TWF w / Weapon and Armor Spikes while wielding a Shield


Rules Questions

301 to 350 of 494 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Dark Archive

The rules do imply it takes effort to get the shield AC bonus. According to the rules, that effort is donning the shield, and nothing more.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Aelryinth wrote:

Yeah, because bucklers aren't a type of shield, and whips are a type of longspear (did you know you can set them against a charge?), and soccer is the same game as football if you're an American.

you keep saying this but bucklers are as much a shield, as longspears and whips are both reach weapons or even weapons in general.

Aelryinth wrote:


All weapons DO default to losing your shield AC when used by the off-hand (assuming your shield is off-hand, of course). Your argument is that the default is that you KEEP it.

no the default assumption is that there is no relationship until one is stated as a general rule for all shields.


blackbloodtroll wrote:

I am still at a loss how attacking with something other than the held shield, or something wielded using the same arm as the the, makes you lose the the Shield bonus to AC.

Nothing, has supported this loss.

Again, I do not agree with Aelyinth, but there was nothing anywhere that said you can't TWF with Armor Spikes and a THW until there was.

The logic does follow, even if the answer is incorrect.

A buckler IMPLES it takes a hand of effort to gain the AC.
Other shields do not. But other shields cannot NORMALLY be used with two weapons. Just like most weapons can't (or couldn't) NORMALLY be used with THF. As such, there was no need to point out that it couldn't be done. If it takes a hand of effort to use a small buckler, it would follow that it would take that effort, or more, for a larger shield. This is logical, even if incorrect.

Other shields lose the AC when used to attack. We all get this.
Armor Spikes are not usable when the off-hand effort (as in THF attacks) is used for something else.
It follows that this affects all forms of "hands of effort".

As to Munchkin and over powered, regrettably, those are valid debates. There were not in the past, but when the FAQ ruled that THF and TWF with Armor Spikes don't mix, the reason was not based on rules logic, but based on power level. Many people stated it as the reason in that debate and we all said it was ridiculous. Turns out, it won over rules logic. Which now means it is a valid form of debate, even if we don't like it.

It is logical to believe that if one cannot gain x1.5 str bonus and extra attacks from TWF at the same time because it is to powerful, that one could also not gain a shield's AC bonus and gain extra attacks from TWF at the same time because it is to powerful.

Again, again, it sucks. The DEVs have failed to stick to any set of logic and rule more on a whim. I want to be clear, I understand that they have to do it because of how all of us have found so many gaps and inconsistencies in the original rule set. But it still sucks!

But that whim has made it almost impossible to debate many topics. Of the many that are still worthy of debate, both sides can find at least one form of logic that the DEVs have used to support their claim.

And the debaters here are so bad at giving ANY credence to anything that doesn't jive 100% with their view. A simple, "oh, I see how you got there but I disagree because..." goes so much further than, "you have nothing to support your claim" when it is very clear that they do.

BBT, I am calling you out. I have watched you over the last two years or so debate tons of "contested" topics. I know you can see the similarities in Aelryinth's logic to that of the people that agree with the "hands of effort" ruling. And I agree with you that nothing in the RAW supports it, except the FAQ. And I agree with you that the FAQ does not apply in this situation. But applying the FAQ "hands of effort" to this situation is not outside of the realm of reasonableness, even if incorrect.


If we're debating rules we're debating rules as is, not rules as might be if/when they FAQERRATA it. The PDT have said that FAQs just cover the material they are posted for, so the armor spikes FAQ is just for 2WF with 2HW, not to extrapolate for other 'hand' issues.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.
Bandw2 wrote:
Aelryinth wrote:

Yeah, because bucklers aren't a type of shield, and whips are a type of longspear (did you know you can set them against a charge?), and soccer is the same game as football if you're an American.

you keep saying this but bucklers are as much a shield, as longspears and whips are both reach weapons or even weapons in general.

Aelryinth wrote:


All weapons DO default to losing your shield AC when used by the off-hand (assuming your shield is off-hand, of course). Your argument is that the default is that you KEEP it.
no the default assumption is that there is no relationship until one is stated as a general rule for all shields.

oh!oh! I know the answer to this one!

Shields and Greatswords are weapons, too! So when wielding a greatsword you should get Shield AC, because they are both weapons!

