|
My question is, do I use my full BAB? Are there two weapon fighting penalties? and what is the range increment?
I have nothing to go on from this description...
THROWING SHIELD:
Benefit: You can throw the shield as a free action. Neither a shield’s enhancement bonus to AC nor its shield spikes apply to your attack or damage rolls.
Restriction: Tower shields cannot be throwing shields.
I think it is a rough question. I imagine that it means you can release the shield and throw it as one of your attacks. It resolves as if throwing any weapon. If you gain an extra attack because of it, Two-Weapon Fighting penalties would apply. I assume it is a light or one-handed weapon based on its position in the weapon table and TWF penalties would match.
I can't find the range increment as I don't have access to Hero Lab or the original source at this moment.
This is an obvious mistake in the wording of the rules. Based on that, someone with multiple shields would get multiple free attacks. Add Quickdraw shields to the mix and it is just ridiculous.
Most people believe that the rule is trying to say you can use your shield without having to unstrap it as a move action, not that you get free attacks.
|
I've seen a "Captain Andoran" shield build in my PFS area before. There must be a range increment listed somewhere. If there isn't, then you could resort to using the range increment of an Improvised Weapon, which is 10ft.
The whole nonsense of throwing it as a "free action" has been discussed ad nauseum. The ability to throw it as a free action still does not grant you any extra attacks over what your character would otherwise be capable of. If your BAB is +1, that's one attack (or 2 with TWF). If your BAB is +6, that's two attacks (or 4 with ITWF). Etc.
My question is, do I use my full BAB? Are there two weapon fighting penalties? and what is the range increment?
I have nothing to go on from this description...
THROWING SHIELD:
Benefit: You can throw the shield as a free action. Neither a shield’s enhancement bonus to AC nor its shield spikes apply to your attack or damage rolls.Restriction: Tower shields cannot be throwing shields.
If your first attack is throwing a shield, then yes. If you are making a full attack option and then making a throw attack at some point during your action, you use the amount of BAB as the attack you're subbing out (i.e. you have BAB +11, you could make your shield throw be at BAB 11, BAB 6, or BAB 1). If you are making Attacks of Opportunity (presumably in Melee Range), those would be at your highest as well.
This FAQ will answer your second question. To sum up, you only suffer TWF penalties if you are using the specific full attack option to gain more attacks than what your BAB normally allows.
A Throwing Shield is listed as an Exotic Ranged Weapon in the Ultimate Equipment book, under the Exotic Weapons table. It is listed as having a 20 foot range increment. Remember that you can create a Shield to be made for throwing for a 50 gold add-on price; the difference between a shield otherwise makes no difference.
|
|
Thank you for pointing me to Ultimate Equipment for the range increment.
I was specifically looking for the information on the Free-Action attack of a shield that was modified by the 50gp adjustment to the straps.
In our game, I had thrown one of my light hammers during my turn in the initiative order (leaving my main hand free), then had an opportunity to throw the shield when an enemy tried to stay outside of my threatened space to get to my archer ally behind me.
We did not know what to do, so we stayed with the two-weapon fighting penalties (my shield was a large wooden shield), and I did not have TWF. So I was assessed a -10 penalty on that throw even though I did not have a second weapon in hand at the time of the throw.
Confusion, and not being able to find anything in the books in a timely fashion, brought me here.
Thanks again for pointing me in the right direction.
I'd recommend to ignore the "free action to throw shield" part of the written thing. It's crazy unclear if that's even intended, brings up ugly situation of throwing several shields in a round on top of regular attacks forcing a GM to arbitraily stamp that down with a limit on free actions.
Instead just stick with free action to unstrap the shield so it's ready to be thrown as a regular attack. No one can argue it's broken that way, and there's way less confusion about what you can do.
Thank you for pointing me to Ultimate Equipment for the range increment.
I was specifically looking for the information on the Free-Action attack of a shield that was modified by the 50gp adjustment to the straps.
In our game, I had thrown one of my light hammers during my turn in the initiative order (leaving my main hand free), then had an opportunity to throw the shield when an enemy tried to stay outside of my threatened space to get to my archer ally behind me.
We did not know what to do, so we stayed with the two-weapon fighting penalties (my shield was a large wooden shield), and I did not have TWF. So I was assessed a -10 penalty on that throw even though I did not have a second weapon in hand at the time of the throw.
Confusion, and not being able to find anything in the books in a timely fashion, brought me here.
Thanks again for pointing me in the right direction.
Honestly, you'd have to still detach the shield from your hand (a move action) to throw it (considered a free action, though it's obviously intended to take one of your attacks when you do so). It might mean that it's a Free Action to detach a shield for the purposes of making a thrown ranged attack, but it's unclear if that's what the intent truly is.
