TWF w / Weapon and Armor Spikes while wielding a Shield


Rules Questions

351 to 400 of 494 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Aelryinth wrote:
Chesspwn 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.

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

1) Wait, where is that defined as the default rule? Maybe it's just a flawed original premise that you have. Nothing says specifically that I keep the shield AC. And if the rule is you only lose it when you use the off-hand, then I should get to keep shield AC when I bash with it as my only attack without the feat then right? Since I'm not 2WF or 2HF?

2) Where is the rule that you keep your armor AC all the time? You roll TH against AC, Yes armor AC is added to your total AC, but nothing in there says when you get to keep your armor AC. Or that you don't lose it when you attack.

Ael wrote:
If you think there's a different default rule, kindly point it out (hint: there isn't)

Do you realize this is the exact same thing we're saying about shield AC. That the default rule is you have the shield AC if it's donned. You've failed to show that this isn't the default rule.


Bandw2 wrote:
to be clear shields provide a shield bonus to Armor Class...

A few people seem to be missing that point don't they.


CountofUndolpho wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
to be clear shields provide a shield bonus to Armor Class...
A few people seem to be missing that point don't they.

probably, i piggy backed off of your comment because aerly said that it was in the combat section under attack rolls or some such that you only always apply your armor bonus/class thinking there was a distinction. your comment reminded me of this.


I'm curious what the rationale behind Two Weapon Defense is if you can TWF and keep a shield bonus without using a feat?


Bandw2 wrote:
CountofUndolpho wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
to be clear shields provide a shield bonus to Armor Class...
A few people seem to be missing that point don't they.
probably, i piggy backed off of your comment because aerly said that it was in the combat section under attack rolls or some such that you only always apply your armor bonus/class thinking there was a distinction. your comment reminded me of this.

I know I can't find a rule for an Armour bonus not counting towards your AC but there are plenty of circumstances where a shield bonus is lost.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
CountofUndolpho wrote:
I'm curious what the rationale behind Two Weapon Defense is if you can TWF and keep a shield bonus without using a feat?

Um, you can TWF with two weapons instead of a weapon and a shield?


Sorry I'm a bit out of sync with this - putting the kids to bed and getting our lass her tablets sorted.

Someone said the only effort needed for getting the shield bonus was donning it but if so why would you lose it for attacking with a shield?


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
CountofUndolpho wrote:

Sorry I'm a bit out of sync with this - putting the kids to bed and getting our lass her tablets sorted.

Someone said the only effort needed for getting the shield bonus was donning it but if so why would you lose it for attacking with a shield?

Because if the shield is being used to smack somebody it is not in a position to protect you.


caps wrote:
CountofUndolpho wrote:
I'm curious what the rationale behind Two Weapon Defense is if you can TWF and keep a shield bonus without using a feat?
Um, you can TWF with two weapons instead of a weapon and a shield?

Ok so what's Improved Shield Bash for?


CountofUndolpho wrote:

Sorry I'm a bit out of sync with this - putting the kids to bed and getting our lass her tablets sorted.

Someone said the only effort needed for getting the shield bonus was donning it but if so why would you lose it for attacking with a shield?

Because the rule for shield attacks specifically overrides the general rule and says you lose the AC.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
CountofUndolpho wrote:
caps wrote:
CountofUndolpho wrote:
I'm curious what the rationale behind Two Weapon Defense is if you can TWF and keep a shield bonus without using a feat?
Um, you can TWF with two weapons instead of a weapon and a shield?
Ok so what's Improved Shield Bash for?

It's for using your shield as a weapon while still getting the AC from it. With traits like Bashing and feats like Shield Mastery a Shield can eventually turn into a pretty great off-hand weapon--better than a short sword, handaxe, etc. But it takes a while to come online, in my opinion.

This build, for instance, showcases a pretty cool way to use Shield bash attacks. Although a more "normal" player would modify it to use a more traditional weapon for one of the attacks.


caps wrote:
CountofUndolpho wrote:

Sorry I'm a bit out of sync with this - putting the kids to bed and getting our lass her tablets sorted.

Someone said the only effort needed for getting the shield bonus was donning it but if so why would you lose it for attacking with a shield?

