Now, aside from that, let me play along with you for a moment. Say we DO agree with you, and say that ANYTHING that can be used as a weapon can be manifested by the mindblade. Whether it be by your definition shields, improvised weapons, or a horse-drawn carriage.
If you are saying this, then you are most definitely NOT agreeing with me. What I'm saying is, that just because you can hit someone with a shield, that doesn't make it a weapon. It is treated as a weapon when you hit someone with it, but it is armor.
Basically, where I'm going with is that only actual weapons can be enchanted as weapons, and only enchanted weapons can be manifested by the mindblade. Can you have a +1 horse-drawn carriage? No. Can you have a +1 improvised weapon? No. Can you have a +1(as a weapon!) shield? yes.
The answer to all these questions is the same as the answer to whether you can manifest them as a mindblade.
Does this seem like a fair assessment to you?
Okay I'll agree with that, but if a mindblade does that, then what he's actually doing to creating a bashing round thing, not a shield. He doesn't get the AC bonus, because he can create weapons, not armor.
I legitimately can't believe people are arguing against this.
Nobody is saying that shields are literally weapons by the english definition of the word weapon. They are weapons for the purposes of this game, and that's pretty freaking obvious given that they're on the weapons table.
If a GM would not let me make a shield with this ability, I would walk away from the table, because this is a joke.
The Shield is a weapon, whether it you like are not.
Providing a Bonus to AC does not change this.
Ah falling back to the "I'm right because you're wrong" argument, how will I ever get by that irrefutable proof?
What about my Blocking and Reach weapon quality examples?
Are they found on the armor list (oh that's right, only the weapon list is unquestionable, all the other ones are just suggestions)? Do they say they're only weapons when used a certain way? If not, what about them?
What about the Klar?
Well let's see what the Klar description says: A traditional klar counts as a light wooden shield with armor spikes. A metal klar counts as a light steel shield with armor spikes.
Pretty straight forward there, what's your question?
I legitimately can't believe people are arguing against this.
Nobody is saying that shields are literally weapons by the english definition of the word weapon. They are weapons for the purposes of this game, and that's pretty freaking obvious given that they're on the weapons table.
If a GM would not let me make a shield with this ability, I would walk away from the table, because this is a joke.
EDIT: Let me be less snarky and ask you a question that I've ask 4 or 5 times already, but people ignore it. If the developers did want the shield to be armor that you can hit people with, where would they put the damage and crit range? You see it doesn't fit on the armor table, no spots for it, so where do you think they'd put it?
And, by the way, "it's on the list" is really a stupid pointless argument, because I can use the same one. It's not a weapon because it's on the armor list. Why does the weapon list seem to be more important than the armor list. Now if you wanted to say "it's both" I could get behind that, except I have rulings that say it's not always a weapon, it's only a weapon when you use it a certain way. The way to use it as a weapon isn't even covered in the weapon section. Shield bash is covered in the armor section because shields are armor. The damage and crit range is the the weapons table only for convenience. If that list is so all powerful, then we have to agree that claws are not weapons and a fist is a weapon.
So yeah how about that. A mindblade can manifest a fist since a fist is a weapon because it's on the almighty list. And it would be stupid to allow him to manifest a fist and not be able to use it as a hand, because hey, a fist is a hand.
Please, tell me how shields aren't a weapon when they are literally on the weapons table. I don't care about the argument with everything else, even bucklers. Normal light and heavy shields. How on Gozreh's green Golarion is something on the weapons table not a weapon. Until you can answer that question you have no argument at all.
See above and think "fist"
P.S. Answer my question too please.
Okay I'll agree with that, but if a mindblade does that, then what he's actually doing to creating a bashing round thing, not a shield. He doesn't get the AC bonus, because he can create weapons, not armor.
Now for the other relevant bit:
a psychic weapon counts as a magic weapon of whatever type the mindblade selected, with a +1 enhancement bonus.
This is pretty unambiguous. That means the weapon counts as the weapon you manifested, and it does not give any exceptions. Did you choose a reach weapon? It counts as that reach weapon. Did you manifest a shield? It counts as that shield.
Now, there's the other thing i wanted to bring up. You said that the mindblade cant manifest armor, but it doesnt actually state that anywhere in the ability. In reality, the mindblade can simply manifest any weapon. Is a breastplate a weapon? No. You cant manifest the breastplate. Not because it is armor, but because it is not. Weapon. A shield is unique in that, in game terms, it is both an armor and a weapon. You can manifest it because it is a weapon.