---in other words, dumb examples are dumb examples. Trying to say a Buckler is not a type of shield is just stupid.

All of the shield rules confirm there is a relationship between actively defending with a shield, or using the off-hand to attack instead. Ignoring that is what makes your premise invalid, before you start misinterpreting the language to loophole things.

If you think you are so right, keep hitting that FAQ button. I'd love to be proven wrong so I can exploit it, too!

==Aelryinth


Aelryinth wrote:

All of the shield rules confirm there is a relationship between actively defending with a shield, or using the off-hand to attack instead. Ignoring that is what makes your premise invalid, before you start misinterpreting the language to loophole things.

If you think you are so right, keep hitting that FAQ button. I'd love to be proven wrong so I can exploit it, too!

==Aelryinth

You've shown that if you use the actual hand to make attacks with a buckler or make a shield bash that you lose the Shield bonus, but you've failed to show anything that says if you use the 'off-hand' with a kick or bootblade you're unable to actively defend with a shield or that you lose the shield AC.


Chess Pwn wrote:
Aelryinth wrote:

All of the shield rules confirm there is a relationship between actively defending with a shield, or using the off-hand to attack instead. Ignoring that is what makes your premise invalid, before you start misinterpreting the language to loophole things.

If you think you are so right, keep hitting that FAQ button. I'd love to be proven wrong so I can exploit it, too!

==Aelryinth

You've shown that if you use the actual hand to make attacks with a buckler or make a shield bash that you lose the Shield bonus, but you've failed to show anything that says if you use the 'off-hand' with a kick or bootblade you're unable to actively defend with a shield or that you lose the shield AC.

Which is exactly what everyone failed to show before the FAQ about TWF with THW and Armor Spikes.

Which is exactly why his argument has merit, even if incorrect.

I hate the fact that it is true, but it is the exact same logic.


Komoda wrote:
Chess Pwn wrote:
Aelryinth wrote:

All of the shield rules confirm there is a relationship between actively defending with a shield, or using the off-hand to attack instead. Ignoring that is what makes your premise invalid, before you start misinterpreting the language to loophole things.

If you think you are so right, keep hitting that FAQ button. I'd love to be proven wrong so I can exploit it, too!

==Aelryinth

You've shown that if you use the actual hand to make attacks with a buckler or make a shield bash that you lose the Shield bonus, but you've failed to show anything that says if you use the 'off-hand' with a kick or bootblade you're unable to actively defend with a shield or that you lose the shield AC.

Which is exactly what everyone failed to show before the FAQ about TWF with THW and Armor Spikes.

Which is exactly why his argument has merit, even if incorrect.

I hate the fact that it is true, but it is the exact same logic.

If we're debating rules we're debating rules as is, not rules as might be if/when they FAQERRATA it. The PDT have said that FAQs just cover the material they are posted for, so the armor spikes FAQ is just for 2WF with 2HW, not to extrapolate for other 'hand' issues.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Aelryinth wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
Aelryinth wrote:

Yeah, because bucklers aren't a type of shield, and whips are a type of longspear (did you know you can set them against a charge?), and soccer is the same game as football if you're an American.

you keep saying this but bucklers are as much a shield, as longspears and whips are both reach weapons or even weapons in general.

Aelryinth wrote:


All weapons DO default to losing your shield AC when used by the off-hand (assuming your shield is off-hand, of course). Your argument is that the default is that you KEEP it.
no the default assumption is that there is no relationship until one is stated as a general rule for all shields.

oh!oh! I know the answer to this one!

Shields and Greatswords are weapons, too! So when wielding a greatsword you should get Shield AC, because they are both weapons!

---in other words, dumb examples are dumb examples.

aw so you agree that examples like the buckler applying to all shields is dumb. good to know that we both agree on that last bit(if you haven't caught on yet, people keep bringing up these examples because they feel they're just as dumb as a buckler being used for all shields).

yes a buckler is a shield, but a whip[ is a reach weapon, ultimately these items mean nothing to other shields or reach weapons.

Also, you can still get buckler AC and blade boot. so, I don't understand what bucklers even have to do with off-hand attacks.


TWF attacking with THW and armor spikes was RAW legal. The FAQ made it illegal by saying that attacking with anything uses a metaphorical-hand's worth of effort.

