Klar-i-FAQ-ations are needed on the Klar, Spiked Shield, and more.


Rules Questions

51 to 100 of 147 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Rather than expect a GM to ignore a rule, you can't expect a GM to know every rule. I suspect most GMs only have a passing knowledge of the rules. Not everyone likes to troll rules discussions like we do.


Melkiador wrote:
that mention of armor spikes is currently only on the description of Klar as a shield, in the current pdf. Under the entry of Klar as a weapon, it says shield spikes every time.

I was not aware of that. I guess that does make it unambiguous that Klars, as weapons, and I guess that that's the only "as" that counts, are now Spiked Shields.

Until I have a chance to view an official public posting of the rules change, I can only examine the evidence that has been presented or just take your words for it.

It's not that I don't trust you. But I can't quote you to others and expect that to stand as evidence. That's why I need publicly posted official evidence.

BigNorseWolf wrote:

they do proofread it

The obvious typos are there anyway.

Well, they really should have proofread it better than to leave in such obvious and damaging mistakes. I think they should proofread it again. Then they should write letters to their former English teachers with excerpts of their poorly-proofread, published books, along with samples of the comments that you and I made about them. In that letter, they should tell their teachers how much they wish they had paid more attention to proofreading, that they appreciate what their teachers tried to do for them by taking points off for poor editing, that even now they are learning the lessons their teachers tried to teach them, and give their teachers permission to read those letters to their current classes so that future generations will better pay attention to their schoolteachers and proofread their work!

BigNorseWolf wrote:

you have to deal with that.

You can either pick from competing postulates and insist that the answer that you know is wrong is objectively right anyway, or compare and contrast evidence for both sides. That makes it obvious which way to deal with the obvious typos.

Well, I haven't had a chance to examine what Melkiador said by reviewing the evidence myself, but he was saying that the description of the Klar as a weapon now makes it clearly a kind of Spiked Shield. That means there are no competing postulates, typos or no.

That being said, James and I are exercising a third option, which is to complain to Paizo Publishing and encourage others to complain that we want a clear, consistent, workable body of rules and game mechanics.

Edit: Oops, I left out a comma and added an "s".


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Melkiador wrote:
Rather than expect a GM to ignore a rule, you can't expect a GM to know every rule. I suspect most GMs only have a passing knowledge of the rules. Not everyone likes to troll rules discussions like we do.

The Pathfinder Society Guide to Organized Play specifies to players that they--we--are required to bring printed copies of all the rules pertaining to our characters, especially the bits referring to the special little tricks we have come up with, including any relevant FAQs, Official Rules Posts, and errata.

While GMs are supposed to be very knowledgeable, they are not expected to know everything. GMs do have the right to ignore what is not shown to them.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Scott Wilhelm wrote:
You can't expect every GM to selectively ignore the rules the way you do

Your post seems to confuse what is meant by PFS's RAW requirement.

They have said many times that this means the GM can't change the scenarios, deviate from tactics, or outright ban certain rules.

What it doesn't mean is "If a player thinks longswords deal 1d84" the GM doesn't need to allow it. Especially what the print error was a subscript 4 misprinted in line with the 8. Before you laugh, this happened to a different weapon in a 3.5 WotC book and a lot of people asserted the bogus die as "RAW".


You mean the Scorpion Whip that deal 1d84 nonlethal damage?

The description says it was nonlethal (and the subnote 4 meant nonlethal, but they didn't subscript it right).

And no one was fooled. We all knew it was an error.

Shadow Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion, Maps, Modules, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Starfinder Superscriber
"Scott Wilhelm wrote:

Well, they really should have proofread it better than to leave in such obvious and damaging mistakes. I think they should proofread it again. Then they should write letters to their former English teachers with excerpts of their poorly-proofread, published books, along with samples of the comments that you and I made about them. In that letter, they should tell their teachers how much they wish they had paid more attention to proofreading, that they appreciate what their teachers tried to do for them by taking points off for poor editing, that even now they are learning the lessons their teachers tried to teach them, and give their teachers permission to read those letters to their current classes so that future generations will better pay attention to their schoolteachers and proofread their work.

So, as someone who has worked as both a proofreader and an auditor (detecting and correcting errors is my life) anything created by humans will contain errors. Worse than that, it is well understood that the process of correcting errors will always introduce new errors. So if you are expecting perfection from humans, you have set the bar too high.