EDIT: to put my two cents on manifesting fists, you cant enchant fists, so they cant count as a magic weapon of the chosen type.
EDIT: Let me be less snarky
Oh how kind. Don't worry, I'm sure you'll still be wrong.
If the developers did want the shield to be armor that you can hit people with, where would they put the damage and crit range? You see it doesn't fit on the armor table, no spots for it, so where do you think they'd put it?
They would make another table and say "shields are not weapons, but you can hit people with them." That entire line of argument is flawed because it begs the question that shields aren't weapons int he first place. Logical fallacy, -10 points.
And, by the way, "it's on the list" is really a stupid pointless argument
Oh, the salty snarkiness is back. It's alright, we all get frustrated when we are so beyond wrong.
because I can use the same one. It's not a weapon because it's on the armor list. Why does the weapon list seem to be more important than the armor list. Now if you wanted to say "it's both" I could get behind that
Good, because it is both.
except I have rulings that say it's not always a weapon, it's only a weapon when you use it a certain way.
Who.
The hell.
Cares?
A spear is only a weapon when you stab people with it. The rest of the time it's a walking stick. A shield is only a weapon when you smash people with it. The rest of the time it's my frying pan. Stupid question.
The way to use it as a weapon isn't even covered in the weapon section. Shield bash is covered in the armor section because shields are armor. The damage and crit range is the the weapons table only for convenience. If that list is so all powerful, then we have to agree that claws are not weapons and a fist is a weapon.
Hahahahaha...hahahahaha!!! Oh then I guess every single bestiary entry isn't a weapon because it's not on the weapons table. Specific>general.
So yeah how about that. A mindblade can manifest a fist since a fist is a weapon because it's on the almighty list. And it would be stupid to allow him to manifest a fist and not be able to use it as a hand, because hey, a fist is a hand.
I would agree that the line should say manufactured weapon.
Campincarl, i may be on your side of this argument, but i just wanted to say that you're being pretty snarky here yourself. It doesnt lend credence to your argument, even if he started it.
Let's just all try to keep it civil.
Oh I know. And it was fully intended. I'm pretty civil most of the time, even in heated arguments, because I understand how the opposition could reach their conclusion (i.e. Aspect of the falcon thread). But this position is just a joke. His argument is about as valid as claiming that a fireball is a divine only spell because he found one line in the rules that says a cleric can cast fireball. Presenting a well reasoned argument I can respect, but he's just spreading misinformation, and that rustles my jimmies.
As for creating an unarmed strike.
RAW? Clearly no.
RAI? I sincerely doubt and hope not.
Hilarious? Yes, and I would totally allow a player to manifest a severed limb to club their enemies with.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh how kind. Don't worry, I'm sure you'll still be wrong.
*Sigh* I should have gone with my first response.
They would make another table and say "shields are not weapons, but you can hit people with them."
Actually they did almost exactly that when they said said "it's only a weapon when you hit someone with it" And yes that makes perfect sense I'm sure they'd create a whole new table just for shields. If that's your thought process I'm not so sure you should be so condescending.
That entire line of argument is flawed because it begs the question that shields aren't weapons int he first place. Logical fallacy, -10 points.
Since it's a question and not an argument, there is no logical fallacy, so -20 points for failure to understand a question, and trying to avoid an obstacle that would prove you wrong, but in the effort of diplomacy, you don't think it's possible, that the reason that shield is on the weapon list is that it was an easy place for damage and crits? Not at all possible?
Oh, the salty snarkiness is back. It's alright, we all get frustrated when we are so beyond wrong.
I'm sure you'd know.
Good, because it is both.
Agreed
Who.
The hell.
Cares?
I'm sorry, I thought rules were important in the rules forum. No wonder I'm wrong, you don't care about the rules.
A spear is only a weapon when you stab people with it. The rest of the time it's a walking stick. A shield is only a weapon when you smash people with it. The rest of the time it's my frying pan. Stupid question.
Now see, are you using real world examples here? Because if you are google "Is a shield a weapon" and this is the first Entry:
A shield is a type of personal armor, meant to intercept attacks, either by stopping projectiles such as arrows or redirecting a hit from a sword, mace, battle axe or similar weapon to the side of the shield-bearer.