TWF attacking with one hand and armor spikes while using a shield is RAW legal. It is possible that this, too, is against RAI. If they do another FAQ to say that a shield uses a metaphorical-hand as well as a literal hand, that will be the new rule. Until then it remains legal.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

hands of effort were created to keep people from applying more than 1.5x strength mod, so since this doesn't break that, i'm not even sure original intent would make the hands of effort apply to shield's AC.


Komoda wrote:
Again, again, it sucks. The DEVs have failed to stick to any set of logic and rule more on a whim. I want to be clear, I understand that they have to do it because of how all of us have found so many gaps and inconsistencies in the original rule set. But it still sucks!

I have to disagree with this. While things like TWF with Greatsword and Armor Spikes, or TWF with weapon and armor spikes while keeping a shield bonus appear reasonable based on the writing of the rules, the mechanics of the game may make them invalid. They are corner cases, after all.

The game was designed so that there's a balance between the damage output a PC produces and the incoming damage he takes. THF gives up armor class from the shield, so does TWF, but not as much because of the high Dex requirements from the feats. TWF with a shield trades a feat to keep the AC bonus and forces you to use a 20/x2 weapon as one of your weapons.

TWF with Greatsword and Armor Spikes, or TWF with weapon and armor spikes while keeping your shield bonus nets you extra damage without the tradeoff. That violates the core logic of the game, even if they're consistent with the way the rules were written. (And even if they aren't more powerful than other, legal, options.) That's more a function of the fact that the rules are written to be enjoyable to read than a function of poor logic from the developers' side.

caps wrote:


I'm looking for a ruling that would be relevant to PFS.

My rule of thumb for PFS is to go with the more conservative interpretation of a rule. It doesn't work out that way all the time (though some times when it works out the other way, the option gets banned: See Pageant of the Peacock,) but it makes life a lot less complicated.

Alternatively, accept that there will be table variation if you play for multiple different GMs. Explain your character and ask for a ruling before the game starts, then be ready to play a different character or play differently, based on that ruling. If you have a small group of GMs you play with, like just playing at one game store, this might end up being a blanket yes or no on that character.


Sellsword2587 wrote:

So, here's your question to get FAQ'd:

When Two-Weapon Fighting while wielding a shield, but not using the shield as a weapon for one of your attacks, do you lose the shield's shield bonus to AC until your next turn?

Hit that FAQ button, people.

Sorry, I'll not be FAQing this. I fail to see how this is even close to an iffy question. At best it gets ignored and at worst it's a chance that the DEV's find another 'unwritten rule' to 'fix' an issue that's not there. Neither one helps me in the least.

Komoda wrote:
A buckler IMPLES it takes a hand of effort to gain the AC.

No it doesn't. What it implies is that it uses the physical hand/limb it's attached to. That is different

Komoda wrote:
If it takes a hand of effort to use a small buckler, it would follow that it would take that effort, or more, for a larger shield. This is logical, even if incorrect.

No, the shield loses it's AC bonus by using a 'hand of effort'. Until then it's not using or are you ALWAYS taking TWF minuses when attacking with a weapon and holding your shield?

Komoda wrote:
As to Munchkin and over powered, regrettably, those are valid debates. There were not in the past, but when the FAQ ruled that THF and TWF with Armor Spikes don't mix, the reason was not based on rules logic, but based on power level. Many people stated it as the reason in that debate and we all said it was ridiculous. Turns out, it won over rules logic. Which now means it is a valid form of debate, even if we don't like it.

LOL Valid? At best, it's an opinion and constantly bringing it up shows that the argument is less about legality and more about opinion and bias. If you want to be taken seriously, leave the baggage at the door and bring real actual rules. Debate the actual facts and NOT the motives of those that disagree with you. I see it as a sign that your position is weak when it's constant personal insults like 'your idea is munchkin'.

Komoda wrote:
It is logical to believe that if one cannot gain x1.5 str bonus and extra attacks from TWF at the same time because it is to powerful, that one could also not gain a shield's AC bonus and gain extra attacks from TWF at the same time because it is to powerful.

Logical? You and I have different ideas on what that word means then.

Komoda wrote:
Again, again, it sucks. The DEVs have failed to stick to any set of logic and rule more on a whim. I want to be clear, I understand that they have to do it because of how all of us have found so many...

No arguments the FAQ sucked. It's awfulness doesn't impact this issue though. Still not seeing shields mentioned in it.

