheesy." All I am doing is forming and offering opinions about the rules. Ridiculous!

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

Scott Wilhelm wrote:
Aelryinth wrote:
An attack with a Klar is nowhere called out as being a shield bash.

It is called out as a shield bash because the Klar is a shield on the list of other shields.

Now Look in the Core Rulebook. Look in the alphabetical listings weapons descriptions. Look for Shield, Heavy or Light, under the subheading “Shield Bash Attacks.”

Shield, Heavy or Light wrote:
You can bash with a shield instead of using it for defense.

There you go. Attacking with a shield is a shield bash. A Klar is a shield, therefore, attacking with a Klar is a Shield Bash. For how much damage?

The listed damage for the Klar's Shield Bash on the weapons table is 1d6. And with 2 size increased, that brings it up to 2d6.

Aelryinth wrote:
Uh, no.... it's just a slashing attack.

It seems to me that what you are arguing is that there is a whole new kind of attack you can make with a shield that is neither a combat maneuver nor a shield bash, and that kind of attack is just not described in the rules.

But maybe it is in the rules, and I just haven't seen it. Show me the rule that says there is just such a whole new kind of attack.

But as I said before, even if you are right that the Klar's attack described on the table is not a shield bash, the Bashing Enchantment still stacks with it.

Ultimate Equipment, Bashing wrote:
A bashing shield deals damage as if it were a weapon of two size categories larger
Even if the Klar's 1d6 Slashing is not a shield bash, it is still damage dealt by a shield, so it is still augmented normally by the Bashing Enchantment: 2d6.

1) No, it isn't. If it's used as a shield bash, it's treated as a light spiked shield. Text trumps table. The slashing attack is not a bash.

2)Bashing with a Klar is different from slashing with the Klar. The item description specifically states this is so, as a light spiked shield is a d4 piercing attack, not a d6 slashing attack. Text trumps table.
In effect, you either attack with the klar, and use the weapon damage from the table, or you bash with the klar, and use the weapon damage for a light spiked shield.

3)I don't have to show you that it is a whole new attack, I have to show you it's not a shield bash.
And it's not. There are no slashing shield bashes, the klar's blade is a slashing attack, and when bashing, the klar is treated as a light spiked shield. Since the two don't interact, slashing with a klar is not a bash by the rules.
The ONLY reason a 'light spiked shield' is important is BECAUSE of shield bashing!
You're trying to say "It doesn't say it isn't, so it is!", when it's actually "It doesn't say it is, and moreover specifically has language to the opposite point, so it isn't."

4) No, as repeatedly pointed out, Bashing works when you bash with a shield, and the slashing blade is not a shield bash, or it would be doing damage as a light spiked shield. It's not an 'I get to choose the damage type' effect, it's "attack with slashing weapon" or "Shield bash as a light spiked shield".

The rules are very specific on what is a shield bash, what shield bashes do for damage, and the klar's description includes those rules.

You are attempting to "Add New Rules" to fit what you want. That's a fine house rule if you want to go there, but it is not the RAW.

===Aelryinth


Aelryinth wrote:
You are attempting to "Add New Rules" to fit what you want. That's a fine house rule if you want to go there, but it is not the RAW.

No sir, I am the one going by RAW. You are the one making up rules. You have made up a whole new kind of shield attack that is described nowhere in the rules and seems to serve no purpose except to nerf the Klar. And that's a fine house rule if you want to tone down the power of your campaign, but it's not the RAW.

Aelryinth wrote:
Bashing with a Klar is different from slashing with the Klar.

Prove it. I have proven that all melee attacks from shields to inflict damage are shield bashes. I have proven that a Klar is a shield. You keep saying that there is some whole new kind of melee damaging attack that a shield can make that is not a shield bash, but you have not demonstrated that this is anything other than a wild extrapolation.

Aelryinth wrote:
I don't have to show you that it is a whole new attack, I have to show you it's not a shield bash.

Yes, you do. You have to do just that. Because I have shown that the rules say that all damaging melee attacks with shields are shield bashes. You've made your counter statement, but you haven't supported it with any evidence whatsoever.

I brought evidence. You haven't. I win; you lose.

