| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think those things should have to do with the klar.
We're discussing the rules implications of going with exactly what the RAW allows. It has everything to do with the rules implications with going with exactly what the RAW states regarding the Klar, and its relevant material.
BigNorseWolf references the Klar damage going against an assumed intent, which isn't gamebreaking, to the Throwing Shields attacks per round going against an assumed intent, which is gamebreaking, to Diplomacy or other effects not requiring a range, going against an assumed intent, which is gamebreaking, to the Shield Master text stating you suffer no penalties for attacking with a shield and goes against the table text, that is the assumed intent, which is also gamebreaking.
His point is that if you're going to arbitrarily break the assumed intent because it's "not gamebreaking," when you should obviously know what the assumed intent is, you might as well break all of that assumed intent, at which point the game fails upon itself because it's not designed in a vacuum. You can't play favorites because you like or dislike one rule over another.
You either follow the book's intent (which most by-the-rules people do, as best they can anyway), or you don't follow the book's intent. (In which case, why do you even have the book if you're just going to run things in a completely different manner than what the rules allow?) You can't have any of this halfsies crap just because you think it's convenient or fun, especially when you're trying to give players a by-the-rules answer, because then you aren't playing by the rules.
Is it rude and jerkish? Perhaps. But it's probably equally rude and jerkish to give people incorrect or forged answers just to try and make them happy.
I can't make decisions on a case-by-case basis? I must be a robo gm you guys were talking about.
I can't make decisions on a case-by-case basis? I must be a robo gm you guys were talking about.
Sure you can, but the argument wasn't what a GM might allow, the argument was "This is RAW and even if it's almost definitely an editting mistake it's still totally RAW and since it's RAW it's legal and the GM has to allow it".
And the argument being made is that if that's your justification, you're opening the same justification for everything else that's RAW but obviously not right too.
We should allow the bashing klar to do 2d6 because its the raw as I argue it!
the raw as I argue it is a terrible reason. Got anything else?
.....
What's happening right now isn't productive and is no longer a rules discussion.
Let's all just drop it.
|
Hey, everyone. There is actually something we can do about this. Something constructive.
Let's ask James Jacobs to add the Klar to his Golarion Rules and Questions FAQ.
This is where you can ask questions about Golarion, the official Pathfinder campaign setting, including questions on rules and content for Adventure Paths, Campaign Setting books, Player Companions, and Modules.
That's the one place where we can finally settle this question. And it's the one place where an item that appears in 4 (5?) different books could finally receive a universal ruling.
Who else agrees?
(I'd type one up now but I work in 4 hours, haven't slept, and have game after work; and this is a question that needs to be typed up thoroughly)
Won't help. People that don't like the answer will ignore it.
Won't help. People that don't like the answer will ignore it.
Misleading. You're talking about a subset of "people".
Won't help. People that don't like the answer will ignore it.Misleading. You're talking about a subset of "people".
It's not remotely misleading and you're not making any sense.
Won't help. People that don't like the answer will ignore it.Misleading. You're talking about a subset of "people".It's not remotely misleading and you're not making any sense.
While some will ignore it, many others wouldn't. I, for instance, currently believe that the klar with bashing does 2d6 damage. But if a FAQ specifically said it did 1d8, I'd go with that ruling.
Heck, I'd settle for a ruling from hero labs, though no one on here seems to know what that has to say about this.
What's happening right now isn't productive and is no longer a rules discussion.
It never is when you insist on a super strict raw only interpretation.
Which is why coming to a rules discussion with a super strict raw only interpretation is an even worse idea than coming into a rules discussion.
I think the difference is that some of those rules interpretations are actually powerful, but a 2d6 klar, is just not that strong of an option. It doesn't even have a strong critical profile. It's a +1 shield enchant that improves damage by a whopping +3.5. It's hardly "cheese".
I think the difference is that some of those rules interpretations are actually powerful, but a 2d6 klar, is just not that strong of an option. It doesn't even have a strong critical profile. It's a +1 shield enchant that improves damage by a whopping +3.5. It's hardly "cheese".
I've already said that it's not an overpowered option, but that it does go against the intent of the FAQ that says size bonuses, both effective and actual, do not stack with themselves (though the two kinds do stack with each other).
And players have stated that they should stack, because they're supposedly their own unique weapons (they're right and at the same time not). To that end, is why we call it "cheese." If people think it's not cheese, James Risner made a thread to specifically get an answer regarding that very same subject; I'd suggest you head over there and press the FAQ button so you can get a direct and absolute answer in regards to Spiked Shields and Bashing.