Starbuck_II wrote:

You mean the Scorpion Whip that deal 1d84 nonlethal damage?

The description says it was nonlethal (and the subnote 4 meant nonlethal, but they didn't subscript it right).

And no one was fooled. We all knew it was an error.

I think that if a player showed up with a Scorpion Whip and an 84 sided die, he earned the right to do 1d84 damage.

But when you can point to subnote 4, that seems to me that you can point to exactly what that 4 referred to within and keep to RAW.

If we can indeed point to the newest description of the Klar as a weapon and show that it is indeed, by RAW, a kind of Spiked Shield, then I think the question is settled. And when I see it publicly, officially posted, I am prepared to publicly acknowledge the change in the rules.

The seemingly erroneous description of Armor Spikes in the description of the Klar as a Shield that describes 2 kinds of Klar, one of which does not have Shield Spikes, but does not exist as a Weapon, that is something to complain about, and I have, but if that Armor Spike Klar does not actually exist as a weapon, I guess it does not disrupt the game mechanic.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Scott Wilhelm wrote:
I think that if a player showed up with a Scorpion Whip and an 84 sided die, he earned the right to do 1d84 damage.

Allowing that does deviate from the PFS RAW requirement, as they have made it clear that RAI is more important than strict RAW.


pH unbalanced wrote:
"Scott Wilhelm wrote:

Well, they really should have proofread it better than to leave in such obvious and damaging mistakes. I think they should proofread it again. Then they should write letters to their former English teachers with excerpts of their poorly-proofread, published books, along with samples of the comments that you and I made about them. In that letter, they should tell their teachers how much they wish they had paid more attention to proofreading, that they appreciate what their teachers tried to do for them by taking points off for poor editing, that even now they are learning the lessons their teachers tried to teach them, and give their teachers permission to read those letters to their current classes so that future generations will better pay attention to their schoolteachers and proofread their work.

So, as someone who has worked as both a proofreader and an auditor (detecting and correcting errors is my life) anything created by humans will contain errors. Worse than that, it is well understood that the process of correcting errors will always introduce new errors. So if you are expecting perfection from humans, you have set the bar too high.

This is more of a philosophical discussion and may not be appropriate for a rules forum, but it is an interesting counter-argument.

I don't expect perfection from humans to be achieved, but strived for? Yes. I think Paizo should continue refining and improving their rules, if not ever to achieve perfection, then to keep making the game better.

In the case of Pathfinder, it's just a game. If someone gets away with a slightly more powerful character than was intended, that does not seem like an unreasonable consequence for the Pathfinder Society to suffer. If only a few lawyerly players do that, than this represents a very minor social problem, a few scenarios at a few tables will be slightly easier than intended. If many players do that, then that is the new way the game is played, and we all have to adapt. It seems to me that activist GMs who see clearly what the rules say then choose to ignore it may well do more harm than good.

In the case of real-life law, that happens all the time that the letter of the law is held above the spirit of the law, to the pain of the people. But that doesn't mean that people shouldn't try to keep making things better. The result of the ungodly mess of our legal system--every legal system, is the most peaceful period on Earth in history, with a lot room for improvement.


James Risner wrote:
Scott Wilhelm wrote:
I think that if a player showed up with a Scorpion Whip and an 84 sided die, he earned the right to do 1d84 damage.
Allowing that does deviate from the PFS RAW requirement, as they have made it clear that RAI is more important than strict RAW.

Oh, come on! That would be awesome, seeing somebody pull that 84 sided die out of his [hip pocket]!

Seriously, the Scorpion Whip as it was described by Starbuck_II seems to have had adequate clarification within the text of the rules to keep ridiculousness at bay, and I think if, as a PFS GM, Starbuck_II ruled against that player by pointing to the 4 and the footnote #4, he would be in fact going by RAW ruling against that player.

Meanwhile, Ultimate Combat now describes the Scorpion Whip as doing 1d4 damage. This problem has been fixed. So this is a poor example against using RAW as the star PFS GMs and players should steer by.

But it is a good example of why Paizo should keep an eye out for its mistakes and fix them when they threaten to disrupt the game. And that seems to me the real purpose of this thread of yours, a purpose which I have been serving aggressively.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Scott Wilhelm wrote:

I was not aware of that. I guess that does make it unambiguous that Klars, as weapons, and I guess that that's the only "as" that counts, are now Spiked Shields.

