The fact that Klars have Armor Spikes and not Shield Spikes sure is weird. But it is what it is.
Notice that the spiked shield also has "armor spikes" instead of shield spikes. But if you try to argue that the klar doesn't have "shield spikes", then you open yourself up to the option of adding shield spikes to the klar. Indeed, you could similarly take the spiked shield from Ultimate Equipment and add shield spikes to it.
Actually, it's never stated that spiked shields must have shield spikes. In fact, the heavy spiked shield explicitly states it doesn't have to have a shield spike, but can instead have "razored shield edges, or a whole forest of deadly protrusions".
I'm not going to repeat existing rules that work for Klars with those who want to introduce some brand new ones to fit a convoluted and complex Klar design of their own. Klar threads suck.
I mean, already there's an argument that announcing a shield bash attack with a klar isn't in the rules.
What? It counts as a light shield. An attack with a shield is a shield bash.
Oh, but shield bashes with Klars do different damage then all other shield bashes.
Really. Where does it say that? Oh, it's just slid in there.
(*)&()* Klar threads.
And now, we're back to spiked shields aren't shields with spikes. And armor spikes on shields. And other non sequiturs.
)(*&^&*( Klar threads.
Oh, but shield bashes with Klars do different damage then all other shield bashes.
Really. Where does it say that?
It lists the damage for the klar shield bash in the same location all of the other shield bashes are located. In the weapons table.
No, Mel. It lists the damage for the Klar. It doesn't mention the damage for the Klar as a shield bash. That's listed under light spiked shield.
Otherwise, you now have conflicting rules, and you either have to ignore text or create new rules. Neither of which is desirable or necessary.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not gonna lie, but Klars should get their own thread for a FAQ/Errata.
No, Mel. It lists the damage for the Klar. It doesn't mention the damage for the Klar as a shield bash. That's listed under light spiked shield.
It counts as a shield, so when you attack with it you lose your shield bonus and must make a shield bash with it.
Otherwise, you now have conflicting rules, and you either have to ignore text or create new rules. Neither of which is desirable or necessary.
I've already clearly stated how this is false.
whaaaat, just because it's a 2-12 20/x2 'light' off hand weapon that takes 2 feats and +2 of enhancements to even come about?
Really?
You power-gamer, you. I'll get you signed up for Powergamers Anonymous sessions right away.
By the rule of stacking effective size increases, only the largest applies.
As per the rules on size changes, size changes do not stack, so if you have multiple size changing effects (for instance an effect that increases your size by one step and another that increases your size by two steps), only the largest applies. The same is true of effective size increases (which includes “deal damage as if they were one size category larger than they actually are,” “your damage die type increases by one step,” and similar language). They don’t stack with each other, just take the biggest one. However, you can have one of each and they do work together (for example, enlarge person increasing your actual size to Large and a bashing shield increasing your shield’s effective size by two steps, for a total of 2d6 damage).
Shield Spikes: These spikes turn a shield into a martial piercing weapon and increase the damage dealt by a shield bash as if the shield were designed for a creature one size category larger than you...
Bashing: A shield with this special ability is designed to perform a shield bash. A bashing shield deals damage as if it were a weapon of two size categories larger (a Medium light shield thus deals 1d6 points of damage and a Medium heavy shield deals 1d8 points of damage). The shield acts as a +1 weapon when used to bash. Only light and heavy shields can have this ability.
Since both shield spikes and bashing increase the weapon's effective size for determining damage (with the spikes additionally changing the damage type) it would seem that they do not stack and are not intended to stack. So it's pointless to have a spiked bashing shield. However, any given GM can rule differently (barring organized play for obvious reasons).
It depends on if a spiked shield must necessarily be a shield that has had shield spikes added. It is possible that there is a difference between a "spiked shield" and a "shield that has had shield spikes added". The spiked shields from ultimate combat could easily be interpreted to be their own items without any modification from shield spikes.