Slightly off topic, but I was checking and the klar actually seems to be pretty undertuned according to the Weapon Master's Handbook. It's a one handed martial weapon with 2 Improved Damage and the Shield feature. That's only 3 DP. As a one handed martial weapon, it should have up to 7 DP.
For comparison, a longsword is 6 DP, which is pretty close to the expected value.
I don't really trust the WMH weapon grading; not all weapons in the book are created with equal value, nor are they valued the same either. Some of those weapons are grossly overvalued, and others are extremely undervalued for what they provide. Plus, you can't really create any useful or worthwhile items from the WMH that isn't already replicated or superior to what's currently been published.
not all weapons in the book are created with equal value, nor are they valued the same either.
It does get wonky for more complicated weapons, but the klar does basically two things. Increase damage and work as a shield. I guess you could say that "work as a shield" was intended to be worth a lot more DP, but that would just be assuming a typo.
Before you put Bashing on that Klar, be sure to stick some Shield Spikes on it. Then you'll deal 3d6 damage ;-)We should allow the bashing klar to do 2d6 because its the raw as I argue it!
Got anything else?
This is one of the key arguments behind why they want it to stack, and has already been cited as a reason WHY it's ridiculous to interpret the Klar with the current wording. Because you could add shield spikes to a Klar that somehow managed to get armor spikes...
James Jacobs reiterated that the intention was for the Klar to simply be a spiked shield that instead did slashing damage.[citation needed]
ask und ye shall receive.
Post 62545 or so.
The intent of the klar is a shield that you can choose to stab with. In effect, you can get mostly the same type of effect by buying a short sword and a buckler, more or less. And there's no "h" in "klar."If you play in a home game, I'll talk about my preferences in MY home games for you to compare.Follow up: our group exclusively play home games - can you please tell us your preferences for the khlar in your home games? thanks!
Shieldmaster says you take no penalty.
It means you no off-hand penalty when you 2weapon fight with your shield,
Taking the raw, literal extreme of it for mechanical advantage you don't take penalties for ANYTHING.
For the record, D20PFSRD isn't an official rules source. Yes, it's great for finding resources that are Pathfinder compatible, but it's not as official as the PRD, since Paizo themselves update and post their hardcover RPG line rulebooks there.
From the PRD, the Shield Master feat on the table simply says this:
No two-weapon penalties when attacking with a shield
So, according to the table, as long as you are attacking with a shield, you do not suffer two-weapon penalties at all. Intriguing. There's no mention of adding your Shield's Enhancement Bonus to AC to your to-hit and damage rolls, so saying that it does so is false, based on what the table says. This isn't what I have a problem with.
Now, what does the description say?
You do not suffer any penalties on attack rolls made with a shield while you are wielding another weapon. Add your shield's enhancement bonus to attacks and damage rolls made with the shield as if it was a weapon enhancement bonus.
Wait a minute, we go from "No TWF penalties on all of your attacks when using a shield to attack" to "No penalties on shield attacks at all when wielding another weapon, and your shield's enhancement bonus to AC to your attack and damage rolls made with the shield"? That's a major and inconsistent leap between table and description. Only one applies, but the big question is, which one? And guess what, that's something that the RAW can't properly answer, because according to the RAW, both are correct. This means that either Shield Master is at-best a niche pick, or perhaps the most overpowered feat in the game. Sure, a combination of the interpretations (no TWF penalties for the shield, and the enhancement bonus applies to attacks) would be more fair, but you can't do that and still expect to call it RAW.
As I've said before, just because the rules allow for it to happen doesn't mean that it should happen, or that the rules intended for it to happen in the first place. I prefer to call these things (un)happy accidents that happen inadvertantly from the developers creating a bunch of rules and not realizing what can or cannot be done with them, either because of how they're worded, or what can be used in synergy with them. That, I feel, is how the whole "Infinite Throwing Shield Attacks" claim began, as well as the other cheese.
I'm not even talking about Diplomacy while being chased from, say, 100 feet away; I mean that you could be half way around the world, scry on somebody, have their whereabouts, and then just make a Diplomacy check because you are aware of them and where they're located. By the rules, you can do this, since you are aware of them (and with the Diplomacy check, they'll be aware of you). It's almost like some sort of weird Sleeper Assassin program that can be activated with a single roll of a dice with absolutely ridiculous modifiers. Funny, permissible by the rules, and outright broken beyond belief because you can convince some random goober to go kill some other random goober. Now, do exactly this, except with Shadow Demons in a village.