Two-Weapon Fighting, as provided with the FAQ, only comes into play if you're making a full attack option and gaining more attacks than what your BAB normally allows. It also forces you to consolidate one weapon for one set of iteratives (main-hand), and another weapon for another set of iteratives (off-hand), and you cannot interchange weapons between the two attacks (so you can't have a longsword be two mainhand attacks and a shortsword be one mainhand attack, and then have a shortsword be two offhand attacks and a longsword be one offhand attack).
**EDIT** Don't forget a Throwing Shield is an Exotic Weapon, and that if you don't have proficiency with it, it makes a -4 penalty to hit.
Honestly, you'd have to still detach the shield from your hand (a move action) to throw it (considered a free action, though it's obviously intended to take one of your attacks when you do so). It might mean that it's a Free Action to detach a shield for the purposes of making a thrown ranged attack, but it's unclear if that's what the intent truly is.Nope, that's not what the rules say.
throwing shield
Price +50 gp
Type exotic
This shield is designed for throwing and has specially designed straps that allow you to unclasp and throw it as a free action. Tower shields cannot be throwing shields. Neither a shield's enhancement bonus to AC nor its shield spikes apply on your attack or damage rolls. A throwing shield can't be disarmed.
It can be unclasped and thrown as a Free Action. "Taking one of your attacks" would make it an Attack Action, and that's just not what the rules say.
You can't just go around reinterpreting the rules outside your own campaign.
**EDIT** Don't forget a Throwing Shield is an Exotic Weapon, and that if you don't have proficiency with it, it makes a -4 penalty to hit.That's a fact I overlooked. Thank you.
Then by that logic, throwing with a throwing shield has no effect other than you tossing it to somebody to use as a standard shield (and even so, it'd land at their feet, unless they spent a readied action to grab it when it's thrown at them, meaning they'd need to spend both their move and standard actions to pick up and equip a Throwing Shield).
I highly doubt that's the reason a Throwing Shield is an Exotic Weapon.
|
|
Hehe, I think we might be looking way to deeply on this.
I carry one shield, so loading myself down with three or four shields to take advantage of multiple free action attacks is not an issue.
(although, I can see how someone might do that if all his shields were modified with these exotic straps).
I simply wanted my character to have the option to make an attack (by losing my shield) when it was not my turn in the initiative. It looked like these exotic 50gp straps gave that option.
I can see how that would take an exotic weapon proficiency.
So, as it is written, I would get a single throw (20ft. range increment) with my large wooden shield (As a free action, meaning that I could take my regular attacks during my initiative and still get a throw off at any time during the round), doing 1d6pts of damage if I hit, at my full BAB, but at a -4 for not having that exotic weapon proficiency at this time?
Do I have the right of it here?
I carry one shield, so loading myself down with three or four shields to take advantage of multiple free action attacks is not an issue.
(although, I can see how someone might do that if all his shields were modified with these exotic straps).
I simply wanted my character to have the option to make an attack (by losing my shield) when it was not my turn in the initiative. It looked like these exotic 50gp straps gave that option.
I can see how that would take an exotic weapon proficiency.
So, as it is written, I would get a single throw (20ft. range increment) with my large wooden shield (As a free action, meaning that I could take my regular attacks during my initiative and still get a throw off at any time during the round), doing 1d6pts of damage if I hit, at my full BAB, but at a -4 for not having that exotic weapon proficiency at this time?
Do I have the right of it here?
Even if you're to use the throwing shield with free action to attack (which not a lot of people support), you can't use free action outside your own turn, except for "talking as a free action" because talking is the only free action that has that exception.
|
The whole nonsense of throwing it as a "free action" has been discussed ad nauseum. The ability to throw it as a free action still does not grant you any extra attacks over what your character would otherwise be capable of.
I totally agree. It's still fun to trot out the blinkback belt infinite attack craziness whenever someone declares that RAW is LAW about some sort of arcane insanity.
|
|
Even if the GM set the limit of Free Actions at Infinity, it still wouldn't be super-broken because a Throwing Shield only does 1d4. Sure you could use it to take out any number of 1st-level Goblins, but against a creature with Damage Reduction? The number of attacks DR protects you against really is infinite. You might as well attack an elephant with a flyswatter.
If you have a Str of 18 and a non-magical throwing shield could kill anything with DR 15 or less with the infinite attack combo. After all - critting and rolling max damage would deal 1pt of damage, and you have an infinite # of tries.