Aelryinth wrote:
in other words, dumb examples are dumb examples.

Couldn't agree more. Bucklers ARE a dumb example for how shields work just like whips are a dumb way to figure out how reach weapons work or looking at an armored coat for how putting on armor works. Trying to take the specific rules from an individual item that act differently doesn't work. At all. Specific rules are just that. General rules are just that. Making a Specific applied to the general is madness.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.
Chess Pwn wrote:
Aelryinth wrote:

All of the shield rules confirm there is a relationship between actively defending with a shield, or using the off-hand to attack instead. Ignoring that is what makes your premise invalid, before you start misinterpreting the language to loophole things.

If you think you are so right, keep hitting that FAQ button. I'd love to be proven wrong so I can exploit it, too!

==Aelryinth

You've shown that if you use the actual hand to make attacks with a buckler or make a shield bash that you lose the Shield bonus, but you've failed to show anything that says if you use the 'off-hand' with a kick or bootblade you're unable to actively defend with a shield or that you lose the shield AC.

Conversely, you haven't shown any language in IUS or Boot Blade that lets you keep it.

You only have your flawed original premise that "I get to keep Shield AC unless something tells me specifically I can't!"

And blade boots and 'kicks' are still considered off-hand attacks, treated exactly the same as using a weapon in your off-hand. "pHysical location' interpretation is to your own benefit, and classic English manipulation munchkinning. Seriously, when your argument boils down to an interpretation of 'don' meaning more then every other rule to the contrary of your view, you've got problems.

If you believe so hard, keep hitting the FAQ button. The devs can solve it with ONE SENTENCE. And you can then tell me off to your heart's content.

But I think we all know if it comes to a specific FAQ, you're going to lose. SKR explicitly noted that in his post on Vestigial Arms...you're not supposed to be able to get SHield AC with that, and with RAI firmly established, and the FAQ on Armor SPikes denoting 'hands', you're sunk.

Shield AC is a cheap, huge bonus to AC. Defense for offense has always been a tradeoff. Yet you keep arguing that that's not what the rules want to do.

I just find that hella funny, and pretty desperate "I want to have my cake and eat it, too."

==Aelryinth


Aelryinth wrote:
Conversely, you haven't shown any language in IUS or Boot Blade that lets you keep it.

The disconnect is that we don't have to. There is a rule you get your AC. None that you lose it. You are asking us to prove something that isn't there (that it's lost). You can't prove it's lost until you show us what makes you lose it. It's a catch 22.

Aelryinth wrote:
You only have your flawed original premise that "I get to keep Shield AC unless something tells me specifically I can't!"
Yes. because the rules say you get your AC and give ways that you can lose it. Attacking with another weapon isn't on that list. Hence why we can't provide an exception, as the 'rule' that you lose it isn't there.
Aelryinth wrote:
If you believe so hard, keep hitting the FAQ button. The devs can solve it with ONE SENTENCE.

No thanks. I'd rather NOT give them a reason to make a new rule.


Komoda wrote:

Which is exactly what everyone failed to show before the FAQ about TWF with THW and Armor Spikes.

Which is exactly why his argument has merit, even if incorrect.

I hate the fact that it is true, but it is the exact same logic.

His argument had merit before those FAQs came out. Those FAQs are what leave his argument completely without merit. The vestigial arms FAQ makes it 100% clear that the only thing I need to do to get a shield bonus is don the shield. I said this to FLite and I'll repeat it: I was expecting the FAQ to tell us that the shield uses up the off-hand attack and it tells us the exact opposite.

The rest of his argument is some tortuous logic that losing my shield because I am attacking with the very hand that has the buckler is really the devs saying I have to use my off-hand attack to get my shield bonus. Guess what Komoda? They devs could have just said that. They could have simply said that any off-hand attacks denies a shield bonus. That would have covered the buckler and shield bash as they now stand and made it clear. Aelry would have us believe that's they were saying, and he's completely failing to recognize that would have made the vestigial arms ruling totally wrong.

