Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
| 79 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Staff response: no reply required. 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
We got errata for Ultimate Equipment and it didn't correct the "armor spikes" language for spiked shields.
A question that seems to continually come up is the question of what is a shield modified by spikes:
- A spiked shield as a separate weapon and not using "as if" language.
- A shield with spikes which uses "as if" language.
A the FAQ that resulted from a 107 post FAQ request prohibits stacking of the spiked and bashing properties.
There are tons of threads on this matter:
- Ultimate Equipment had intentional change spiked shield to Armor spikes so it now stacks with bashing.
- spiked shield from this source now absolutely stacks with the bashing enchant.
- +1 Bashing Shield, and then add spikes to it, what does the damage from the shield become on a bash?
- bashing get it on a spiked shield and it goes to 2d6.
- Scarred Wanderer in NPC codex sets the precedence spiked bashing is 2d6.
- If it can be enhanced with it, both ("Shield Spikes" and "Bashing") would stack?
- still plenty of debate between bashing and shield spikes.
- Was there ever an official ruling on shield spikes and the bashing enchant?
- Do these two stack? Thus making a heavy shield do 2d6 damage.
- Shields, bashing, and spikes?
- +1 Shield of Bashing and then have Shield Spikes added to it does it still have its Bashing property?
- bashing quality is an armor quality; it's meant to be put on a shield, not a weapon like spiked shield
The FAQ seemed to solve most of the problem, but there is some confusion. It is similar to the ranged flanking confusion after the Gang Up FAQ. We had a FAQ that answered the question, but some felt the FAQ didn't apply.
Let's not try to debate which way is correct in this thread, it is abundantly clear that there can be no consensus to be found. Instead we should try to get as many FAQ clicks as possible. Please click FAQ and tell your friends to click FAQ.
I'll go ahead and FAQ this just so people can get a completely straight answer. A lot of the answers are extrapolations and are from rules that may or may not be relevant.
I will go ahead and say that if they do give a straight answer (such as explicitly saying "Spiked Bashing Shields deal 1D8 because of the Stacking Size FAQ"), and people still don't accept the answer, well...
(Keep in mind, I'm not saying they have to like it, just that they acknowledge that the answer given is correct.)
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
It helped with the Gang Up FAQ. They came along in PDT persona and said "this is already answered" essentially and linked the Gang Up FAQ.
All the people strongly supporting ranged flanking (getting sneak attack from a ranged weapon while also flanking with a melee weapon) stopped saying their reading of the rules was the only way at that point.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This has already been asked and answered.
The answer was perfectly clear, strait, and understandable and objective.
They do not stack.
Save the FAQ friday slot for something we don't already know.
This has already been asked and answered.
The answer was perfectly clear, strait, and understandable and objective.
They do not stack.
Save the FAQ friday slot for something we don't already know.
I agree with you completely. However, a lot of people would object to the bolded part.
The way I see it, James Risner effectively started a "shut them up once and for all" thread in relation to that subject. To that end, I support it. We shouldn't be seeing countless threads that result in "YES IT IS/NO IT ISN'T" statements that eventually die off due to lacking in fervor; there are more important things to expend server bandwidth and search options on than repeating the same arguments over and over until they decide "Screw it, I'm done arguing this point, let's wait for the Devs to say something about it."
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Save the FAQ friday slot for something we don't already know.
The Ranged Flanking answer wasn't a Friday slot. It was a "answer in PDT mode in the thread" and didn't burn a Friday answer slot.
I have a feeling this would result in the same. Someone popping over in PDT mode to say "yea, um, they don't stack" or "yea, um, 2d6 for sure!".
|
It's perfectly clear that under the current FAQ, a spiked bashing shield does 1d8 piercing damage, because shield spikes still use "as if one size larger" and you cannot make a spiked shield without shield spikes.
I still reject that shield spikes are actually a virtual size increase, but by the RAW as defined by the FAQ they are.