Until I have a chance to view an official public posting of the rules change, I can only examine the evidence that has been presented or just take your words for it.

Ask, and ye shall receive. Klar, weapon entry, UE 2nd printing, page 31.

Also, I do feel it's worth pointing out that I got UE in PDF form as part of the humble bundle, so it cost me pennies. But yes, I do own a physical copy that I paid for which is a 1st printing and will never update.

Just so you all know, I'm with James on this discussion: whilst it is important that we understand what the rules say and can use that (where appropriate) to seek changes which will improve the game experience, we (as the rules nerds) also have a duty to demonstrate how the rules are supposed to work, too.

Paizo staff have made it very clear that the collective wisdom of the rules questions forumgoers can be trusted in almost all cases as the correct way to run a particular rule, but also that we are not the typical Pathfinder players. We're the nerds. We have massive discussions about rules interactions and analyse sentence fragments, and we get hugely invested in our understanding of what a rule means. But that's for the real questions (like light and darkness, stealth and perception, damage progression for size changes). Not for "someone put armor spikes instead of shield spikes in an item's text". For that we just say "it's a typo".

Now, the item itself may have some interesting nuance (and you can't get much more nuanced than a one-handed martial weapon which "counts as" a light weapon and does too much damage of the wrong type), but that's different to the typo. Embrace the typo. Ask for it to be fixed, but it's just a word substitution. Laugh at it, but don't fret over it.


RAW in pfs is RUN as written. The scenario. No adding monsters, no changing DC's.

If you want to change PFS to force DM's to abide by whatever "I think its raw" the players can come up with go to the pfs forums and ask for that change.. watch the reasons pile up why that's never going to happen, starting with no one would want to DM under those conditions and no one would want to play under those conditions.

If you think that you know what the rule truly is, well so do other people. Rules adjudication is not the objective process you're making it out to be where you can tell the real rules from some rules lawyering cheese weaseling. Someone has to make a very human, very subjective call on a LOT of things Fortunately there's a way to settle who gets to decide, they're the one running the adventure. What's the other possible alternative? You may be the soul of non munchkinism, but how is an organized campaign with tens of thousands of players supposed to tell you apart? Your arguments that it's the rules and that buying paizos stuff entitles you to have the game played your way to give you a 2d6 bashing klar. Someone else may use it to intimidate the enemy into submission from half a mile out or land on the enemies head and make a ride check to force them to walk off a cliff.

The rules are wonky. The rules are always going to BE wonky. The game is only playable when the DM has the ability to adjust some of that wonkyess. Yes, that means you can get DM's that are breaking the rules, but it's the least bad alternative possible and it's not going to change.


Chemlak wrote:
Ask, and ye shall receive. Klar, weapon entry, UE 2nd printing, page 31.

I acknowledge and accept this change of the rules.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

1 person marked this as a favorite.

51 and counting!

Here is to hoping we get a full description on how the Klar interact with bashing and all the 27 other questions!


James Risner wrote:

51 and counting!

Here is to hoping we get a full description on how the Klar interact with bashing and all the 27 other questions!

Like I said, I don't care what the rules are if I know what they are.

But I take your point in that sometimes that's a big "if."


Scott Wilhelm wrote:
James Risner wrote:

51 and counting!

Here is to hoping we get a full description on how the Klar interact with bashing and all the 27 other questions!

Like I said, I don't care what the rules are if I know what they are.

But I take your point in that sometimes that's a big "if."

I predict that most of the answers to the 27 questions will just almost all just fall into place with little fuss from the community now that the Klar, as a weapon, no longer has Armor Spikes and again has Shield Spikes.

1.Where's the FAQ/Errata for the Klar?

Soon, I hope. Paizo hasn't done it officially until they actually update the errata and the PRD.

2.Under what conditions is the Klar treated as a shield

Allish. It says it's a Shield. It's a Shield.

3.under what conditions do the armor spikes on the shield behave as armor spikes

If the upcoming update to the PRD is as-promised, there will be no more Armor Spikes, so never.

4.under what conditions is the Klar treated as one handed

Allish. It is listed as a One Handed, Martial Weapon, so it's a One Handed Martial Weapon, same as a Heavy Shield.