1+1 =/= 3

The FAQ makes it 100% clear that the effort required to obtain a shield bonus is satisfied by donning it. It's irrelevant whether that makes sense in the real world because this isn't the real world. It's a game where someone in full plate is more able to completely avoid a blow than that same person completely naked. It's a game where being "flat-footed" and allegedly unable to react carries no penalty if your Dexterity is 10, yet that person with 10 Dexterity is still harder to hit than an inanimate object....why? Because he is getting the benefit of his Dex over that object...even though he are supposedly unable to react. Completely contradictory real world logic.

There is no merit to his argument, I'm sorry. There's may be merit to his sentiment, but not to his logic. And I even reject the merit to his sentiment because as it has been said hundreds if not thousands of times on this board, martial exploit are not what break this game or take into the land of stupidity, it's the proliferation of spells and spell-like abilities that make it unwieldy at the high levels. Martial prowess is the easiest thing for a GM/scenario to limit. Of my higher level PFS scenarios, we don't dominate because of someone with a sword, a shield, and a boot kick, we dominate because we have four encounters and this allows the casters to ROFL-stomp the NPCs.


Aelryinth wrote:
Conversely, you haven't shown any language in IUS or Boot Blade that lets you keep it.

Conversely, you haven't shown any language in any weapon that lets you keep shield AC when you attack with it. Thus we revert to the standard rules and how they combine. So until you show there's a need for IUS or Boot Blade to need language saying you keep shield AC to keep AC it doesn't need the language.

Aelryinth wrote:
You only have your flawed original premise that "I get to keep Shield AC unless something tells me specifically I can't!"

How is this a flawed premise? This is exactly how the rules work, Shields say I get it's AC when it is donned. Then a shield bash say I lose it and the buckler provides says I can lose that bonus. Why would you suddenly lose shield AC? It's like saying "You lose armor bonus to AC if you 2WF, nothing in the rules say you get to keep it when you 2WF."

Aelryinth wrote:
And blade boots and 'kicks' are still considered off-hand attacks, treated exactly the same as using a weapon in your off-hand. "pHysical location' interpretation is to your own benefit, and classic English manipulation munchkinning. Seriously, when your argument boils down to an interpretation of 'don' meaning more then every other rule to the contrary of your view, you've got problems.

Yes they are 'off-hand' attacks that don't use an actual hand that is holding the shield, so it's not the exact same as a weapon wielded in the other hand. "physical location" isn't just an interpretation, it's what allows you to punch and bite, the unchained monk says things have to be with kicks and punches instead of just unarmed attacks. So if one has to be done with a kick it means the hands are free to do claw attacks, if it has to be punches then the claw hands have been used. According to your view you couldn't add any natural attacks if you make any unarmed strikes, is this really what you're proposing? Our argument isn't that 'don' means more than all the other rules. It's that the rule is 'don' gives you AC, and unless something says you lose the AC that's all that is required to have the AC. If you feel this is incorrect I ask you to find the rule that says you get to have ANY AC if you attack.

Aelryinth wrote:

If you believe so hard, keep hitting the FAQ button. The devs can solve it with ONE SENTENCE. And you can then tell me off to your heart's content.

But I think we all know if it comes to a specific FAQ, you're going to lose. SKR explicitly noted that in his post on Vestigial Arms...you're not supposed to be able to get SHield AC with that, and with RAI firmly established, and the FAQ on Armor SPikes denoting 'hands', you're sunk.

SKR said it wan't meant to get Shield AC but that it works. He never it said it was intended to NOT let you get shield AC. It's kinda like the making of penicillin or post-it notes, things that weren't meant to be made or used they way they are. But in the current time, the rules are clear, just like with courageous weapons, and unless they FAQERRATA it that's how it is. Don't base rules off of what might be.

Aelryinth wrote:
Shield AC is a cheap, huge bonus to AC. Defense for offense has always been a tradeoff. Yet you keep arguing that that's not what the rules want to do.

No, it really isn't. There are rules and the way rules interact. Fighters can have lots of defense and offense. Barbs can have lots of defense and offense. There's no rule that says if you AC goes up the damage must go down. Rules don't "want" anything, they just are.

Aelryinth wrote:
I just find that hella funny, and pretty desperate "I want to have my cake and eat it, too."

And we find it pretty desperate "I don't like it so it shouldn't work"

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

ah, see, you are so mistaken.

I don't care if it does work. I'd be happy to play that way.

I know that it doesn't.

As for keeping AC when you do attack - kindly go look at Improved Shield Bash. Spells it right out for you. It's the ONLY thing which lets you do both.