It's perfectly clear that under the current FAQ, a spiked bashing shield does 1d8 piercing damage, because shield spikes still use "as if one size larger" and you cannot make a spiked shield without shield spikes.
I still reject that shield spikes are actually a virtual size increase, but by the RAW as defined by the FAQ they are.
I'm right there with you. What I think it SHOULD be and what the FAQ says to me are two different things.
But it would be nice to have enough clarification in order to shut down debate one way or the other.
Yes, I would like to know if this means what it says,
Deadly spikes and bladed projections extend from some shields, transforming such pieces of armor into weapon in their own right.Shields are already weapons, so there's no need to point out that spiked shields are their own weapons unless that's what it means.
The entire sentence is fluff. More accurately, it establishes appearance, function and expectation in the fiction layer, while doing nothing in the rules layer. "Weapons in their own right" parses better into
*"proper weapons (that is, objects considered weapons from a fluff as well as rules standpoint)" than*"new class of item owing nothing to the parent items".
In addition, if the sentence was to be parsed as creating a brand new object with no dependencies, there would be no reason for shield spikes to have rules text, and it strictly contradicts the back-references in the spiked shield weapon descriptions.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This has already been asked and answered.
The answer was perfectly clear, strait, and understandable and objective.
They do not stack.
Save the FAQ friday slot for something we don't already know.
Why should this be any clearer than the DC to jump a 10' pit? We apparently needed a FAQ for that.
Hey guys, I have a shortcut for us. Tell herolab that they have the damage wrong for the shield and then they can check with Paizo and get an answer within the week and give you the email response. It'll be a much faster way to get an "official" answer than waiting for a FAQ.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
That short cut didn't work for courageous weapon property. It still didn't work when they shared the official email from Paizo saying their way of working in HL was correct.
People liked getting bonuses to their Str and Con when raging, and that email was a barrier to that so it wasn't "official". Just like the FAQ on this subject isn't "official".
That short cut didn't work for courageous weapon property. It still didn't work when they shared the official email from Paizo saying their way of working in HL was correct.
People liked getting bonuses to their Str and Con when raging, and that email was a barrier to that so it wasn't "official". Just like the FAQ on this subject isn't "official".
They shared an undocumented e-mail from an unrelated site/source. The reason the people didn't accept it as official was because stuff like that can easily be forged or replicated. Hell, I could make a joke account of a developer with Paizo, go to a third-party site, and provide rules answers impersonating one of the Paizo developers to impose my personal viewpoints of rules for fools who are too daft to bother going to the official publishers of the rules (Paizo themselves) for an authentic rules answer. (I'm not saying that I have or that I would; all I'm saying is that there are people who can and would do such things.)
The point is, that's the equivalent of taking card stock paper and trying to make it into Dollar Bills, or a Fake ID, and using it to illegally acquire items or information that are not privy to those who possess it.
So surely, you can understand that people (myself included) were skeptical of it being an official source, because it could have just as easily been a joke/ruse posed from one of the posters on this site to incite a rules change. It's paranoia, true, but quite frankly I'd rather question the powers that be for authenticity then to be blindsided.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If anyone cares, it was 2d6 in 3.5. I remember there was a specific spiked bashing shield that called out that it did 2d6 damage.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
The reason the people didn't accept it as official was because stuff like that can easily be forged or replicated
Ok, your scenarios are not what was known to happen.
So surely, you can understand that people (myself included) were skeptical of it being an official source
The only way I could agree someone should ever be skeptical is if they somehow missed that message being linked around in 2013 when there were non stop forum posts here about courageous. It's possible someone may never have seen that link, but highly unlikely.
If anyone cares, it was 2d6 in 3.5. I remember there was a specific spiked bashing shield that called out that it did 2d6 damage.
3.5 had a specific FAQ for spiked bashing heavy shields that allowed it to be 2d6. Pathfinder has a specific ruling about virtual size increases. Thus the issues and this current FAQ request.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Could we also piggyback the question of "How much damage does a Klar with the Bashing enchant do?"
A traditional klar counts as a light wooden shield with armor spikes; a metal klar counts as a light steel shield with armor spikes.