And that's if you don't just go ahead and use an oversized shield - because - why not? You have infinite attacks - what does accuracy matter?
|
|
Throwing the Shield is still going to take up one of your attacks for the round.The description of the weapon specifies that it is a Free Action, not an Attack Action.
Without even touching the "Free Action" bit, you're still limited to a certain number of attacks per round. Also, anything more than one attack still requires a full-round action.
If you get more than one attack per round because your base attack bonus is high enough (see Base Attack Bonus in Classes), because you fight with two weapons or a double weapon, or for some special reason, you must use a full-round action to get your additional attacks.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Then by that logic, throwing with a throwing shield has no effect other than you tossing it to somebody to use as a standard shield (and even so, it'd land at their feet,Oh my, no.
What I quoted to you was the description of the Throwing Shield as a weapon. That means it is thrown as a weapon, inflicting damage as a weapon as described on the weapons table.
I highly doubt that's the reason a Throwing Shield is an Exotic Weapon.That is the description of the Throwing shield as an Exotic Weapon.
If it is thrown as a weapon, then it attacks as a weapon, and an attack with a weapon requires a standard action to do (unless it's an attack of opportunity, which is currently irrelevant).
Suggesting that the Free Action includes a free attack, or that it's not an actual weapon, but merely attacks as one, will make you a sad panda when you try to do that sort of cheese in PFS.
*EDIT* Nefreet ninja'd my other point I could've used. But that's okay.
Throwing the Shield is still going to take up one of your attacks for the round.The description of the weapon specifies that it is a Free Action, not an Attack Action. It doesn't take up any of your attacks any more than an Attack of Opportunity or the Free-Action attacks granted by the Panther Claw Feat do. That's what the rules say.
You can't claim that you'd get unlimited attacks, capped only by the number of Shields you happen to be carrying.No, we can't. Drawing a shield is normally a Move Action, and you only get one of those.
But even with the combination of a Quickdraw, Throwing Shield, the Quickdraw Feat, and a Blinkback Belt, you still don't get an infinite number of attacks because as the
Free Action: Free actions consume a very small amount of time and effort. You can perform one or more free actions while taking another action normally. However, there are reasonable limits on what you can really do for free, as decided by the GM.the GM may dictate any limit he wants as to the number of Free Actions a character can take, and under these circumstances, what GM wouldn't?
So, the combination is cool, even formidable, and well-worth the Exotic Weapon Proficiency Feat, but it's not infinity-broken.
Even if the GM set the limit of Free Actions at Infinity, it still wouldn't be super-broken because a Throwing Shield only does 1d4. Sure you could use it to take out any number of 1st-level Goblins, but against a creature with Damage Reduction? The number of attacks DR protects you against really is infinite. You might as well attack an elephant with a flyswatter.
So you live and die by the fact that "You can throw the shield as a free action" but ignore that the sentence does not say it is a free action to unstrap the shield, or mention that you can throw it as part of an attack? It ONLY states that you can throw it as a free action, not make a ranged melee attack. By RAW, especially a very rigid reading of RAW, you don't get to attack with it at all.
|
|
Fair to say, but a GM who allows infinite attacks is a very big if,
I totally agree - it's a silly build which no GM would ever allow. Even if they did - I'd never actually play it. I only trot it out when someone brings up the infinite explosive runes combo or something else equally silly as a silliness counterpoint.
As to DR - by the level the blinkback belt is viable - say 6ish - you're looking at a 20 Str & a +2 weapon on an oversized shield (d6). Even if no feats etc to boost damage - they can get through DR 25 - and I can't think of anything off the top of my head with higher than DR 25 - at least not with a CR below 20.
Scott, if we look at the rules within the context of the game, I think it's pretty clear that we are suppose to understand that the Free action is the prep of the shield, not its actual throwing.Where on Earth do you get that idea?
While I can see how one could attempt to interpret the rules the way you are claiming,I'm sure you can see how one would interpret the rules the way I am claiming, since
This shield is designed for throwing and has specially designed straps that allow you to unclasp and throw it as a free action.it actually SAYS you can unclasp AND THROW it as a Free Action.
Yes, I bet you can see how I would attempt to interpret it that way.
How you see it is irrelevant to how it's actually supposed to work, which is exactly what he's getting at. The RAW means nothing when it goes directly against the RAI. There are so many examples of this that the devs try to fix, or don't bother to fix at all, and several of these I've argued against myself. Armor Spikes with Two-Handed Weapons, the Courageous weapon property, many of these issues have had different definitions of RAI compared to what the RAW presented us, and needless to say, in all of those cases (and I mean all, not just the ones I've personally argued against), the RAW, was wrong.