But, eyes wide shut, you'll just ignore it.

You don't have to sacrifice defense for offense? I'm sorry, but LOL.
You can 2h and keep your shield? No. Offense for defense.
Expertise, you lose TH for AC. Offense for defense.
DEFENSIVE FIGHTING. You lose TH for defense.
COMPLETE DEFENSIVE. you lose ALL ability to attack, for defense.
TOWER SHIELDS. Major AC bonus, TH penalty.
LOL. Sorry man, but that just cracked me up.
CHARGE. lose AC, gain TH. Offense for defense.
RAGE. Offensive power for -2 to AC. Offense for Defense.

If you believe you're right, hit the FAQ. :) That's all you have to do!

==Aelryinth


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

it's not a "rule" that you keep your AC at all time until you lose it. specifically the "rule" is:

Quote:
Each type of armor grants an armor bonus to Armor Class, while shields grant a shield bonus to Armor Class.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

Bandw2 wrote:

it's not a "rule" that you keep your AC at all time until you lose it. specifically the "rule" is:

Quote:
Each type of armor grants an armor bonus to Armor Class, while shields grant a shield bonus to Armor Class.

yeeeeeeessss?

And longswords do a d8 slashing damage. What do stats have to do with what we're arguing about?

==Aelryinth


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Aelryinth wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
Aelryinth wrote:

Fixed all that for you.

==Aelryinth

weird, I think you instead broke it since this only means the conversation is going down hill. I would probably go all ad hominem at this point but it's just so much easier to flag and move on. (at which point this would be removed for replying to the comment anyway. :/)

Getting quoted out of context with repetitive arguments that are in error leads to tactics of same.

Seriously, whip to longspear = buckler to light shield? Where do you come up with this stuff?

==Aelryinth

I miss quoted nothing, I specifically brought up the false sentence because it had become apparent you either couldn't or wouldn't acknowledge how the brought up examples were brought up because of how silly your own argument was. IT IS exactly the same, a specific kind of weapon applying to another specific weapon is just as absurd as a specific shield applying to another shield.

this hasn't even been my point, nothing in buckler precludes allowing a blade boot to be used at the same time you gain AC from a buckler.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Aelryinth wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:

it's not a "rule" that you keep your AC at all time until you lose it. specifically the "rule" is:

Quote:
Each type of armor grants an armor bonus to Armor Class, while shields grant a shield bonus to Armor Class.

yeeeeeeessss?

And longswords do a d8 slashing damage. What do stats have to do with what we're arguing about?

==Aelryinth

what exception says the listed rule doesn't apply (that shields DO NOT grant Armor Class) when TWFing?


Aelryinth wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:

it's not a "rule" that you keep your AC at all time until you lose it. specifically the "rule" is:

Quote:
Each type of armor grants an armor bonus to Armor Class, while shields grant a shield bonus to Armor Class.

yeeeeeeessss?

And longswords do a d8 slashing damage. What do stats have to do with what we're arguing about?

==Aelryinth

The quote I think is saying that nothing lets you keep your Armor AC or shield AC when you attack. Thus if the shield AC is gone what's stopping the Armor AC to be gone


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Chess Pwn wrote:
Aelryinth wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:

it's not a "rule" that you keep your AC at all time until you lose it. specifically the "rule" is:

Quote:
Each type of armor grants an armor bonus to Armor Class, while shields grant a shield bonus to Armor Class.

yeeeeeeessss?

And longswords do a d8 slashing damage. What do stats have to do with what we're arguing about?

==Aelryinth

The quote I think is saying that nothing lets you keep your Armor AC or shield AC when you attack. Thus if the shield AC is gone what's stopping the Armor AC to be gone

no, the buckler specifically talks about your physical hand, nothing precludes the AC from applying until something is used in that hand.

you are allowed to wield a buckler in a third hand and TWF with alchemist hands. there just isn't anything rules related going on here.

let alone talk about other shields.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

Chess Pwn wrote:
Aelryinth wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:

it's not a "rule" that you keep your AC at all time until you lose it. specifically the "rule" is:

Quote:
Each type of armor grants an armor bonus to Armor Class, while shields grant a shield bonus to Armor Class.

yeeeeeeessss?

And longswords do a d8 slashing damage. What do stats have to do with what we're arguing about?