Because if the shield is being used to smack somebody it is not in a position to protect you.

So you must be actively using it to defend yourself then and it isn't just automatic for donning it - unlike spiked armour?


CountofUndolpho wrote:
caps wrote:
CountofUndolpho wrote:
I'm curious what the rationale behind Two Weapon Defense is if you can TWF and keep a shield bonus without using a feat?
Um, you can TWF with two weapons instead of a weapon and a shield?
Ok so what's Improved Shield Bash for?

TWD is to get a shield bonus when you're not wearing a shield and TWF.

Yes you can TWF with a weapon and a small group of non-hand weapons while wearing a shield to get a shield bonus. Feats don't have to be good or worth taking to exist.
Shield bash is for keeping your AC when you attack with a shield, regardless if you TWF with it, THW it, or 1HW it.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
CountofUndolpho wrote:
caps wrote:
CountofUndolpho wrote:

Sorry I'm a bit out of sync with this - putting the kids to bed and getting our lass her tablets sorted.

Someone said the only effort needed for getting the shield bonus was donning it but if so why would you lose it for attacking with a shield?

Because if the shield is being used to smack somebody it is not in a position to protect you.
So you must be actively using it to defend yourself then and it isn't just automatic for donning it - unlike spiked armour?

More or less. Spiked Armor is armor that covers your body all the time. You can't move in such a way that your armor covers you less. So using your armor spikes doesn't reduce AC. Makes sense to me.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
CountofUndolpho wrote:
I'm curious what the rationale behind Two Weapon Defense is if you can TWF and keep a shield bonus without using a feat?

I already answered you, but I just really don't understand this question. Two Weapon Defense is useful for a character who will fight with two weapons, or with a Double Weapon (like the one I mentioned in the OP!).


Chess Pwn wrote:
CountofUndolpho wrote:

Sorry I'm a bit out of sync with this - putting the kids to bed and getting our lass her tablets sorted.

Someone said the only effort needed for getting the shield bonus was donning it but if so why would you lose it for attacking with a shield?

Because the rule for shield attacks specifically overrides the general rule and says you lose the AC.

Oh there is a general rule for shields? I don't think the shield bash rules mentions losing AC? Do you mean shield bonus?


CountofUndolpho wrote:
caps wrote:
CountofUndolpho wrote:

Sorry I'm a bit out of sync with this - putting the kids to bed and getting our lass her tablets sorted.

Someone said the only effort needed for getting the shield bonus was donning it but if so why would you lose it for attacking with a shield?

Because if the shield is being used to smack somebody it is not in a position to protect you.
So you must be actively using it to defend yourself then and it isn't just automatic for donning it - unlike spiked armour?

Incorrect on your view and the view you responded to, AC from a shield is automatic for donning it, bashing with the shield specifically overrides this to cause you to lose your AC when you attack with the shield. So the reason you lose it for attacking with it is because the rules say so. The feat is to let you attack and override the override back to normal state of keeping AC.


Chess Pwn wrote:
CountofUndolpho wrote:
caps wrote:
CountofUndolpho wrote:
I'm curious what the rationale behind Two Weapon Defense is if you can TWF and keep a shield bonus without using a feat?
Um, you can TWF with two weapons instead of a weapon and a shield?
Ok so what's Improved Shield Bash for?

TWD is to get a shield bonus when you're not wearing a shield and TWF.

Yes you can TWF with a weapon and a small group of non-hand weapons while wearing a shield to get a shield bonus. Feats don't have to be good or worth taking to exist.
Shield bash is for keeping your AC when you attack with a shield, regardless if you TWF with it, THW it, or 1HW it.

And this is what many of us thought was the ruling for Armor Spikes and a Greatsword. But it was wrong.


Just seems a lot of feats available for something you can do without spending any.

I must admit I thought the general rule for shields was the one in the description of shields and the exceptions were things like Buckler and Tower Shields..


CountofUndolpho wrote:
Chess Pwn wrote:
CountofUndolpho wrote:

Sorry I'm a bit out of sync with this - putting the kids to bed and getting our lass her tablets sorted.

Someone said the only effort needed for getting the shield bonus was donning it but if so why would you lose it for attacking with a shield?