If you're still talking about Pathfinder...well the Pathfinder with rules that you don't seem to care about, but if you did, you're realize there is no mechanics to support your claim that a spear is ever anything but a weapon. There no FAQ's, or statements anywhere that says a spear is only a weapon when you attack with it. All the rules say a spear is always a weapon. I know I'm bringing up rules again, you hate that.
Hahahahaha...hahahahaha!!! Oh then I guess every single bestiary entry isn't a weapon because it's not on the weapons table. Specific>general.And it's at this point it's obvious you have no idea what you're arguing about (you're actually laughing at yourself, but I'll let you go back and read and see if you can figure out why).
Now as fun as that was, I admit I was wrong. It was my original contention that a shield was never meant to be a weapon. It evolved that way because people kept trying to abuse it as an off-hand attack. It was for that reason that I wouldn't allow it. After going back and reading some of J.J.'s post from 2010, it was obvious, at least in his mind, that shields were weapons. So with that new information, I concede.
Puts entire argument about how I'm wrong, making snarky comments the whole time.
Then concedes.
Lol ok.
By the way, being snarky is only fine if you are snarky in addition to making an argument. Being an ass in it of itself is just stupid.
But good, we can both agree that you're wrong.
[/thread]
being snarky is only fine if you are snarky in addition to making an argument.
Going to have to disagree with this one.
being snarky is only fine if you are snarky in addition to making an argument.Going to have to disagree with this one.
Fair enough. But I'm the kind of guy who likes Sargon of Akkad and how he presents arguments, and I think ridiculous arguments deserve a certain level of condescending.
But I digress: the OP is answered and we're now in agreement. Time to let the thread die.
So wait...a Spear, even if I use it to poke somebody with the blunt end of it, is not using it as an Improvised Weapon, especially when a Spear, according to the table, does not deal Bludgeoning Damage at all?
That argument smells of so many fallacies that it's rancid and repugnant. A weapon has a means to be used in a manner intended; the factor that your claim is "The description doesn't tell me that I have to use the pointy end to consider it a weapon" just falls flat on its face, because weapons have intended uses, and using a weapon outside of its intended use means you're actually improvising the use of the weapon in contrast to how it's supposed to be used; which is precisely one of the things that Devs state would fall into Improvised Weapon territory.
By that logic, PCs don't have to go to the bathroom, take a shower, worry about cleanliness, purchase mundane material components, or sleep, since the rules don't say that they have to. Let's also bring up the Dead condition, which actually doesn't say that you're Dead, can't act, or that your body becomes an Object, meaning that receiving the Dead does nothing.
There are intended rules, such as them using Errata to allow Shields to be used as Primary (instead of always being treated as Off-Hand Weapons), especially in cases of TWF. If a Shield is not a Weapon, then it would not be eligible for use with TWF, since it requires TWO WEAPONS to accomplish. An Unarmed Strike would be a more eligible candidate to TWF, especially since you can do so with a Flurry of Blows, which behaves like TWF.
Here's a full entry that you seem to love so much, from the PRD, that you claim is the entire basis for your argument:
You can bash an opponent with a light shield. See “shield, light” on Table: Weapons for the damage dealt by a shield bash. Used this way, a light shield is a martial bludgeoning weapon. For the purpose of penalties on attack rolls, treat a light shield as a light weapon. If you use your shield as a weapon, you lose its AC bonus until your next turn. An enhancement bonus on a shield does not improve the effectiveness of a shield bash made with it, but the shield can be made into a magic weapon in its own right.
Bolded relevant factors. The last one is the most important, because you need to think about its implications: If a Shield is not a weapon, according to you, then how can it be made or enchanted as a weapon, if it is, in fact, not a weapon?
The rules would implode right there if we used your argument, because there's no way a Shield can be a Weapon, much less a Magic weapon, and yet the rules specifically allow it to be enhanced and created as a Magic Weapon. So, let's see what it takes to make a Magic Weapon:
A magic weapon is enhanced to strike more truly and deliver more damage. Magic weapons have enhancement bonuses ranging from +1 to +5. They apply these bonuses to both attack and damage rolls when used in combat. All magic weapons are also masterwork weapons, but their masterwork bonuses on attack rolls do not stack with their enhancement bonuses on attack rolls.