==Aelryinth

The quote I think is saying that nothing lets you keep your Armor AC or shield AC when you attack. Thus if the shield AC is gone what's stopping the Armor AC to be gone

Dunno, the fact that weapon is always against Armor AC, but not always against Shield AC, depending on your own actions?

==Aelryinth

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

Bandw2 wrote:
Chess Pwn wrote:
Aelryinth wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:

it's not a "rule" that you keep your AC at all time until you lose it. specifically the "rule" is:

Quote:
Each type of armor grants an armor bonus to Armor Class, while shields grant a shield bonus to Armor Class.

yeeeeeeessss?

And longswords do a d8 slashing damage. What do stats have to do with what we're arguing about?

==Aelryinth

The quote I think is saying that nothing lets you keep your Armor AC or shield AC when you attack. Thus if the shield AC is gone what's stopping the Armor AC to be gone

no, the buckler specifically talks about your physical hand, nothing precludes the AC from applying until something is used in that hand.

you are allowed to wield a buckler in a third hand and TWF with alchemist hands. there just isn't anything rules related going on here.

That's a 'maaaaaaybe'. It's an SKR opinion, not a fact. Default rules, since you can't wield it as a weapon, you can't ready it, and the 'hand' is already occupied on the 2h weapon.

It basically comes down to whether the Vestigial Arm is a class feature that equals Quick Draw with items held in hand, or something much stronger. It very specifically has limits on allowing extra attacks, so I'm inclined to say it is going to fall right under the TWF rules with shields.

Again, I'd be happy if this were not the case. FAQ it and see!

==Aelryinth


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Aelryinth wrote:

That's a 'maaaaaaybe'. It's an SKR opinion, not a fact. Default rules, since you can't wield it as a weapon, you can't ready it, and the 'hand' is already occupied on the 2h weapon.

It basically comes down to whether the Vestigial Arm is a class feature that equals Quick Draw with items held in hand, or something much stronger. It very specifically has limits on allowing extra attacks, so I'm inclined to say it is going to fall right under the TWF rules with shields.

Again, I'd be happy if this were not the case. FAQ it and see!

==Aelryinth

hands of effort are also not fact, they're simply the reasoning they gave for the FAQ (specifically you shouldn't get more than 1.5 str mod per attack without feats or special abilities to grant it). yet, here we are still arguing about them.


Aelryinth wrote:
As for keeping AC when you do attack - kindly go look at Improved Shield Bash. Spells it right out for you. It's the ONLY thing which lets you do both.

That lets you attack with the shield and keep the Shield AC. Nothing in that says if you attack with a sword in your other hand you get to keep the shield AC.

Aelryinth wrote:
But, eyes wide shut, you'll just ignore it.

yes your eyes are wide shut and we'll just ignore your nonsense and ask you to provide rule support.

Aelryinth wrote:

You don't have to sacrifice defense for offense? I'm sorry, but LOL.

You can 2h and keep your shield? No. Offense for defense.
Expertise, you lose TH for AC. Offense for defense.
DEFENSIVE FIGHTING. You lose TH for defense.
COMPLETE DEFENSIVE. you lose ALL ability to attack, for defense.
TOWER SHIELDS. Major AC bonus, TH penalty.
LOL. Sorry man, but that just cracked me up.
CHARGE. lose AC, gain TH. Offense for defense.
RAGE. Offensive power for -2 to AC. Offense for Defense.

A Mutagen boosts AC and Damage, possibly AC even more if you're dex based.

Beast totem gives you AC when you rage, Guarded stance gives you AC when you rage. Urban barb has no AC loss when raging.
Weapon focus and weapon spec gives you damage with no defense loss.
Arcane strike is extra damage with no defense loss.
shield focus increases defense with no offense loss.
There are plenty of ways to boost offense or defense that doesn't decrease the other. As I said before, we have rules, rules you've listed and rules I've listed and all the other rules and how they interact. Just because there are options that trade one for the other doesn't mean that the rules "want" that to be always the case.

Aelryinth wrote:

If you believe you're right, hit the FAQ. :) That's all you have to do!

==Aelryinth

I have hit the FAQ button. And I know when the FAQ comes out it will prove us right. Either it'll be allowed, or they'll have to CHANGE THE RULES to make it not work, both prove us right.