Shameless bump to point out that we have 66 FAQ hits so far; keep it up everybody. Also:
It depends on if a spiked shield must necessarily be a shield that has had shield spikes added. It is possible that there is a difference between a "spiked shield" and a "shield that has had shield spikes added". The spiked shields from ultimate combat could easily be interpreted to be their own items without any modification from shield spikes.
If there is a difference between the two, I'd like to hear that case.
Because as far as I can tell, the Shield Spikes entry cites what it does to make a Shield a Spiked Shield (as HenshinFanatic referenced), and is simply listed in the Weapons table for ease of reference and convenience.
Therefore, by extension, a Spiked Shield is the same thing as a Shield that has had Shield Spikes added, because the effects of Shield Spikes to a Shield are already calculated into the Table.
Again, I'm really only FAQing this so we can have a direct answer that says something like "No, the Size Increase FAQ applies to Spiked Shields," or "No, Shield Spikes do not stack with Bashing," so the camp that says "Yes, they stack," can finally stop closing their ears and yelling "LALALALALA," because apparently them not stacking is badwrongfun.
I will go ahead and say that if they do say they stack, that it would spit right in the face of a FAQ that should have initially answered it in the first place; in other words, you'd need to errata something that spans across several books in addition to making a FAQ that "reverses" the ruling.
The main logical argument that I've seen is that Club->Morningstar is basically the same as Shield->Spiked Shield. You don't call a morningstar a spiked club, so why can't a Spiked Shield also be its own weapon?
That's pretty much ALL the argument I've seen that makes sense since the FAQ ruling, but it IS an argument.
And them saying 'Just look at the FAQ' instead of specifically answering the spiked question was a huge cop-out. If it was so bloody obvious, and there was no loophole, how hard would it have been to say "Nope, doesn't stack."?
In the meantime, houseruling they do stack isn't going to unbalance ANYTHING.
The main logical argument that I've seen is that Club->Morningstar is basically the same as Shield->Spiked Shield. You don't call a morningstar a spiked club, so why can't a Spiked Shield also be its own weapon?
That's pretty much ALL the argument I've seen that makes sense since the FAQ ruling, but it IS an argument.
And them saying 'Just look at the FAQ' instead of specifically answering the spiked question was a huge cop-out. If it was so bloody obvious, and there was no loophole, how hard would it have been to say "Nope, doesn't stack."?
In the meantime, houseruling they do stack isn't going to unbalance ANYTHING.
That argument is so demonstrably fallacious and full of strawman that you're trying to tell me a Lion ripping and tearing my face off to eat it is just as cute as a little kitten.
For starters, there is no such item as a Spiked Club. There's a Club. There's a Morningstar. But a Spiked Club? Nope. Not in Core, or Ultimate Equipment. So that right there is incorrect, and using an item that does not exist to make your point just shuts down the argument right there.
Secondly, consider their means of craft; a Club is a giant slab of wood you can find practically anywhere. A Morningstar is a metal rod with a spiked steel ball at the top, and usually has a grip and pommel to help offset the weight and carry it proper, which requires proper materials, a Smithy, and a Craft check to create. By this point, it makes more sense to argue that a Club and a Mere Club are the same thing, since their means of craft and appearance are significantly more identical than that of a Morningstar.
And yet, they aren't. Because they're listed separately in the weapon table, and have their own statistics. Which brings me to my third point; the Morningstar has significantly different statistics than a Club. A Morningstar costs 8 gold, does 1D8 damage, has a X2 multiplier, weighs 6 pounds, can't be thrown, and deals two types of damage at the same time. A Club doesn't cost any gold, deals 1D6 damage, has the same X2 multiplier, weighs only half as much, can be thrown 10 feet without penalty, and most importantly, only does Bludgeoning damage.
There are numerous and significant differences between those two weapons, and only maybe two things are in common (no properties and X2 critical multiplier) arguing that they're almost identical is crazytalk.