If I see a fire, and that makes me feel cold, the intent behind the fire is actually supposed to slow down and essentially solidify atoms in the nearby atmosphere, not accelerate and turn atoms into a gaseous state like I expect all fire to do. That is, if I perceive a fire to function as it appears to be, and when it comes to the rules of the game, my perceptions, such as the above example I gave, mean nothing to what something actually is, in the real world.
I can guarantee you, clinging to that silly, highly inconsistent RAW, which is how you see it work, will lead you to playing a game that nobody would call Pathfinder, which is what everybody is actually playing.
And I hardly ever use the term guarantee, especially since it's always used in cheesy infomercials that are nothing but scam in an attempt to convey their "sincerity" in their product's "quality". The difference between them and me? I have no reason to scam people out of a game that they can change to suit their needs, because it's a futile effort, and it infringes on a player's right to play their home games how they see fit.
If you still don't believe me, then try to do it in PFS, the standard of which all official rules are given testament. See what happens. You just better hope that the GMs won't take your character sheet, rip it into a bunch of pieces, and tell you to make a character that actually follows the rules the game developers have created.
|
|
Also, anything more than one attack still requires a full-round action.Rubbish.
You removed my quote showing it isn't "rubbish", so here it is again:
If you get more than one attack per round because your base attack bonus is high enough (see Base Attack Bonus in Classes), because you fight with two weapons or a double weapon, or for some special reason, you must use a full-round action to get your additional attacks.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Attacks of Opportunities are not part of your attacks. You cannot decide to make them as any type of action. They are specifically not an action. They only work when properly triggered.
Greater Trip is a feat with a special trigger.
Vicious Stomp is a feat with a special trigger.
Hurtful is a great example of why a Throwing Shield does NOT grant free action attacks. Hurtful has 2 Pre-Reqs and a feat cost. It only works in certain situations AFTER a successful skill use. It is not used whenever you want, but only with a special trigger. It has a detriment if the attack fails.
But for 50gp (or whatever it is) you get free attacks with a shield at no penalty! Not likely.
Attacks made because of special triggers are not part of normal attacks. The claim discussed here is that the shield gives extra attacks, in the vein of TWF, Haste, and the like. Attacks of that nature do, almost always, require a Full Attack Action to employ. Special attacks associated with special triggers, do not, and are not equally comparable.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How you see it is irrelevant to how it's actually supposed to work,I feel insulted by that remark, Darksol. Not that my medical history is any of your business, but I have never had a diagnosis of any mental illness nor hallucination. I think I am a sane man in possession of his faculties, not inclined to hallucinate. And I do believe that information my senses send to my brain provides meaningful insight into the world around me just as I believe yours do for you.
If I see a fire, and that makes me feel cold, the intent behind the fire is actually supposed to slow down and essentially solidify atoms in the nearby atmosphere, not accelerate and turn atoms into a gaseous state like I expect all fire to do. That is, if I perceive a fire to function as it appears to be, and when it comes to the rules of the game, my perceptions, such as the above example I gave, mean nothing to what something actually is, in the real world.Then again, maybe not. That is one trippy example, Mr. Painbringer. My compliments.
I used that example to demonstrate that even if a subject appears to be one thing, and it instead exhibits qualities of something else, then it's actually that something else, which is exactly what this is about, and I used a Fire and Ice contrast to show what sort of qualities the RAW and the RAI present for each other (in that a Fire wavers and can be extinguished, whereas Ice is solid, immovable, and if thick and strong enough, becomes very difficult to crush and shatter into pieces). When you use Fire to melt away the Ice, it can create Water, whose mass is constantly shifting between surfaces through gravitational pull. There is also a result of Steam, extremely warm air that accelerates to the top (and can certainly cloud/heat anything in the vicinity, including people like us). I can go on, but I'm sure you understand the concept I'm portraying here.
---
In a perfect world, that is what Paizo is trying to do: Make a game whose rules are flawless, fairly simple to follow, and are arbitrary plus absolute in their meaning.
Unfortunately, last I checked, this world isn't perfect (it'd probably be boring if it was anyway), meaning there will be loopholes, complications, and flaws along the way, which Paizo attempts to fix with FAQs/Errata, which supersede any sort of RAW you would expect to find "valid." Although this issue isn't FAQ'd or Errata'd yet, I suspect if several players try to do what you suggest is possible, it will be brought up, discussed by the Devs, and most likely fixed in the other way.
Not all GMs work the same way either; even PFS GMs will rule differently amongst each other in corner case situations (if only just to keep the game flowing), and that's because each PFS GM has their own opinions and viewpoints on things and how they interact with each other.