If "armor spikes" applied to a shield are meant to count as "shield spikes", then is the Klar's damage already being augmented by its "spikes"?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh, no, Klar discussions...
The fact the Klar was mistyped when it was reprinted and added to base weapons from its original appearance does not help matters. Armor spikes, indeed.
Nor does the fact it has a blade that is not a part of its shield function, that does d6 slashing.
To make all the current rules work, you first have to realize they mistyped the klar with armor spikes. With armor spikes, literally NO RULE works with the klar, because you can't put armor spikes on a shield, therefore it's not a spiked shield at all, it's not even a shield.
the second is that you have to realize that an attack with the klar's blade and a shield bash with the klar are two different things.
Then, you simply break it down.
You can bash with the Klar as a light spiked shield, following the normal spiked shield rules for a bash (base d4 piercing).
Or you can attack with the blade as a normal d6 slashing weapon. It's your choice.
The problem exists when people want the d6 slashing to be part of the shield bash; when they want the blade to share in a Shield Mastery buff to save money; when they want to do d6 slash with a shield bash AND then increase it to d8 piercing with spikes...and then Bash for another size buff or two...because it is 'possible for the Klars and they wanted it to work this way."
Blah blah blah. Ugh. Rules lawyering hurts.
I was #42!
Do I win something?
Life, the universe, and everything, of course.
And thanks for all the fish!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
See this is a very similar situation.
If they already knew the answer back in 2013, don't just tell Herolab how it works, make a FAQ that herolab can use, along with everyone else.
So since we're getting confirmation that what they tell herolab is what they'd answer a FAQ with they should skip the long drawn out process of having everyone disagree with herolab.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Again, SKRs response to HeroLab is not the same as the current errata.
It's very similar, if anything the errata went a little more.
The point, you seem to not want to cede, is that often their "unofficial" responses you discount advise us how the rule will be reworded once errata lands.
In other words, the don't change things often. They mostly clarify and some times via changing the wording to be more clear.
You can bash with the Klar as a light spiked shield, following the normal spiked shield rules for a bash (base d4 piercing).
Or you can attack with the blade as a normal d6 slashing weapon. It's your choice.
Maybe, but then that brings up even more questions. Does a shield bash with a klar benefit from other effects on the klar? Does a klar with a +3 weapon enhancement bonus apply that bonus to attacks as a standalone weapon and attacks as a shield bash? If the bonus doesn't apply to both, then that means that the weapon would need to be enchanted once as a standalone weapon and again as a shield weapon.
I also disagree with your premise that an attack with a klar isn't necessarily a shield bash by default, but I don't want the thread to get too dangerously off topic.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
All morale bonuses to saves vs morale bonuses to fear is a rather big difference.
SKR in the reply to Herolab staff said:
Our reading of this is that the second part is referring to other morale bonuses to save vs. fearThe FAQ said:
The last sentence should say “on saves against fear” after “any morale bonus.”
So in truth, SKR reply to Herolab staff in 2013 was exactly and precisely what resulted in the FAQ response.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Forgive me if I take unofficial changes with a grain of salt.
As to me forgiving you. I do. I just wish there was less of to forgive. The rules are not some thing that only one interpretation is allowed. If you find two ways to read the ability and you have a developer interpretation (which we had for this), then the rules should be interpreted to match their interpretation.
You can bash with the Klar as a light spiked shield, following the normal spiked shield rules for a bash (base d4 piercing).
Or you can attack with the blade as a normal d6 slashing weapon. It's your choice.Maybe, but then that brings up even more questions. Does a shield bash with a klar benefit from other effects on the klar? Does a klar with a +3 weapon enhancement bonus apply that bonus to attacks as a standalone weapon and attacks as a shield bash? If the bonus doesn't apply to both, then that means that the weapon would need to be enchanted once as a standalone weapon and again as a shield weapon.
I also disagree with your premise that an attack with a klar isn't necessarily a shield bash by default, but I don't want the thread to get too dangerously off topic.