The Shield and Spiked Shield are more similar than a Morningstar and Club, I'll say that much, but when their differences are summated through the description of Shield Spikes (and actually specifically reference those changes being reflected in the weapon table entries), I question whether they're actually their own, unique items that deserve their own set of statistics, instead of treating it as an ease and means of reference.
I didn't say I believed the argument, I just said it's logical.
And you can make a club out of metal...we call them baseball bats nowadays.
And you can throw a morningstar, it's just an improvised weapon! The additional weight of the spikes really upends the balance, I guess...although being top heavy actually makes it better for throwing...whatever, rules is rules.
For all other purposes, adding spikes to a club effectively turns it into a morningstar...and no, not all morningstars are all metal, the wooden parts are often still there. It's just a cruder looking specimen.
As for dmg types..(cough)...I personally don't see why you can't do b/p with shields, but those are the rules.
Otherwise, the progression 'logically' is basically identical. And Spiked shields DO have their own entry. There is no 'spiked club' because a spiked club IS a morningstar. It's literally how you make the thing.
I can see the argument, I just don't believe that's the intention of the rules, either.
But, it would be nice to absolutely shut down those grasping at this final straw, or let it go. You know?
This weapon is usually just a shaped piece of wood, sometimes with a few nails or studs embedded in it.
Can you make a Metal Club? Yes. But are they usually crafted that way, or are free to make if that's the case? Probably not. At least, no sane GM would allow people to make or acquire Metal Clubs for free.
A Morningstar isn't designed to be thrown, and therefore incurs a -4 penalty for throwing it. It then also incurs an additional -4 penalty by RAW, because you're using it as an Improvised Weapon, not as the way it was intended to be used. An argument can be made that these -4 penalties are the same source, and therefore won't stack, but it's not definitive, and until that is, I'll stand by the RAW position.
By the rules, you couldn't technically add spikes to a Club. I mean, you "could," but it doesn't meaningfully do anything. This is like taking an Adamantine Battle Axe and making the haft out of Darkwood, even though I want to benefits of Adamantine; that is, you can, but it has no meaningful effect if you do.
If it does, then that falls into houseruling, which isn't a viable rules answer, meaning that is as equivalent and relevant as me saying every 1st level player gets a free Holy Avenger to start out. Last I checked, everybody doesn't start with a Holy Avenger, so...
I question it too, since a Morningstar surface and a Spiked Shield surface are quite similar in application, but apparently they're not. It's a design choice; we just have to deal with it.
No, it's not "logical," I've debunked it many times over. Plus, they have their own entry because the Shield Spikes description cites it when it mentions the changes it gives to shields that they're applied to. Here's the entry from Ultimate Equipment:
Shield spikes turn a shield into a martial piercing weapon and increase the damage dealt by a shield bash as if the shield were designed for a creature one size category larger (see "spiked light shield" and "spiked heavy shield" in the Martial Weapons table).
There is text that says Shield Spikes specifically modify Shields into Spiked Shields, and says what happens when Shields become Spiked Shields, and then says "see spiked light/heavy shield in the Martial Weapons table," as a means to reference the modifications being made.
I mean, if there was no functional difference between a Shield and a Spiked Shield, they wouldn't have even bothered to mention it as an item in the table (or in the game in general).
Calm, Darksol. I know all the counter arguments. I'm just making it the only (very weak) argument I can see the point of. I'm not saying it is right. And I'm not saying a few nails or something, I'm saying Spikes.
It's like the guy who thinks that because it counts as a Spiked Shield, it counts as one ALL THE TIME, and so effectively rewrites the damage of a shield bash to d6 slashing for the Klar. I can see his point...I just don't believe it a bit. Creates too many rules conflict and makes no sense if you think about it.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
By the rule of stacking effective size increases, only the largest applies.