The whole "infinite mental stats Nature Oracle" in short is done by being a 20th level Nature Oracle with the ability to transform into an Animal with their Final Revelation. They then voluntarily suffer Mental Ability Drain (permanent score debuffs) from some other source, and have the Awaken spell cast on them, and then restore all of their ability score loss with a Heal spell; this raises the mental ability scores (3D6 Intelligence, 1D3 Charisma, +2 Hit Dice), and gives the Nature Oracle an unlimited amount of Hit Dice (in other words, HP), so not only can they have every skill in the game maxed out, but they can also have infinite Charisma for unlimited spells. Anything that also keys off of Charisma, such as Saves, Initiative, etc. also becomes unlimited too. There you have it, a theoretically limitless character who can't die from HP loss, and can go on as long as any Martial can because he'll never run out of spells or class abilities.
The "I can still act even if I'm dead" results from the factor that the Dead condition doesn't actually limit your character from anything. By the rules, having the Dead condition just means you have the Dead condition, and no other form of ramifications happen. In fact, being in a state of perpetual unconsciousness is perhaps the most reasonable in-game version of the Dead condition; too bad the Dead condition doesn't say anything like that. In fact, it says nothing of the sort. Therefore, just because you give a creature the Dead condition from bringing its hit points down to a negative score equal to its Constitution, doesn't end combat because they can still act and do the same unto you.
PFS "ending at 12" is its own issue and has nothing to do with Simulacrum being a problem, which is independent of PFS. It is also the case with Caster/Martial Disparity, where PFS basically ends at the point where C/MD really takes off, so saying Simulacrum isn't a problem is like saying C/MD isn't a problem, in which case a lot of people are going to look at you funny (myself included).
Again, if you want more information do a forum search for the things I've mentioned, they'll show up, and they can probably give you more/better perspectives than what I've shown.
I only said that in relation to how stuck-up PFS gets, and how much of a stickler for the rules PFS is; that doesn't mean that every single thing outside of PFS (such as the Klars) follows that same regime as I claimed PFS follows.
Also, FAQs aren't RAW. FAQs are, by definition, a clarification of unclear rules. The RAW itself is what the FAQs are used to clarify, so saying that FAQs are RAW is blatantly false and paradoxical. Granted, PFS uses them as a means to further cement what the RAW entails, but that doesn't make FAQs RAW.
I prefer the shield master text from the table. The block text only removes the penalties from the shield. So if you were sword and boarding with a longsword and heavy shield, the longsword would still be taking the -4 penalty for a non-light offhand.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The rules are not written to be read without common sense , an eye for intent, or a sense of balance. Deliberately stripping those from your reading is going to leave you with wonky results.
This is why no one plays that way.
This is why you are getting frustrated trying to insist that someone else plays that way. It's bad for the game and we know that.
Shield Master should have said "Your Primary weapon has no TH penalties from TWF while wielding a shield in your off hand."
WOuld've solved a LOT of problems that way.
Unless they were using the shield as their primary weapon...Shield Master should have said "Your Primary weapon has no TH penalties from TWF while wielding a shield in your off hand."
WOuld've solved a LOT of problems that way.
Primary shield style should be its own new feat chain. I'd like to build two handed shield users who don't rely on two weapon fighting.
Primary shield style should be its own new feat chain. I'd like to build two handed shield users who don't rely on two weapon fighting.Unless they were using the shield as their primary weapon...Shield Master should have said "Your Primary weapon has no TH penalties from TWF while wielding a shield in your off hand."
WOuld've solved a LOT of problems that way.
You don't need any new feats to do that, it's plenty strong on its own.
Except shield slam requires two weapon feat and shield master requires shield slam.
Except shield slam requires two weapon feat and shield master requires shield slam.
Ranger says hi.
Unless they were using the shield as their primary weapon...Shield Master should have said "Your Primary weapon has no TH penalties from TWF while wielding a shield in your off hand."
WOuld've solved a LOT of problems that way.
In which case it would have no effect, because the shield is not in the off hand, no?
Now, if they were dual wielding shields, it would still mean only one weapon would benefit, the primary hand, not both hands. You can't have two primary hands, after all.
As it stands, a dual wielding shield user suffers no TWF penalties with Shield Master, which is blatantly unfair to all other TWF styles.
MY version caters to a sword and board user, making the shield the perfect accompanying weapon for SAB style, not penalizing your main weapon.
Except shield slam requires two weapon feat and shield master requires shield slam.Ranger says hi.
And that's fine if you happen to be a ranger. But there are a lot of non-rangers out there who should have just as much claim to this fighting style.