Aelryinth wrote:
Bashing with a Klar is different from slashing with the Klar. The item description specifically states this is so,

Show me where it says in the item description that a melee attack with a Klar is not a shield bash. Quote me chapter and verse.

wishful thinking wrote:
When you attack with a Klar's blade, it is a 1d6 Slashing weapon. You can Shield Bash with Klar, also: when you do, treat it as a small, spiked shield.

Show me that the above quote is from an official rules source and not just wishful thinking.

Aelryinth wrote:
use the weapon damage for a light spiked shield.

Come now, we both know this is false. The description of Klar in Ultimate Equipment does not say "light, spiked shield;" it's "light shield with armor spikes." For a shield to be a Spiked Shield, it needs to have Shield Spikes, and a Klar has Armor Spikes. Armor Spikes are different from Shield Spikes, so a Klar is not a spiked shield.

Aelryinth wrote:
There are no slashing shield bashes,

Evidently, there is:

Melee attacks with shields are shield bashes.
Klars are shields.
Attacks with klars are therefore shield bashes.
Melee attacks with klars do slashing damage.
Now there is a shield bash that does slashing damage. QED

I admit that it seems a little weird for a shield bash to do slashing damage, but it's what the rules say, and it is not beyond the imagination that if normally you do blunt damage with a shield and if you put spikes on a shield you do piercing damage that if you put a blade on a shield you do slashing damage. After all, you do slashing damage with a Scizore.

Anyway, what you are proposing is much weirder, that there is a whole new kind of melee attack that a shield can make that is not a shield bash.

Aelryinth wrote:
The ONLY reason a 'light... shield' is important is BECAUSE of shield bashing!

No. It's important because it means that anyone with Light Shield Proficiency can use a Klar for defense without suffering the -1 penalty to their attack rolls with their regular weapons.

Also it means that there is such things as Throwing Klars, Quickdraw Klars, and Quickdraw, Throwing Klars.

Aelryinth wrote:
Text trumps table.

I just don't think that's true. I think the table is as valid as the text, and without compelling reason to the contrary, you should assume that both the text and the table are correct, and as we decide how to use these rules, we should as much as possible assume that all the rules are correct.

What the text says about making a melee attack with a shield is

Shield, Heavy or Light wrote:
You can bash with a shield instead of using for defense

The text also says that the damage is given on the table. For a Klar, that is 1d6 Slashing.

Aelryinth wrote:
No, as repeatedly pointed out, Bashing works when you bash with a shield,

Yes, you have repeatedly pointed this out, and I have repeatedly pointed out the opposite. The difference is that the text supports what I say and it doesn't support what you say.

Ultimate Equipment, Bashing wrote:
A bashing shield deals damage as if it were a weapon of two size categories larger

So even if the Klar's 1d6 Slashing damage weren't a shield bash, it is still damage dealt by a shield, and therefore is still augmented normally by a the Bashing Enchantment.

I brought the evidence. You didn't. I win; you lose.

Next time you post to argue against what I'm saying, please bring evidence. Or follow your own advice:

Aelryinth wrote:
Ah, Please, let's not start about klar's

With no evidence, you really shouldn't.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

1) No, you aren't going by RAW. You are going by "It doesn't say it isn't, so I can call it whatever I want."

2)Happily, a klar is not always a shield, it's more then a shield. it's a light spiked shield when used to bash. It's also got a d6 slashing blade on it.

3) You brought no evidence - you pointed at the weapons table. As a shield, the Klar is a light spiked shield. That does not match the Klar on the weapons table. Therefore, when used as a shield, and thus used to bash, the Klar table damage is NOT used...light spiked shield is.

Text trumps table. You are ignoring this.

Since d6 slashing is not a light spiked shield, and you can only bash with a shield, d6 slashing is NOT a shield bash. If it was, it would have to be specifically defined as such, i.e. 'the slashing attack with a klar is still considered a shield bash for purposes of such things as Enhancements", which would naturally be a complete about-face from the fact that "The Klar is a light spiked Shield", and would contradict itself on its merits.

Ergo, you are IGNORING all the evidence.

4)Show me the language where it IS treated as a shield bash. Quote me chapter and verse. Lalala.
Hint: It's not there. Because Shield Bashes and Spiked Shield bashes are specific rules, and the klar does not have one of its own...when bashing, it uses the existing rules, not your made up one.

Munchkins say "It doesn't say it isn't, therefore I say it is." RAW says "It's like this." Since it doesn't say that, it isn't.