** spoiler omitted **
Shield Spikes: These spikes turn a shield into a martial piercing weapon and increase the damage dealt by a shield bash as if the shield were designed for a creature one size category larger than you...Bashing: A shield with this special ability is designed to perform a shield bash. A bashing shield deals damage as if it were a weapon of two size categories larger (a Medium light shield thus deals 1d6 points of damage and a Medium heavy shield deals 1d8 points of damage). The shield acts as a +1 weapon when used to bash. Only light and heavy shields can have this ability.Since both shield spikes and bashing increase the weapon's effective size for determining damage (with the spikes additionally changing the damage type) it would seem that they do not stack and are not intended to stack. So it's pointless to have a spiked bashing shield. However, any given GM can rule differently (barring organized play for obvious reasons).
Sigh.. Here we go... AGAIN..
First of all, thank you for putting all the relevant FAQ and rules links in one place.
Everyone chooses to ignore a key thing: A spiked shield is not a magical change in size. Its not an effect. Its the size and way it has always been. A dispel magic is not going to suppress the damage done by the spikes. Someone a long time ago though that following the size change mechanic (since it was already there and could fit in to the existing rules) was a good one to follow to explain as to why a 10gp difference can ultimately do more damage. (and be subject to the most common DR, BTW...)
Note: A large long sword is designed and created a size category larger. Would that mean that a such a weapon would not be affected by lead blades?
Imagine the also endless arguments if they had described a greatsword as a longsword but with increased damage dealt as if the sword were designed for a creature two size categories larger than you.
So for the record. Shield Spikes, Bashing, and Enlarge Person. ALL STACK. One is just the way the item is.. the other is an "as if" magical Size Change Effect, and the other although also magical is an "actual" Size Change Effect. This fits in perfectly with the now fairly old size change FAQ stating you can only only have one magic "as if" size change effect and one magic "actual" size change effect active.
They have not done an errata on it because it DOES NOT NEED IT. They can clarify it by dropping the "as if the shield were designed for a creature one size category larger than you." and don't explain why it does more damage.
Now if the "martials can't have nice things" crowd campaign enough to get it changed otherwise, so be it.
Just remind them to change this line on page 25 of the NPC Codex:
Melee +5 bashing spiked heavy shield +31/+26/+21/+16 (2d6+11)
Oh.. and make sure Paizo talks to LWD and get them to get it "right" in Hero Lab too.
Til then my Enlarged Shielded Fighter is going to continue to hit for 3d6+13 With his +2 Adamantine Bashing Spiked Shield. (and yes.. as WEAPON it cost the extra 3k gp)
<mikedrop/>
|
Til then my Enlarged Shielded Fighter is going to continue to hit for 3d6+13 With his +2 Adamantine Bashing Spiked Shield.
Question for you (in all seriousness):
If your Fighter wanted to take Weapon Focus, would he choose "Heavy Shield", or "Spiked Heavy Shield"?
If he wanted to take Shield Focus, would he choose "Heavy Shield", or "Spiked Heavy Shield"?
Your "Greatsword being a larger Longsword" argument made me pause and consider this.
By the rule of stacking effective size increases, only the largest applies.
** spoiler omitted **
Shield Spikes: These spikes turn a shield into a martial piercing weapon and increase the damage dealt by a shield bash as if the shield were designed for a creature one size category larger than you...Bashing: A shield with this special ability is designed to perform a shield bash. A bashing shield deals damage as if it were a weapon of two size categories larger (a Medium light shield thus deals 1d6 points of damage and a Medium heavy shield deals 1d8 points of damage). The shield acts as a +1 weapon when used to bash. Only light and heavy shields can have this ability.Since both shield spikes and bashing increase the weapon's effective size for determining damage (with the spikes additionally changing the damage type) it would seem that they do not stack and are not intended to stack. So it's pointless to have a spiked bashing shield. However, any given GM can rule differently (barring organized play for obvious reasons).Sigh.. Here we go... AGAIN..
First of all, thank you for putting all the relevant FAQ and rules links in one place.