So let's see here, it must be a Masterwork Weapon, but that can't be right; Shields can't ever receive the benefits of being a Masterwork Weapon, they must receive the ACP reduction, meaning it can't be a Masterwork Weapon. So how can it be a Magic Weapon, if it can't be a Masterwork Weapon?
BECAUSE THE RULES SAY IT CAN:
A shield could be built that also acted as a magic weapon, but the cost of the enhancement bonus on attack rolls would need to be added into the cost of the shield and its enhancement bonus to AC.
You don't need the rules to sit there and tell you "It's a Weapon," when they have every single characteristic a Manufactured Weapon possesses, and then some.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
*munches on popcorn in the background*
Sheilds are armor.
Sheilds are weapons.
Both are true.
These things are not mutually exclusive.
I think I can boil down Jodokai's argument: He doesn't get the AC bonus, because he can create weapons, not armor.
So if you follow that: You can't use a dagger mindblade to cut a rope because it's not using it as a weapon, but a tool. You can't hammer anything because that's a tool. Kunai can't be used as crowbars. My question is this-What happens to the mindblade when someone tries to use a weapon to do something other than attack? And where is this spelled out?
"It's not a weapon because it's on the armor list. Why does the weapon list seem to be more important than the armor list.": My question is where is the rule that an item MUST be one thing only? Why does one table have matter to the other one? The ability makes a weapon and also never says it CAN'T make armor. There is literally nothing in the ability stopping you from doing something other than attacking with them.
|
No.
Not just "can be used as a weapon". That applies to any object you can hold.
It is, in completion, a weapon.
Not "sort of".
If you're talking about a lantern shield, then I'd agree with you. The lantern shield was an Italian dueling shield. It consisted of the following all in the same object:
*Buckler style shield
*attached gauntlet with two spikes for disarming your opponent
*spike in the center of the shield
*Longsword blade which begins at the elbow and extends a foot or so past the shield, only the part that extends past your gauntleted hand is sharpened
*hardware to attach a small lantern to the back of the shield so you can blind your foe
In general though, I'd say a shield is armor first and foremost. So I'd say "no" to the mindblade in my games. You can use shields to attack, which is why they have a weapon listing. But their primary purpose is to defend the wielder from harm. Attacking with one without the improved shield bash feat negates this primary purpose for the round.
|
|
So let's see here, it must be a Masterwork Weapon, but that can't be right; Shields can't ever receive the benefits of being a Masterwork Weapon, they must receive the ACP reduction, meaning it can't be a Masterwork Weapon. So how can it be a Magic Weapon, if it can't be a Masterwork Weapon?
For the purpose of Mindblade, I would rule that shields are not weapons. Why? Because by default they aren't weapons. They act as a weapon, but ONLY when you use shield bash.
If you're enchanting your shield as a weapon so it has bonuses to strike and/or additional effects, only THEN is it always considered a weapon.
That said, would making a shield a +5 flaming burst shield of disruption cause the wielder to also get burned by the shield? Or would only the outer surface be on fire? Also, would you have to make fortitude saves while holding the shield due to it being hot or take damage?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No.
Not just "can be used as a weapon". That applies to any object you can hold.
It is, in completion, a weapon.
Not "sort of".
If you're talking about a lantern shield, then I'd agree with you. The lantern shield was an Italian dueling shield. It consisted of the following all in the same object:
*Buckler style shield
*attached gauntlet with two spikes for disarming your opponent
*spike in the center of the shield
*Longsword blade which begins at the elbow and extends a foot or so past the shield, only the part that extends past your gauntleted hand is sharpened
*hardware to attach a small lantern to the back of the shield so you can blind your foeIn general though, I'd say a shield is armor first and foremost. So I'd say "no" to the mindblade in my games. You can use shields to attack, which is why they have a weapon listing. But their primary purpose is to defend the wielder from harm. Attacking with one without the improved shield bash feat negates this primary purpose for the round.
First off, shields are not armor. They are a barrier that is actively wielded to block or deflect blows. Real life shields and the game mechanics of shields are wildly divergent.
That said, as a SCA heavy fighter and a student of European martial arts, I can tell you from extensive experience with both strapped heater shields and center grip round and oblong shields, that a shield is a weapon. Shield edges can break bones, and a punch from a center grip boss hurts more than a hit from a gauntlet. Shields can deflect blows in real life, but they are also weapons that can inflict deadly wounds if used with training.