1) Yes, it's still all one weapon. Nothing has changed about that.
2) Yes, following rule #1.
3) Per rule 1, no.
4) IF it was a shield bash, it couldn't do d6 slashing...shield bashes do blud or piercing dmg. Therefore, an attack with the blade CANNOT be a shield bash, keeping all rules consistent.
i.e. attacking with a shield bash is not the same as attacking with the blade. Shield bashes follow their own rules and feats, and dmg types/numbers.
Remember, the language of the klar is "If you shield bash with the klar, treat it as a light, spiked shield." This does two things - it tells you you CAN shield bash with the klar, AND it tells you what the damage is if you do. It does NOT say that every attack is a shield bash...which the d6 slashing default damage explicitly contradicts, anyways.
If that language wasn't there, you couldn't even do a shield bash with the klar. You'd just hit with it for d6 slashing.
Keep all rules in agreement, that's all you have to do. It's when you make them conflict with one another that everything breaks down.
It would be really, really nice for them to absolutely define klars. However, I think there's a big "Never invent anything like a Klar again" sign on the dev's wallboard. Ugh.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
4) IF it was a shield bash, it couldn't do d6 slashing...shield bashes do blud or piercing dmg. Therefore, an attack with the blade CANNOT be a shield bash, keeping all rules consistent.
i.e. attacking with a shield bash is not the same as attacking with the blade. Shield bashes follow their own rules and feats, and dmg types/numbers.
That's just specific vs general. An attack with a klar is a shield bash, except where it's different as listed in the table.
No, actually. An attack with a klar is an attack with the blade. If you want to shield bash with it, that's an alternate attack with different rules that they give as an option.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No, actually. An attack with a klar is an attack with the blade. If you want to shield bash with it, that's an alternate attack with different rules that they give as an option.
You've said that, but I see no proof of it.
My reasoning is made by reading the rules text:
A traditional klar counts as a light wooden shield with armor spikes; a metal klar counts as a light steel shield with armor spikes.
And
You can bash with a spiked light shield instead of using it for defense. A spiked light shield can't be disarmed. See the armor spikes entry on page 10 for details.
As for the klar having an entry in the weapon table, so does the light spiked shield. So like I said, the klar counts as a light spiked shield, except where it doesn't.
*(&)*(& Klar threads.
"Counts as" does not mean "IS." It means it counts as. Qualifies as. Can be used as. It does not mean 'is and is only", which is what your statement tries to make it.
The klar entry has a default d6 slashing attack. The description of the klar says it has a blade on it.
Using it as a spiked shield would mean you bash with it. "Using a klar is treated as a shield bash" or 'All attacks with a klar are shield bashes' are nowhere in the rules.
Light spiked shields do d4 piercing damage. That does not conflate with the default damage or damage type of a Klar.
In short, you now have rule disunity, and your argument falters because it can not reconcile the different rules. You now have to INVENT a new rule that klars when used to shield bash do d6 slashing damage...which is at odds with their description, and nowhere spelled out in the rules.
OR you have to throw out the d6 slashing damage entirely, AND ignore the fact that Klars have blades, and just treat them as light spiked shields.
In short, you have to ignore rules or invent new ones for your argument to work.
The only argument that satisfies all rules is that the default attack of a Klar is the d6 slashing blade, which is superior to using it to bash. However, you CAN bash with it, for less damage of a different type.
Simple, elegant, optional. Done.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Light spiked shields do d4 piercing damage. That does not conflate with the default damage or damage type of a Klar.
You are aware there's no such thing as a "shield bash" in the weapons table. Instead, the spiked small shield is an entry that has a damage listed, just like the klar. And the klar counts as a spiked shield, so when you attack with one you give up its defense to attack as a shield bash. Indeed, a "shield bash" doesn't have any damage associated with it. And so a klar does its listed damage when you shield bash with it. This is basic "specific trumps general", with no conflict or "disunity" whatsoever. A klar counts as a small shield, except where it doesn't.