Everyone chooses to ignore a key thing: A spiked shield is not a magical change in size. Its not an effect. Its the size and way it has always been. A dispel magic is not going to suppress the damage done by the spikes. Someone a long time ago though that following the size change mechanic (since it was already there and could fit in to the existing rules) was a good one to follow to explain as to why a 10gp difference can ultimately do more damage. (and be subject to the most common DR, BTW...)
Note: A large long sword is designed and created a size category larger. Would that mean that a such a weapon would not be affected by lead blades?
Imagine the also endless arguments if they had described a greatsword as a longsword but with increased damage dealt as if the...
Saying that it has to be a magical effect is a strawman argument. (I seem to like saying that phrase out of its original context.) The FAQ doesn't make a discrepancy that it only applies to magical effects, meaning you're trying to make an exception that isn't mentioned or expanded upon in the original FAQ. So that means you're trying to put things into the FAQ that aren't actually in the FAQ, good work making your argument infallible.
Yes, it is an effect. That's what happens when you apply Shield Spikes to a Shield. Clearly, you don't understand that the dictionary definition of an effect is "a change that results when something is done or happens," otherwise you'd know that Shield Spikes are an effect that is applied to Shields that spawns Spiked Shields. The Effective Size Bonus and damage type is the "change that results when something (Shield Spikes) is done or happens (which is being applied to a Shield)", so by literal definition, Shield Spikes are an effect that happens to Shields.
And yes, Dispel Magic would not apply to Shield Spikes. So it's still worthwhile to have Shield Spikes on a Bashing Shield, since it functions no matter what. AMF spell says hi.
Large Longswords would have their base damage increase to 2D6, as its damage is increased to reflect that it's a weapon sized for a Large creature, not because it's "as if one size larger," nor that it's actually "one size category larger" (see the Inappropriately Sized Weapons section). Since it's neither an Effective Size Bonus (no "as if one size larger" language is present), nor an Actual Size Bonus (those kinds of rules really only apply to creatures), you can apply Lead Blades to it.
If they described the Greatsword in that manner, then you would be running into the same shenanigans that we're (supposedly) getting now, where some people say that Greatswords are weapons in their own right, and that their damage dice increases stack with Enlarge Person + Lead Blades/Impact property, and others saying they don't because they use "as if" language. Ever heard of the saying "A rose by any other name would smell just as sweet?" Well, there you go.
Sometimes they don't do errata because either A. they're too busy nerfing other OP subjects into the ground, or B. they already made a FAQ and need time to apply its effects to the Errata. That's what they almost always do.
This also isn't about the whole concept of "Martials can't have nice things." It's about rules consistency; why should one item be an exception, especially when there is no explicit language that says so, as is the norm with every other subject in the rules? I'm not particularly happy about this ruling (because doing 2D6 on a shield bash is freaking awesome), but I acknowledge why that's not the case, and enforce it as actual rules.
@ Nefreet: If people want to argue that Shields and Spiked Shields are their own unique weapons, and aren't simply mentioned in the table for ease of reference to determine what the difference is between a Shield with or without Shield Spikes, they would have to make the choice between the two. At my table, Shield Spikes are more-or-less a template to apply to a shield and grant a certain amount of benefits, and the different weapon entries are mentioned for ease of reference. It's a good question, but in order for it to be answered proper, other questions need to be answered proper first.
If you want to implement even more shenanigans, a player would have to choose if their benefits apply to Heavy Shields or Light Shields, as they cannot cover both with a single Weapon Focus feat, and that is something that I would enforce at my table (since Heavy and Light Shields are different weapons, and not something modified through an attachment, like Shields and Spiked Shields).
|
|
@ Nefreet: If people want to argue that Shields and Spiked Shields are their own unique weapons, and aren't simply mentioned in the table for ease of reference to determine what the difference is between a Shield with or without Shield Spikes, they would have to make the choice between the two. At my table, Shield Spikes are more-or-less a template to apply to a shield and grant a certain amount of benefits, and the different weapon entries are mentioned for ease of reference. It's a good question, but in order for it to be answered proper, other questions need to be answered proper first.Til then my Enlarged Shielded Fighter is going to continue to hit for 3d6+13 With his +2 Adamantine Bashing Spiked Shield.If your Fighter wanted to take Weapon Focus, would he choose "Heavy Shield", or "Spiked Heavy Shield"?