Bu as I said before, that is irrelevant. In terms of game mechanics, a shield is armor and a weapon. As a weapon, it is a valid object to be manifested by a mindblade. Anything else is a house rule.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For the purpose of Mindblade, I would rule that shields are not weapons. Why? Because by default they aren't weapons. They act as a weapon, but ONLY when you use shield bash.
Semantic flim-flammery. You know what else only 'acts as a weapon' when you hit someone with it?
All other weapons.
If you're enchanting your shield as a weapon so it has bonuses to strike and/or additional effects, only THEN is it always considered a weapon.
Nowhere in the rules, but fine... Mindblade automatically imparts a +1 weapon enhancement bonus on all objects it forms. The shield is now enchanted. Problem solved.
That said, would making a shield a +5 flaming burst shield of disruption cause the wielder to also get burned by the shield? Or would only the outer surface be on fire? Also, would you have to make fortitude saves while holding the shield due to it being hot or take damage?
No. Why would these problems apply to a shield, but not a flaming burst sword? Again, this is nowhere in the rules. Not even as a wild mis-interpretation. It's just pure invention.
People need to stop being silly or I'm gonna take it the other way... the potential cheeze factor on Mindblade weapons is huge, but bloody shields aren't even remotely the issue. They're melee weapons. Not even in any way questionable or over-powered weapons. Just basic, run of the mill, shouldn't even be a question... weapons.
|
|
No. Why would these problems apply to a shield, but not a flaming burst sword? Again, this is nowhere in the rules. Not even as a wild mis-interpretation. It's just pure invention.
People need to stop being silly or I'm gonna take it the other way... the potential cheeze factor on Mindblade weapons is huge, but bloody shields aren't even remotely the issue. They're melee weapons. Not even in any way questionable or over-powered weapons. Just basic, run of the mill, shouldn't even be a question... weapons.
For one thing, when you enchant a sword with flaming or flaming burst, do you enchant the hilt to be on fire too? No, you don't. I would hope the enchanter placed something on the hilt to prevent it from becoming too hot to hold.
Now consider, you've got a steel light shield that's been enchanted with Flaming Burst. You're in combat, it's on fire, isn't that metal getting rather hot? Even if the fire's only on one side, one would think the metal it's self is getting hot.
I'm not saying that the devs had thought of this or didn't think of this. But how is it "silly" to ask a legitimate question about the logistics of such an enchantment being placed on a shield?
Equally, one can assume that a sheath made for a flaming weapon has some sort of enchantment to suppress that part of the weapon's magic while sheathed. It'd have to otherwise your sword would burn through the sheath. But what about a shield with the same enchantment? Is it always on fire, 24/7? Is there some method of activating and deactivating the Flaming aspect so you can store the shield safely? This might be a legitimate concern for the person wanting such an armament.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Equally, one can assume that a sheath made for a flaming weapon has some sort of enchantment to suppress that part of the weapon's magic while sheathed. It'd have to otherwise your sword would burn through the sheath. But what about a shield with the same enchantment? Is it always on fire, 24/7? Is there some method of activating and deactivating the Flaming aspect so you can store the shield safely? This might be a legitimate concern for the person wanting such an armament.
Upon command, a flaming weapon is sheathed in fire that deals an extra 1d6 points of fire damage on a successful hit. The fire does not harm the wielder. The effect remains until another command is given.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To give my two cents on the matter, the rules already have several different examples of a single item counting as multiple things under the rules.
While shield is the relevant example, also consider things like Daggers. A dagger is both a melee weapon and a ranged weapon, though it is specifically treated as one or the other when used that way.
Overall, I personally think that these are the best criteria: If it exists on a weapon table and can be enchanted as a weapon, the mindblade can manifest it. It has every property of the chosen weapon. Period.
So let's see here, it must be a Masterwork Weapon, but that can't be right; Shields can't ever receive the benefits of being a Masterwork Weapon, they must receive the ACP reduction, meaning it can't be a Masterwork Weapon. So how can it be a Magic Weapon, if it can't be a Masterwork Weapon?For the purpose of Mindblade, I would rule that shields are not weapons. Why? Because by default they aren't weapons. They act as a weapon, but ONLY when you use shield bash.
If you're enchanting your shield as a weapon so it has bonuses to strike and/or additional effects, only THEN is it always considered a weapon.