Because the rule for shield attacks specifically overrides the general rule and says you lose the AC.
Oh there is a general rule for shields? I don't think the shield bash rules mentions losing AC? Do you mean shield bonus?

General rule is donning a shield gives you the shield bonus to AC. That is in the equipment section on shields.

Let me define some things.
Losing a shield bonus to your AC is losing AC, so the attack causing you to lose your shield bonus to AC causes you to lose AC. Shield AC is the amount of AC you gain from the shield's bonus to AC.


Chess Pwn wrote:

General rule is donning a shield gives you the shield bonus to AC. That is in the equipment section on shields.

Excellent do you have a link to that?


Komoda wrote:
Chess Pwn wrote:
CountofUndolpho wrote:
caps wrote:
CountofUndolpho wrote:
I'm curious what the rationale behind Two Weapon Defense is if you can TWF and keep a shield bonus without using a feat?
Um, you can TWF with two weapons instead of a weapon and a shield?
Ok so what's Improved Shield Bash for?

TWD is to get a shield bonus when you're not wearing a shield and TWF.

Yes you can TWF with a weapon and a small group of non-hand weapons while wearing a shield to get a shield bonus. Feats don't have to be good or worth taking to exist.
Shield bash is for keeping your AC when you attack with a shield, regardless if you TWF with it, THW it, or 1HW it.
And this is what many of us thought was the ruling for Armor Spikes and a Greatsword. But it was wrong.

And because of the FAQ adding unwritten rules it was the ruling before the FAQ. Just because the DT changes the rules doesn't mean they weren't correct before the change.


Losing AC is very different to losing your shield bonus to AC.


Chess Pwn wrote:
Komoda wrote:
Chess Pwn wrote:
CountofUndolpho wrote:
caps wrote:
CountofUndolpho wrote:
I'm curious what the rationale behind Two Weapon Defense is if you can TWF and keep a shield bonus without using a feat?
Um, you can TWF with two weapons instead of a weapon and a shield?
Ok so what's Improved Shield Bash for?

TWD is to get a shield bonus when you're not wearing a shield and TWF.

Yes you can TWF with a weapon and a small group of non-hand weapons while wearing a shield to get a shield bonus. Feats don't have to be good or worth taking to exist.
Shield bash is for keeping your AC when you attack with a shield, regardless if you TWF with it, THW it, or 1HW it.
And this is what many of us thought was the ruling for Armor Spikes and a Greatsword. But it was wrong.
And because of the FAQ adding unwritten rules it was the ruling before the FAQ. Just because the DT changes the rules doesn't mean they weren't correct before the change.

Agreed, but trying to extrapolate the same logic to a very similar circumstance, while it may be incorrect, is not incoherent.


Chess Pwn wrote:
Just because the DT changes the rules doesn't mean they weren't correct before the change.

Just because it was correct in 3.5 doesn't mean it was ever correct in Pathfinder.


CountofUndolpho wrote:
Losing AC is very different to losing your shield bonus to AC.

"Losing AC" is used interchangeably with "Losing some AC" of "Losing Parts of AC" in the English language.

If I said I am "Losing Blood" it doesn't mean I am all empty.

You are arguing grammar, not intent.


If I lose 2 to my AC it is very different to losing the shield bonus from my +5 Tower Shield


CountofUndolpho wrote:
Just seems a lot of feats available for something you can do without spending any.

It's options. normally you'd have 0 shield bonus to AC with two short swords or a double weapon, TWD lets you get a shield bonus to AC.

Normally when you attack with a shield you lose it's AC bonus, improved shield bash lets you keep it.
Just because there are feats for options doesn't mean other options aren't available.

CountofUndolpho wrote:
I must admit I thought the general rule for shields was the one in the description of shields and the exceptions were things like Buckler and Tower Shields..
CountofUndolpho wrote:
Chess Pwn wrote:

General rule is donning a shield gives you the shield bonus to AC. That is in the equipment section on shields.

Excellent do you have a link to that?

Wait, what are you saying the general rule for shields were?

Rules on shield in equipment section. Shields give shield bonus to AC.
Then there's the section about getting into and out of armor that talks about donning a shield and since it's in the same section as armor it behaves the same as the armor, once donned it's working for you. And the shield description says how it is donned, how it's on one of your arms and whether or not you can use the hand for anything else.