If he wanted to take Shield Focus, would he choose "Heavy Shield", or "Spiked Heavy Shield"?
Your "Greatsword being a larger Longsword" argument made me pause and consider this.
Ultimately where I was going with that line of reasoning is that, if they are indeed considered their own entities, then you couldn't even enchant Bashing onto a Spiked Shield, since the text states that it may only be placed on Light or Heavy Shields (not "Spiked Light Shields" or "Spiked Heavy Shields").
And so then, going with the "template" idea (which is what I also subscribe to), Spikes do become a "virtual size increase", and would not stack with Bashing.
So, whichever line or reasoning people are going with, Shield Spikes and Bashing would never work together.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
How it worked or didn't work in 3.5 isn't relevant. Especially in 3.5 there were so many ways to get monk dice increases and without FAQ saying they didn't, monk could deal more damage than and other.
PF took the stance that stacking virtual size bumps into crazy damage isn't permitted. That also happens to scoop up spike bashing. But touching on spiked bashing was intentional as the FAQ on virtual size increases resulted from a thread like this about spiked bashing. That also means they covered non magical effects also.
@ N N 959: It works for both bows because the rules say that they do.
For purposes of Weapon Proficiency and similar feats, a composite longbow is treated as if it were a longbow.
So, if I took Weapon Focus (Longbow), it applies to Composite Longbows because Composite Longbows are treated as Longbows for the purposes of proficiency and other feats that are reliant on choosing a specific weapon (meaning Composite Longbows receive any benefit that applies to Longbows). If you want to be even more stupid about this, taking Weapon Focus (Composite Longbow) would apply those bonuses only to Composite Longbows, and not standard Longbows. Interesting fallacy, wouldn't you agree? As you can tell, no sane GM would rule that way, but by the rules, that's how it'd work.
Now tell me, do you see that sort of language for the Shields and Spiked Shields? No? Not in any of their entries? Then guess what, by the rules, Weapon Focii/Specs are treated differently for Shields and Spiked Shields.
Also, the Klar is a Klar. It bashes as a Light Spiked Shield, but it is its own weapon. At my table, you would gain the benefit if you Shield Bash with it (dealing damage as per a Light Spiked Shield), but using it as its own weapon (i.e. the 1D6 Slashing), you would not. According to Scott's interpretation, it wouldn't apply to the Klar at all, shield bashing or not, because the Klar is a Klar.
Shield Focus applies to all shields. It says "Increase the AC bonus granted by any shield you are using by 1." So yes, Madus and Klars, which are cited in the Shield table, would gain this benefit.
Klars do need their own FAQ, but they do factor into this discussion somewhat. You can certainly put bashing on them, and you could possibly put shield spikes on them too, if they are actually supposed to have armor spikes now.
I'll repeat my question: If I take Weapon Focus (shield) does that applies to both heavy and light?
Shield Focus applies to all shields. It says "Increase the AC bonus granted by any shield you are using by 1." So yes, Madus and Klars, which are cited in the Shield table, would gain this benefit.So you're agreeing that a feat can apply to category of weapons without undermining that each of those weapons is independent of the other?
As a spiked shield is also shield, then Shield Focus would apply to it.
Per RAW, no, and that's because Heavy Shields and Light Shields have differences which aren't calculated or adjusted based on an item attachment (such as Shields v. Spiked Shields).
I don't understand what you're trying to get at with the other two sentences.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
What happened in 3.5 is 100% relevant because those rules are the baseline from which PF starts
The FAQ does not intentionally touch on spiked shields and bashing because the FAQ answered a general question.