5.under what conditions is the Klar treated as light

When you have the Thunder and Fang Feat. There may be other times. Since it "Counts as a Light Shield with Shield Spikes," you can have a Quickdraw Klar.

6.how many objects is the Klar 1,2 or 3 (Klar, armorspike&shield, armorspike&shield&Klar)

No more Armor Spikes, see question3. So, 1. There was never any language in the rules that made the Klar into some kind of Double Weapon or made the non-Bashing-Slashing Blade. I predict that contrary arguments will mostly evaporate with the new ruling.

7.what feats interact with its use

The ones that say they do, I guess. Feats that interact with Shields and 1-handed Slashing Weapons.

8.does using the Klar as a weapon prevent the shield bonus

Yes, unless you have Improved Shield Bash, same as any other Shield.

9.can the shield and weapon break separately

Huh, I'm not sure I understand the question. You mean like a Sunder attempt? I think the answer is no: It is one item. If it breaks, it breaks.

10.can you hold things in the Klar hand?

I don't know. It counts as a Light Shield. Can you hold a anything in the hand you are holding a Light Shield in?

11.should it just be treated as a slashing armor spike?

Never before, I think, and not anymore, I'm sure. The Armor Spikes are gone from the Klar as soon as Paizo officially posts it.

12.do you need to make a shield bash with the shield to activate shield slam, or is the Klar a modification of the shield bash

A Klar is a Shield. Attacking with a Shield--unless you are Throwing it or performing a combat maneuver with it or something like that--is a Shield Bash. I predict that most of the people who have been arguing against that will stop with this new rules update.

13.under what conditions can it be two handed

Huh, that's a good question. For this purpose, it's a One Handed Weapon.

14.under what conditions can it be finessed?

Normally not, since it is a 1 handed weapon. But if you have a special ability that lets you, you can. You aren't forbidden to use Weapon Finesse with a Shield: when you do you suffer Shields' Armor Check Penalty. Klars impose their Armor Check Penalties like other Shields impose theirs. For the Klar, that's -1.

15.is it considered a shield for the purpose of denying abilities that can't be used when a shield is active.

Well yeah.

16.can you chose to use it as a weapon without strapping it on as a shield.

I don't see how. As a Throwing Shield, I guess. As an Improvised Weapon, sure. But to use a Shield as a Weapon, you pretty much need to strap it on.

17.does it need to be strapped on as a shield

Well yeah.

18.does it have spell failure chance

Well yeah. It says it does: 5%.

19.does it have armor spikes, shield spikes or both.

See question 3.

20.if it doesn't have shield spikes can they be added.

If it doesn't, yes. But now, it does. I don't know why you would since it has Shield Spikes already. What, put on a set of Adamantine Shield Spikes and a set of Cold Iron Shield Spikes on your Silver (Throwing) Shield. Wouldn't do any more damage, but it would bypass lots of kinds of DR.

I dunno, I guess so? That has probably been settled in the rules.

21.does proficiency in the Klar grant proficiency in light shields and armor spikes?

Armor Spikes? Not any more: see question 3. Martial Weapon Proficiency Klar pertains -4 Non-Proficiency Penalty, Shield Proficiency pertains to applying Shields' Armor Check penalty. Generally, for both Benefits, you need both Feats. For character building, the obvious solution is to take a level in one of the many classes that just let you use all Martial Weapons and Shields like Fighter, Ranger, and Cavalier.

22. if so, does it matter if they are part of the Klar or not?

I'm not quite sure what the question means since the rules change. I'm thinking that it doesn't matter.

23. how does the Klar interact with slashing grace?

The Klar is a One Handed Slashing Weapon, so yeah, it works.

24. when grappling with a Klar, can it be used as a light weapon "spiked shield"

Without Thunder and Fang or something, the Klar is a 1 handed weapon.

25. can it also be used as an "armor spike"?

Not any more. See Question 3.

26. Does armor spike bonus damage from armor and two Klars stack?

See Question 3

27. It's not a double weapon is it?

I've never seen any language in the rules to support this.