5)The existing rules ARE official, and you are ignoring them to add some house rule and call it RAW.

6)OMG you went there.
YOU now made the Klar a weapon that CANNOT EXIST, because Armor SPikes cannot be put on a shield!!!
I'm going to forget you said this nonsense and invoked bad editing as RAW and as a defense for your argument...and it's not even a defense! It makes the Klar a non-existent, impossible weapon!
And seriously, do you really, really want to start an argument that the spikes on a Klar have the properties of Armor Spikes? Because now, when you bash...you do d3 bludgeon!

7)Klars have a shield component...as light spiked shields. They also have an additional blade sticking out of them...a fact you are conveniently ignoring.
Thus, they are shields +.
They are treated as light spiked shields. Expressly called out. Therefore, when bashing, they are light spiked shields.
d4 piercing is not quoted on the weapon table for a Klar. SInce text trumps table, d6 slashing is NOT a shield bash. It cannot be a shield bash. Shield Bashes very, explicitly and clearly cite d4 piercing is the damage for light spiked shields used to bash.
Therefore, d6 slashing is another attack from the blade on the Klar.
Ergo, just as the weapon is described, you can use it as a shield to bash as a light spiked shield, or you can use the blade.

There is NO LANGUAGE that says the d6 slashing is a shield bash. The language is perfectly clear that it's a light spiked shield, which means when you bash with it, the damage is NOT d6 slashing.

8)I see what you did there, leaving out the 'spiked', the actual important word.

And you are wrong. The only reason 'spiked', the KEY WORD THAT YOU LEFT OUT, is important, is to change the damage and type. The ONLY reason. It's also very specific, since it addresses ONLY the issue of weapon damage in that sentence. For proficiencies, there is no difference between a light shield and a light spiked shield. Ergo, the whole sentence was about the damage it deals.

Your argument of 'shield' and proficiencies has nothing to do with it, and is a total red herring. You are attempting to rewrite the description of the Klar to fit your narrative, because you are wrong, and that line contradicts EVERYTHING you are trying to say.

9)And you are wrong. When there is a conflict in the rules, text trumps table. It always has. You can have any opinion you want for your home game, but that's the rule.

10) Which is not the damage for a light spiked shield bashing. Ergo, it's not a shield bash. It's a Klar attack.

11)The text in NO WAY supports what you are saying. You have somehow interjected additional wording that contradicts the language that is there. You are somehow reading "THe Klar's d6 slashing damage is considered a shield bash for all purposes" when the description of the item clearly states it is a light spiked shield, which does d4 piercing. If you are Bashing with it, you're doing d4 piercing.

12) Since the only way you can do damage with a shield is to bash: since it is a light spiked shield; since the d6 damage thus cannot be from a shield bash; NO, you are wrong. the d6 attack from a klar is not a shield bash, thus not an attack with a shield, and Bashing will not work with it.

You are wrong.

13) With all the evidence on my side, and none of it on yours, I think you are just a little (like 100%) Wrong Again.

==Aelryinth

Sczarni

Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Scott Wilhelm wrote:
I don't think there is any such thing as conservative character build that nobody will find some legal problem with.

I said "spectrum". There is a spectrum of interpretations regarding any combination of rules elements ranging from the conservative to the optimal. This is true in many facets of life, and Pathfinder is no different.

Scott Wilhelm wrote:
People can always find problems with everything.

Although I believe that to be a false statement, you can still better prepare your characters for the occasion jerk GM. I'll use my Ranger and his Constrictor Snake companion as an example, since he's probably my most corner case character. Although the PC itself is rather mundane, I built the Snake to have Improved Unarmed Strike, Snake Style, and Improved Grapple. As you may have seen here in this forum, some GMs don't like the idea of a Snake taking the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, regardless of its Intelligence. When I run across GMs such as that, I pull out version #2 of my Snake. She's got mundane feats like Toughness and Dodge, which no GM could have a problem with. After I'm done playing that scenario, out comes version #1 for the next game. I come prepared to play the way I built the character, but can compromise when I meet a GM that says "no". The character is still useful, and I still have fun playing.

Scott Wilhelm wrote:
Everyone I've seen play PFS uses the rules aggressively to try to create powerful characters.

I'm going to go out on a limb and claim that your anecdotal evidence needs a larger sample size.

51 to 100 of 132 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Shield Weirdness? All Messageboards