They deliberately changed from 3.5 many things including casting and attacking with a ranged touch spell in 3.5 only provoked once and in pathfinder it provokes once for casting and once for the ranged attack.
So 3.5 is absolutely irrelevant.
As for the other point, the entire FAQ spawned from a thread asking about stacking shield spikes and bashing. IT was asked if non-magical size increases like shield spikes stacked with magical ones like bashing. We got the FAQ. That didn't solve the issue. So we are again asking for a second FAQ in this thread.
Klars do need their own FAQ, but they do factor into this discussion somewhat. You can certainly put bashing on them, and you could possibly put shield spikes on them too, if they are actually supposed to have armor spikes now.
It's a misprint, Mel.
When they transferred it from the first Inner sea book, it had the correct 'shield spikes' on it, and someone retyped it wrong when they reset it for the main book.
You can't put armor spikes on a shield.
As for the other point, the entire FAQ spawned from a thread asking about stacking shield spikes and bashing.
That's just an assumption though. We don't know if that FAQ was really in response to that thread or even who is in charge of posting those things. It's possible the design team came up with that ruling and then some intern logged in and posted it in the first stacking thread he googled.
The actual FAQ itself certainly never mentions shield spikes.
As for the other point, the entire FAQ spawned from a thread asking about stacking shield spikes and bashing. IT was asked if non-magical size increases like shield spikes stacked with magical ones like bashing. We got the FAQ. That didn't solve the issue. So we are again asking for a second FAQ in this thread.That's just an assumption though. We don't know if that FAQ was really in response to that thread or even who is in charge of posting those things. It's possible the design team came up with that ruling and then some intern logged in and posted it in the first stacking thread he googled.
The actual FAQ itself certainly never mentions shield spikes.
You're right. It doesn't explicitly call out the Shield Spikes.
But the description of Shield Spikes follows the same language as the examples mentioned in the FAQ. Here's the full FAQ:
Size increases and effective size increases: How does damage work if I have various effects that change my actual size, my effective size, and my damage dice?
As per the rules on size changes, size changes do not stack, so if you have multiple size changing effects (for instance an effect that increases your size by one step and another that increases your size by two steps), only the largest applies. However, you can have one of each and they do work together (for example, enlarge person increasing your actual size to Large and a bashing shield increasing your shield’s effective size by two steps, for a total of 2d6 damage).
Here's the full current Shield Spikes entry, as listed in Ultimate Equipment from the PRD:
Deadly spikes and bladed projections extend from some shields, transforming such pieces of armor into weapons in their own right. Shield spikes turn a shield into a martial piercing weapon and increase the damage dealt by a shield bash as if the shield were designed for a creature one size category larger (see "spiked light shield" and "spiked heavy shield" in the Martial Weapons table). You can't put spikes on a buckler or a tower shield. Otherwise, attacking with a spiked shield is like making a shield bash attack.
An enhancement bonus on a spiked shield does not improve the effectiveness of a shield bash made with it, but a spiked shield can be made into a magic weapon in its own right.
*I made a slight grammar correction that was missed when they decided to apparently apply some sort of errata to the description, so as to keep the language coherent. It's bolded for convenience and ease of reference.
There is language mentioned in the Shield Spikes entry that is uncannily similar and consistent with the examples given in the FAQ. The primary argument is that, because Spiked Shields are "weapons in their own right," you could actually apply Spikes to a Spiked Shield, and raise the damage of a Spiked Shield further. But then that too, would be a weapon in its own right. What would you call it, a Spiked Spiked Shield? It's not in the table (as you would expect), so clearly there are limited, unwritten mechanics in place for Shields and Shield Spikes and their relations to one another. Hmmmmm...where have I seen that line of reasoning before?
At any rate, based on the current state of this particular situation, this is precisely why there is a FAQ that says multiple sources of Armor/Weapon Training stack, even though there is a FAQ about Channel Energy that says class features of the same name don't stack (unless they explicitly say otherwise, a la Sneak Attack).