That said, would making a shield a +5 flaming burst shield of disruption cause the wielder to also get burned by the shield? Or would only the outer surface be on fire? Also, would you have to make fortitude saves while holding the shield due to it being hot or take damage?
It's not proven that a Shield, by default, isn't always a weapon. By that logic, you can't threaten or make attacks of opportunities with shields; except the rules allow you to do so, just like any other weapon.
The same logic applies for enhancing: Normally, I can't enhance a Shield as if it were a weapon, except the rules allow me to do that. Though I can tell you I can't normally enhance it as a weapon not because it's not normally a weapon, it's because it can't normally become a Masterwork Weapon. Even that is debatable, since a Shield, even though it doesn't have the same sort of Masterwork benefits, it still has Masterwork benefits, but to err on the side of conservation, I'll say it's not considered a Masterwork Weapon, since it doesn't receive the same treatment as other Masterwork Weapons.
I understand that a Shield is primarily used for defense, but saying it can't ever be a weapon, or that by default it can't be used as a weapon, is sheer nonsense, especially when every rules element that I can cite points to it. In fact, I've constructed a build that relies on nothing but shields to attack with, and can be Dexterity-based as well.
I'll gladly test it for you, too: Feel free to give me any question about any other weapon, say, a Greatsword, to compare it to how a Shield can pull it off, and I'll demonstrate that it is just as much a weapon as the "default" weapon. The fact that I can do such a thing, is proof enough that it's just as much a weapon as any other "default" weapon, and therefore should not be grounded for disqualification just because it's more than a weapon.
I feel like I'm Charles Xavier here, trying to preach about how uncannily similar Mutants and Humans are.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So your argument that shields aren't weapons is the overwhelming amount of evidence in the rules that shields are treated as weapons?
Mmk.
*munches on popcorn in the background*
|
|
So your argument that shields aren't weapons is the overwhelming amount of evidence in the rules that shields are treated as weapons?
Mmk.
*munches on popcorn in the background*
Nope, it's the wording of the descriptions for shields, and their designed purpose. The designed purpose of a shield is to ward off attacks. Warriors have used this defensive item offensively, but it's not what most shields are designed for. The exact wording for shield bash, and I'll bold the parts that cal out that shields aren't primarily designed as a weapon, thus why I'd say mindblade can't make one.
Shield Bash Attacks: You can bash an opponent with a
heavy shield, using it as an off-hand weapon. See “shield,
heavy” on Table 6–4 for the damage dealt by a shield bash.
Used this way, a heavy shield is a martial bludgeoning
weapon. For the purpose of penalties on attack rolls,
treat a heavy shield as a one-handed weapon. If you use
your shield as a weapon, you lose its AC bonus until your
next turn. An enhancement bonus on a shield does not
improve the effectiveness of a shield bash made with it,
but the shield can be made into a magic weapon in its own right.
"If you use your shield as a weapon"? That's rather telling right there. And the fact it says to treat the shield as a one handed weapon, not that it is a one handed weapon. I can hit you with my frying pan, using it as a one handed weapon. That doesn't mean it is a weapon. it's still a cooking tool, and was designed as a cooking tool. Any offensive use is purely a coincidence. Similarly I could hold a lit bic lighter and spray hairspray through the flames to create a jet of flame. Are you going to claim the hairspray can is a weapon in and of it's self?
Now, once you start enchanting your shield specifically to use it in attacks rather then defending yourself, THEN I'll consider your shield a weapon. Why? Because you're changing it's default intended use.
"If you use your shield as a weapon"? That's rather telling right there. And the fact it says to treat the shield as a one handed weapon, not that it is a one handed weapon. I can hit you with my frying pan, using it as a one handed weapon. That doesn't mean it is a weapon. it's still a cooking tool, and was designed as a cooking tool. Any offensive use is purely a coincidence. Similarly I could hold a lit bic lighter and spray hairspray through the flames to create a jet of flame. Are you going to claim the hairspray can is a weapon in and of it's self?
Except those are very clearly defined in the rules as improvised weapons. Shields are not improvised weapons.
|
|
Why can't people accept that it is both.
You can't take Weapon Focus(frying pan).
You can't enchant a frying pan with weapon enchantments.
A frying pan is not in any Fighter Weapon Group.
The shield is.
That, is because it is a weapon.