Aelryinth wrote:
Chess Pwn wrote:
Aelryinth wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:

it's not a "rule" that you keep your AC at all time until you lose it. specifically the "rule" is:

Quote:
Each type of armor grants an armor bonus to Armor Class, while shields grant a shield bonus to Armor Class.

yeeeeeeessss?

And longswords do a d8 slashing damage. What do stats have to do with what we're arguing about?

==Aelryinth

The quote I think is saying that nothing lets you keep your Armor AC or shield AC when you attack. Thus if the shield AC is gone what's stopping the Armor AC to be gone

Dunno, the fact that weapon is always against Armor AC, but not always against Shield AC, depending on your own actions?

==Aelryinth

So again I ask, If you're saying the rules cause you to lose your shield AC when you attack with two weapons provide the rules that

1) Let you keep your shield AC when you attack with 1 weapon.
2) Let you keep your Armor AC when you attack with 2 weapons.

I'm sure once you've done this it'll be easier to prove you correct.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

Chess Pwn wrote:
Aelryinth wrote:
Chess Pwn wrote:
Aelryinth wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:

it's not a "rule" that you keep your AC at all time until you lose it. specifically the "rule" is:

Quote:
Each type of armor grants an armor bonus to Armor Class, while shields grant a shield bonus to Armor Class.

yeeeeeeessss?

And longswords do a d8 slashing damage. What do stats have to do with what we're arguing about?

==Aelryinth

The quote I think is saying that nothing lets you keep your Armor AC or shield AC when you attack. Thus if the shield AC is gone what's stopping the Armor AC to be gone

Dunno, the fact that weapon is always against Armor AC, but not always against Shield AC, depending on your own actions?

==Aelryinth

So again I ask, If you're saying the rules cause you to lose your shield AC when you attack with two weapons provide the rules that

1) Let you keep your shield AC when you attack with 1 weapon.
2) Let you keep your Armor AC when you attack with 2 weapons.

I'm sure once you've done this it'll be easier to prove you correct.

1) You get your shield AC when not using the off hand to attack with. That's the default rule.

2) You get your ARmor AC all the time. It's in the attack rules, roll TH against. That's the default rule.

If you think there's a different default rule, kindly point it out (hint: there isn't), and if there's argument, hit the FAQ!

==Aelryinth


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
CountofUndolpho wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
Aelryinth wrote:
Horrible analogies are horrible analogies.

and a buckler being a shield a shield is one of them.

It gives a shield Bonus and is described under shields and appears on the shield table in the armour section.

PRD wrote:
This small metal shield is worn strapped to your forearm
Annnnd is called a shield in its description so I don't think it counts as an analogy really.

just like how a whip is a reach weapon, and so is a logn spear, and look they're both under the weapon section. they both don't threaten around them and i feel this is enough justification under aerly's logic that the longspear does not do lethal damage. i mean a longspear is harder to use, so clearly it should be constrained by the whip's rules.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Aelryinth wrote:
1) You get your shield AC when not using the off hand to attack with. That's the default rule.

citation? that's all we need.


Chess Pwn wrote:

So again I ask, If you're saying the rules cause you to lose your shield AC when you attack with two weapons provide the rules that

1) Let you keep your shield AC when you attack with 1 weapon.
2) Let you keep your Armor AC when you attack with 2 weapons.

I'm sure once you've done this it'll be easier to prove you correct.

Thing is there are plenty of instances of losing your shield bonus in the rules but there are no instances of losing your armour bonus by wielding a weapon so they aren't really comparative points.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
CountofUndolpho wrote:
Chess Pwn wrote:

So again I ask, If you're saying the rules cause you to lose your shield AC when you attack with two weapons provide the rules that

1) Let you keep your shield AC when you attack with 1 weapon.
2) Let you keep your Armor AC when you attack with 2 weapons.

I'm sure once you've done this it'll be easier to prove you correct.

Thing is there are plenty of instances of losing your shield bonus in the rules but there are no instances of losing your armour bonus by wielding a weapon so they aren't really comparative points.

to be clear shields provide a shield bonus to Armor Class.

so the thing aerly keeps saying about how it's in the combat section... it's talking about both your shield and armor bonus and all other bonuses to AC.

301 to 350 of 494 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / TWF w / Weapon and Armor Spikes while wielding a Shield All Messageboards