---
Even if I can throw that shield as a Free Action, it ignores many precedents and rules set in the game. What BAB does it use? Does it even use an attack roll? Is it even supposed to be an attack? And if it does, Wouldn't that incur penalties because I'm trying to get more attacks than what my BAB normally allows, as well as its damage modifiers?
The point here is that if we follow your interpretation, it leads to a lot of What-Ifs that the book, by itself, doesn't cover; it requires a specific viewpoint to come in and properly explain how it's supposed to work. When it comes to rules, it's (almost) always best to follow a more conservative result, so as to keep the original rules functioning the way they're designed to.
---
Again, if you sincerely doubt my viewpoints (and this extends to more than just this disagreement here), then put it to the test in the place that marks all that is official. If I see it happen in PFS gameplay, then I'll concede my argument. Until that happens, I'll merely offer you a facial expression that suggests you've lost it, here.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is a joke, right?
Hellknights know to at least consider the intent behind someone's actions before they pass their judgement on the action itself. To do otherwise is just yet another case of Lawful Stupid. Last I checked, the game wasn't written with Lawful Stupid in mind.
If they see an action that appears harmless, but find out that it is instead a plot against the foundation of the city, you can guarantee they'll be up in arms, ready to smite and fight that which causes destruction to their fair city.
So, Darksol, Nefreet, and Komodo, I feel compelled to point out that this thread is on the Rules Forum. Your last posts have been all about what you think the rules should mean or were intended. My posts have been what the rules actually say, and I think that is the only appropriate kind of argument to make on the Rules Forum.
This is so incorrect. If RAW was the only thing worth discussing, this forum would not exist. Or if it did, it would just be "Quote=CRB" and there would be no reason to discuss anything.
It seems our arguments are oblique to each other at this point, and it seems that all 3 of you have pretty much acknowledged and conceded to me as to what the rules say, word-for-word. That being the case, I have little more to say.
We all know what is typed. We all disagree with you on the intent of the words typed.
I have demonstrated that throwing a Throwing Shield is a Free Action by quoting you the description of the Throwing shield in Ultimate Equipment.
We have all explained to you that you are misunderstanding the intent of the rules as written. We have demonstrated all the similar examples that give support to our claim and take support away from your claim.
I have demonstrated that there are bonus attacks you can take as Free Actions that increase the number of attacks you can take in a round by citing numerous examples.
I have demonstrated that many of these attacks do not have to happen within the context of the Full Attack Action, by looking holistically at the descriptions of Full Attack Actions, Free Actions, and Swift Actions in the Core Rulebook. You can read all these things in my posts on this thread.
I more clearly explained how those things you call attacks, are not actually chosen attacks. They are all special triggers. In no way can a player legally state, "on my turn I will vicious stomp my target". Certain triggers in the game must be met, far beyond it being the player's turn.
You seem to have a concern that my literal interpretation of the rules somehow fundamentally unbalances the game, but--also going by the RAW description of Free Actions--I have demonstrated that this is not the case. The Core Rulebook has already placed controls on abusing the Free Action economy, so creative interpretations of the rules is not necessary.
There is no real "limit" on free actions. As there was no way to put a hard limit on it, the designers had to put some line in there for the DM to call shenanigans. One clear limit is that no attacks without triggers are free actions.
Meanwhile, I urge you to consider that if somebody is breaking no rules, trying to stop them from playing the game their way is persecution.
So, dead people can still take actions, correct? I mean most have agreed that is the strict RAW result of the CRB. And if that is the case, that it doesn't matter how many actions you take in a round, does it? In fact, that makes pretty much all the other rules of the game useless.
Not even Hellknights would do that.
That is a real general characterization of an entire class of people. Don't you think that is discrimination? And on a rules forum where only RAW should be discussed as well? I don't understand why you would take this opportunity to insult Hellknights like that. It is as if you are implying that they are bad people most of the time.
It is so unRAW of you.
And to think that all I wanted to do was have the option to throw my shield if an enemy tried to skirt around my threatened area so I could not get an AoO.
And the answer is yes, you can. You can throw your shield as a Free Action, Full BAB. If this is a PFS Character, and the GM has a problem with it, you can open up your Ultimate Equipment and show him that a Throwing Shield can be "unclasped and thrown as a free action. If you bought the cool rule book, you get to do the cool stuff.
EVEN IF throwing a shield is a free action (which I in no way support), one can't use the free action OUTSIDE of one's turn to attack someone.
So Cornellius Aggredor, if someone tries walking past you and not within your threatened area and not provoking AoO otherwise, you're able not to attack them (throwing shield or with anything else) unless you had readied an action to do so or some other ability allowing it.