Why can't you understand that I'm saying I wouldn't allow it for mindblade because it's INTENDED use is not as a weapon. I never said shields can't be used as a weapon. Never would say that in fact. But "hit people" is not the default intended use of a shield. Nine times out of ten the fighter isn't buying a shield so he can hit people with it. That's just an option he's got now that he does have a shield. He's buying it to protect himself.
When/if you start enchanting it for bonuses on to-hit and damage, THEN it becomes a weapon by default. You're looking at your shield and going "how can I hurt people with this more effectively", not "how can I protect myself better". Until then it's a protective device first, weapon only when needed as one.
|
|
"If you use your shield as a weapon"? That's rather telling right there. And the fact it says to treat the shield as a one handed weapon, not that it is a one handed weapon. I can hit you with my frying pan, using it as a one handed weapon. That doesn't mean it is a weapon. it's still a cooking tool, and was designed as a cooking tool. Any offensive use is purely a coincidence. Similarly I could hold a lit bic lighter and spray hairspray through the flames to create a jet of flame. Are you going to claim the hairspray can is a weapon in and of it's self?Except those are very clearly defined in the rules as improvised weapons. Shields are not improvised weapons.
Actually, they kind of are an improvised weapon. You just don't get penalties for using it like that other then losing the AC bonus.
So your argument that shields aren't weapons is the overwhelming amount of evidence in the rules that shields are treated as weapons?
Mmk.
*munches on popcorn in the background*Nope, it's the wording of the descriptions for shields, and their designed purpose. The designed purpose of a shield is to ward off attacks. Warriors have used this defensive item offensively, but it's not what most shields are designed for. The exact wording for shield bash, and I'll bold the parts that cal out that shields aren't primarily designed as a weapon, thus why I'd say mindblade can't make one.
Shield Bash Attacks: You can bash an opponent with a
heavy shield, using it as an off-hand weapon. See “shield,
heavy” on Table 6–4 for the damage dealt by a shield bash.
Used this way, a heavy shield is a martial bludgeoning
weapon. For the purpose of penalties on attack rolls,
treat a heavy shield as a one-handed weapon. If you use
your shield as a weapon, you lose its AC bonus until your
next turn. An enhancement bonus on a shield does not
improve the effectiveness of a shield bash made with it,
but the shield can be made into a magic weapon in its own right."If you use your shield as a weapon"? That's rather telling right there. And the fact it says to treat the shield as a one handed weapon, not that it is a one handed weapon. I can hit you with my frying pan, using it as a one handed weapon. That doesn't mean it is a weapon. it's still a cooking tool, and was designed as a cooking tool. Any offensive use is purely a coincidence. Similarly I could hold a lit bic lighter and spray hairspray through the flames to create a jet of flame. Are you going to claim the hairspray can is a weapon in and of it's self?
Now, once you start enchanting your shield specifically to use it in attacks rather then defending yourself, THEN I'll consider your shield a weapon. Why? Because you're changing it's default intended use.
A dagger is treated as a thrown weapon if you throw it, and a melee weapon if you don't.
A shield is treated as an armor if you block with it, and a weapon if you bash with it.
The point is, you're trying to make qualifications for a "weapon" more complicated than they need to be. The most simple thing you can say is that "a weapon exists on a weapon table", because this is a game with game rules. When something exists as both one thing and the other, it means it is both of those things. So because a shield is a weapon AND an armor, it is a weapon. By your argument, we shouldn't be able to take "weapon focus(shield)" because weapon focus requires that you choose one type of weapon, and a shield isn't a weapon until you use it as such.
If it follows ALL the other rules of a weapon in the entire system of pathfinder, why then should it not be a weapon for this one ability, especially when they say don't say anything about being unable to manifest a shield?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Actually, they kind of are an improvised weapon. You just don't get penalties for using it like that other then losing the AC bonus."If you use your shield as a weapon"? That's rather telling right there. And the fact it says to treat the shield as a one handed weapon, not that it is a one handed weapon. I can hit you with my frying pan, using it as a one handed weapon. That doesn't mean it is a weapon. it's still a cooking tool, and was designed as a cooking tool. Any offensive use is purely a coincidence. Similarly I could hold a lit bic lighter and spray hairspray through the flames to create a jet of flame. Are you going to claim the hairspray can is a weapon in and of it's self?Except those are very clearly defined in the rules as improvised weapons. Shields are not improvised weapons.