CountofUndolpho wrote:
If I lose 2 to my AC it is very different to losing the shield bonus from my +5 Tower Shield

But losing your shield bonus to AC causes you to lose 9 AC from your normal AC does it not?


Quote:
Don: This column tells how long it takes a character to put the armor on. (One minute is 10 rounds.) Readying (strapping on) a shield is only a move action.

I must admit I thought the difference in the language used was indicative of the difference in function.


Chess Pwn wrote:
CountofUndolpho wrote:
If I lose 2 to my AC it is very different to losing the shield bonus from my +5 Tower Shield
But losing your shield bonus to AC causes you to lose 9 AC from your normal AC does it not?

Yes and losing your DEX bonus to AC involves knocking off whatever your DEX is. We aren't talking about a generic penalty to AC we are talking about losing a specific component of it. In game terms it isn't just grammar they are specific components of the whole.


CountofUndolpho wrote:
Quote:
Don: This column tells how long it takes a character to put the armor on. (One minute is 10 rounds.) Readying (strapping on) a shield is only a move action.
I must admit I thought the difference in the language used was indicative of the difference in function.

What are you talking about? It says Don: and then shield is listed in the table for Donning armor and there's an entry saying how long it takes to don it.


CountofUndolpho wrote:
Chess Pwn wrote:
CountofUndolpho wrote:
If I lose 2 to my AC it is very different to losing the shield bonus from my +5 Tower Shield
But losing your shield bonus to AC causes you to lose 9 AC from your normal AC does it not?
Yes and losing your DEX bonus to AC involves knocking off whatever your DEX is. We aren't talking about a generic penalty to AC we are talking about losing a specific component of it. In game terms it isn't just grammar they are specific components of the whole.

Right. So anything that causes you to lose one of your bonuses to AC causes you to lose AC. there's really not anything we disagree on. If you feel it's the incorrect terminology then translate it to losing shield bonus to AC. I don't want to write that out all the time and I mean that when I say you lose the shields AC


It says Don: and then Readying a shield ...
The table entry is defined by the description of the Column heading.
Don Hastily: is also defined as is Remove:


Chess Pwn wrote:
Right. So anything that causes you to lose one of your bonuses to AC causes you to lose AC. there's really not anything we disagree on. If you feel it's the incorrect terminology then translate it to losing shield bonus to AC. I don't want to write that out all the time and I mean that when I say you lose the shields AC

shields AC is fine.


CountofUndolpho wrote:

It says Don: and then Readying a shield ...

The table entry is defined by the description of the Column heading.
Don Hastily: is also defined as is Remove:

Okay, I'm really missing what you're trying to get at. I don't even have enough to feel I have a guess as to what to respond to. If you feel this issue is important for the topic of getting shield bonuses to AC while TWF with kicks then I ask you to elaborate a bit more as to what you're trying to get at. If it doesn't relate to shield AC while TWF with kicks then I'm fine not delving into it.


CountofUndolpho wrote:
I'm curious what the rationale behind Two Weapon Defense is if you can TWF and keep a shield bonus without using a feat?

trading a feat for money, it's pretty simple.


Bandw2 wrote:
CountofUndolpho wrote:
I'm curious what the rationale behind Two Weapon Defense is if you can TWF and keep a shield bonus without using a feat?
trading a feat for money, it's pretty simple.

Not to mention that you can take that feat while TWFing with much better weapons. Armor spikes and boot blades have just about the worst damage profiles you can get.


There's obviously no FAQ needed. Everyone seems to be so absolutely sure about their postion that the wording of the rules must be crystal clear. Who could live with that? I believe hundreds of thousands of Pathfinder gamers, who never came across this thread.

Of course, I too have an opinion of how I think it works (I agree with the majority here). There could be an erratum to change the written rules in favour of the interpretation of a handful (in words: a max of five persons), but there's truly no need for this. Everyone should play it their way and if needed, find a compromise in their group.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Chess Pwn wrote:
Courageous was clear on what it did, increased all moral bonuses. The FAQERRATA had to CHANGE THE RULES to get it to work like they "wanted".

Addressing this statement, may shed light on this debate.