So, ad metaphori, we're currently working on the Armor/Weapon Training FAQ, when we were already given the Channel Energy FAQ.
|
As for the other point, the entire FAQ spawned from a thread asking about stacking shield spikes and bashing. IT was asked if non-magical size increases like shield spikes stacked with magical ones like bashing. We got the FAQ. That didn't solve the issue. So we are again asking for a second FAQ in this thread.
And a second FAQ will likely not solve the issue either; because cjtSparhawk has how spiked shields worked pre-FAQ correct and everyone answering 1d8 has how it works post FAQ. The problem is the "'as if' FAQ" is probably the most universally ignored FAQ in the whole damn game.
The issue isn't that the rules aren't clear, it's an issue of what rules you are playing with: a side-effect of the FAQ as Errata, and straight Errata system paizo has been using that has lead to the number one reaction to it being: "well we won't use that in our game."
You could say there is a difference between "as if the shield were" and "as if the shield were designed". The word designed means that this isn't an effective size change at all, but a facet of the shield's design.
You could say there is a difference between "as if the shield were" and "as if the shield were designed". The word designed means that this isn't an effective size change at all, but a facet of the shield's design.
Never disputed that the language was different, only that it was similar.
The FAQ says that if it's worded similar it constitutes being an effective size increase, which means it doesn't stack with other effective size increases.
I mean, if you want to claim that it's not an effective size increase, merely that it's constructed for a creature one size larger, then I'd impose a -2 penalty for being inappropriately sized for the wielder, as well as increase the handiness by one step (meaning Heavy Spiked Shields are two-handed weapons for Medium creatures).
You can sit there and throw all the lingo around, how it's "difference" makes it not what it's similar to, but that has unintended consequences, some that create more, bigger problems than what's currently presented.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And a second FAQ will likely not solve the issue either; because cjtSparhawk has how spiked shields worked pre-FAQ correct and everyone answering 1d8 has how it works post FAQ. The problem is the "'as if' FAQ" is probably the most universally ignored FAQ in the whole damn game.
The issue isn't that the rules aren't clear, it's an issue of what rules you are playing with: a side-effect of the FAQ as Errata, and straight Errata system paizo has been using that has lead to the number one reaction to it being: "well we won't use that in our game."
I don't have a problem with the bolded part being used as a reason not to enforce errata at a table, especially playing a home game. In fact, at our table, I'd rule that they stack, because I don't see a problem with that being the case, and I'd prefer Shields to not be looked at as merely a defensive tool. Several characters in both history and literature use a shield to both protect themselves and kill people, with style no less.
My problem is using the bolded part as a reason to discredit a rules FAQ/Errata from being an official rule of the game, something which isn't okay; especially if people want to know what the rules say. Misleading people about rules answers because of your personal opinions about those rules is never okay.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
And a second FAQ will likely not solve the issue either
It worked for the Ranged Flanking issue, and they didn't even change the FAQ. They just came along in the thread and said "No, the Gang Up FAQ answers this question". Everyone steadfastly denying the Gang Up FAQ was relevant quit doing so.
Probably because people aren't nearly as torn up over the fact that their Gang Up feat wasn't making their Shield Bashes deal 2D6 points of damage.
It's a paltry difference, I'll admit, and not one I'm fond of; but I don't use it as an excuse to express my dissatisfaction of the rules as actually being the rules.
he problem is the "'as if' FAQ" is probably the most universally ignored FAQ in the whole damn game.
The weird 10 foot virtual squares one where you could frustrate pikemen by digging a tunnel to the northwest instead of north was definitely more ignored.
Official Rules Response
|
| 13 people marked this as a favorite. |
No FAQ Required: As per this FAQ on effective size increases, two effective size increases do not stack. Shield spikes and bashing both grant effective size increases, so they do not stack. The extraneous mention of armor spikes in Ultimate Equipment’s spiked shield entry is in error, and it should be reflected in the next errata.
AND IT'S OFFICIAL! Thanks PDT!