Longswords kind of are an improvised weapon. You just don't get penalties for using it other then proficiency penalties.
|
|
Right. That's it. Too much nonsense. Have to introduce a counter-balance.
"By forming weapons with her mind, she always has the right tool for any situation."
Clearly this means that Mindblades can create any sort of tool. Not just tools like hammers, axes, scythes, et cetera but also saws, lockpicks, shovels, et cetera. It's right there in the text. If they couldn't make a saw they wouldn't "always" have the "right tool" for "any" situation.
Also, the dagger pistol is clearly a dagger... which is a melee weapon, and all weapons are tools for attacking things... so Mindblades can make dagger pistols... and then load them with mundane bullets and fire them. Ditto sword cane pistols... and halfling sling staffs. It's all clear as mud. Yessirree... Mindblades can create any object which can be held in two hands and "used to carry out a particular function" (definition of 'tool').
You realize, that all these arguments, could be used for, say, a Gauntlet, a Spiked Gauntlet, a Cestus, a Dwarven Boulder Helmet, and a Scizore.
Are these all "not weapons", but sort of weapons, and only work and are treated as weapons, whenever you just sort of feel like it?
To add on to this, there's also the Battle Aspergillum, Sickle, Wooden Stake, Whips, Boarding Axes, Machete, Ankus, Battle Ladder, and more that are all "not weapons" and cannot be manifested as Mindblade weapons, as they all do other things and are only treated as weapons when you hit things with them.
Also, the dagger pistol is clearly a dagger... which is a melee weapon, and all weapons are tools for attacking things... so Mindblades can make dagger pistols... and then load them with mundane bullets and fire them. Ditto sword cane pistols... and halfling sling staffs. It's all clear as mud. Yessirree... Mindblades can create any object which can be held in two hands and "used to carry out a particular function" (definition of 'tool').
Ohh, good point. That's actually a wonderful thought. I applaud you.
I think I'm going to include some ammunition in my mindblade's backpack. I love it.
"By forming weapons with her mind, she always has the right tool for any situation."
Also, this is fluff text. Outside of the listed rules of the ability.
Honestly, I'm beginning to grow very tired of paizo's fluff text, as it's creating so many arguments.
|
|
Also, this is fluff text. Outside of the listed rules of the ability.
I'm aware.
I submit it still makes more sense than the whole 'shields are not weapons because a flaming shield does not have a special magic sheath to stop the flames like all other weapons and therefor you get burned when holding shields, which are absolutely not weapons, with that weapon enchantment' argument.
At this point I've given up on reason and am just trying to balance the crazy by going the other direction with it.
Also, this is fluff text. Outside of the listed rules of the ability.I'm aware.
I submit it still makes more sense than the whole 'shields are not weapons because a flaming shield does not have a special magic sheath to stop the flames like all other weapons and therefor you get burned when holding shields, which are absolutely not weapons, with that weapon enchantment' argument.
At this point I've given up on reason and am just trying to balance the crazy by going the other direction with it.
Oh. I misunderstood where you were coming from. My bad.
|
|
Oh. I misunderstood where you were coming from. My bad.
No worries. Though now you've got me feeling all responsible and I suppose I ought to tell you that the Mindblade projectile weapons thing probably won't work because the text specifically lists light melee weapons, one-handed melee weapons, two-handed melee weapons, and melee double weapons as the types of things which can be created... while all projectile weapons are listed as either ranged weapons or firearms. Granted, the descriptive text for various combo ranged/melee weapons says they can be used like the component melee weapons... but that takes us back into the whirlwind of 'shields are only used like weapons, not actually weapons' and 'improvised weapons are ALSO used like melee weapons'. There is safety in restricting Mindblades to things specifically listed on the applicable "melee weapons" tables.
Why can't people accept that it is both.
You can't take Weapon Focus(frying pan).
You can't enchant a frying pan with weapon enchantments.
A frying pan is not in any Fighter Weapon Group.
The shield is.
That, is because it is a weapon.
..would a mithral frying pan bypass DR/silver?
(And, as far as things used to block blows..that opens up the whole 'defensive weapon' can of worms. One of the things I hate in 3.x and Pathfinder is how crappy quarterstaves are in this regard, but..well, aren't there weapons that are meant to be used defensively?)