The only thing clear is that Paizo felt the text for Courageous was clear and said what they wanted. The fact so many others found alternate interpretations is why they changed the words used to make it more likely others will interpret it the way they wanted. They didn't just wake up and say "oh lets change how this ability works."

We may believe the rules work one way (armor spikes and long sword doesn't block your shield bonus) but they could disagree and issue more clarifying FAQ posts in agreement with Aelryinth. It doesn't mean they changed the rules.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
James Risner wrote:
Chess Pwn wrote:
Courageous was clear on what it did, increased all moral bonuses. The FAQERRATA had to CHANGE THE RULES to get it to work like they "wanted".

Addressing this statement, may shed light on this debate.

The only thing clear is that Paizo felt the text for Courageous was clear and said what they wanted. The fact so many others found alternate interpretations is why they changed the words used to make it more likely others will interpret it the way they wanted. They didn't just wake up and say "oh lets change how this ability works."

We may believe the rules work one way (armor spikes and long sword doesn't block your shield bonus) but they could disagree and issue more clarifying FAQ posts in agreement with Aelryinth. It doesn't mean they changed the rules.

If it said what they wanted they wouldn't need to change the text and just clarify what it meant, example is the doubling stat bonuses. Changing the text to make it work as intended is changing the rules to make it work as intended.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

@James:
They FELT that way - but they admitted (this is precisely what they did) that the wording was in error. Please don't try to run down the people who argued the other way.

PDT:
"A courageous weapon was meant to help only on saves against fear (either adding its enhancement bonus as a morale bonus on saves against fear, or adding half its enhancement bonus to your existing morale bonus on saves against fear, whichever is best for you). However, the wording is in error. The last sentence should say “on saves against fear” after “any morale bonus.” This change will be reflected in the next errata."

(part bolded by me)


James Risner wrote:
Chess Pwn wrote:
Courageous was clear on what it did, increased all moral bonuses. The FAQERRATA had to CHANGE THE RULES to get it to work like they "wanted".

Addressing this statement, may shed light on this debate.

The only thing clear is that Paizo felt the text for Courageous was clear and said what they wanted. The fact so many others found alternate interpretations is why they changed the words used to make it more likely others will interpret it the way they wanted. They didn't just wake up and say "oh lets change how this ability works."

We may believe the rules work one way (armor spikes and long sword doesn't block your shield bonus) but they could disagree and issue more clarifying FAQ posts in agreement with Aelryinth. It doesn't mean they changed the rules.

Technically speaking, any change to the written rules text is, by definition, changing the rules.

Personally, I find RAI in general rather dubious beyond correcting obvious holes in the RAW like "Dead people can still take actions." After all, the only means we have of discerning what the devs intended is their published rules and FAQratta. If the devs meant for a rule to be ABC but the book itself says BCD, then the rule is BCD until they officially correct the error.


Komoda wrote:
Agreed, but trying to extrapolate the same logic to a very similar circumstance, while it may be incorrect, is not incoherent.

*facepalm* Yes, that would be true before the FAQ on vestigial arms and THF with Armor spikes.

Aelry is arguing something the FAQ addresses with certainty and without ambiguity: You don't lose your Shield AC when using both your Primary/Off-Hand attacks so long as you are not using the arm that carries the shield.

That FAQ is entirely consistent with the existing rules that only define using the shield arm in either bash or assisting/making an attack, as the way to lose your shield AC, be it shield or buckler.

How one can argue what Aelry's arguing isn't even defensible given the FAQ. Aelry's bit about armor spikes covering the whole body and one is just pretending not to use the spike covered arm to perpetrate this rule, is about as incoherent an argument as I can imagine. If I had told you that someone had used that line of reasoning, you wouldn't have believed me.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Chess Pwn wrote:
Changing the text to make it work as intended is changing the rules to make it work as intended.

They changed the rules.

They changed the text.
They did so because we were not interpreting it the same as they were.

This is different than the crane wing FAQ. It was strictly changing the ability because it was too good.

Sczarni

Starfinder Charter Superscriber

This thread brings backs memories.

351 to 400 of 494 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder RPG / Rules Questions / TWF w / Weapon and Armor Spikes while wielding a Shield All Messageboards