Generally agree with Scott at this point. There's enough ambiguity, especially if you read the older versions, that maybe it's intended to have a regular shield bash and the blade is supposed to be something else, but as written I think it's just easiest to call it a variant light spiked shield that does d6 one handed slashing damage instead of d4 light piercing damage.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

I also generally agree with Scott's views on the 27 and Squiggit's "variant spiked shield" with increased handiness, damage, and damage type change.


don't know. It counts as a Light Shield. Can you hold a anything in the hand you are holding a Light Shield in?

Yes. Thats why a light shield is the shield of choice for divine casters.


James Risner wrote:

@Talonhawke, that's a whole lot of narrow scope issues. I think a lot of more common things will likely get answered before 4 armed things.

I know we can always hope.... or hope they allow them in PFS that might speed it up some.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

55 people klar-fusinated!


James Risner wrote:
55 people klar-fusinated!

Ok, now you're trying too hard...

...dragons the abysal monster back under the sea to rest until the stars are right

Sczarni

Starfinder Charter Superscriber

His persistence paid off in his last FAQ request ^_^

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

56 people are rocking the klar-nation!


Ooo oooOo ooOO but the traditional klar is different right?


We really don't know if counting as a specific kind of spiked shield means that the klar's damage is being treated as modified by the shield spikes. Just by looking at the image, the shield spikes don't seem to be doing anything to enhance the damage of the blade.


Mark Seifter has given some feedback on the issue of Armor Spikes vs. Shield Spikes. Apparently all mentions of Armor Spikes on shields were supposed to be changed to Shield Spikes. They considered the use of "Armor Spikes" to be such an obvious typo that the changes that were made were not included in the Rules Errata.

Posts:
Gisher wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
The mistake would be anywhere where it says armor spikes for a spiked shield. I know we removed several instances in the 2nd printing, but if I recall, we didn't get them all.

Thanks for the verification that Chess Pwn was correct. :)

So it looks like there are three errors that need to be fixed.

UE 2nd printing, page 38 wrote:

Spiked Heavy Shield

Spiked shields are intimidating weapons, and can have a single protruding central spike, razored shield edges, or a whole forest of deadly protrusions. You can bash with a spiked heavy shield instead of using it for defense. A spiked heavy shield can’t be disarmed. See the armor shield spikes entry on page 10 for details.
UE 2nd printing, page 38 wrote:

Spiked Light Shield

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 shield spikes entry on page 10 for details.

And it looks like one mention was accidentally left in one of the Klar descriptions.

UE 2nd printing, page 12 wrote:

Klar

The traditional form of this tribal weapon is a short blade bound to the skull of a large horned lizard, but a skilled smith can craft one entirely out of metal. A traditional klar counts as a light wooden shield with armor shield spikes; a metal klar counts as a light steel shield with shield spikes.

The other three mentions of Klar armor spikes already got changed to shield spikes.

I think I'm clear on this now. Now armor only has armor spikes and shields only have shield spikes. It seems like it always should have been that way. Thanks again!

Mark Seifter wrote:
Gisher wrote:
It seems like it always should have been that way. Thanks again!
No problem! And I agree with you; so much so, in fact, it seemed so clear that it was a typo (and it doesn't match the CRB's explanation of spiked shields either) that the change was marked as a typo change, rather than a rules erratum, which we leave off of errata docs to make them more readable and useful for owners of the original (to avoid the necessity of wading through typos to find the substantive changes). I'm impressed with your eagle eye of spotting it!


Gisher wrote:

Mark Seifter has given some feedback on the issue of Armor Spikes vs. Shield Spikes. Apparently all mentions of Armor Spikes on shields were supposed to be changed to Shield Spikes. They considered the use of "Armor Spikes" to be such an obvious typo that the changes that were made were not included in the Rules Errata.

** spoiler omitted **

...

I'm getting impatient to see it done officially. The change needs to be an officially posted change, or it isn't real.

Paizo design team, hurry up and

Update the PRD,
make an Official Rules Post,
Post a new erratum or FAQ, or
something!

I still own a copy of Ultimate Equipment with a description of the Klar with Armor Spikes that is still technically legal for play!

Speaking as a paying customer who obeys the rules.

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Ooo oooOo ooOO but the traditional klar is different right?

That's kind of where I'm going with this. The state of affairs still creates this situation that encourages lawyerly players like me to exploit the rules, and activist judges like you to disregard the rules.

The situation, I think, is unacceptable to both of us. When the official rules are not officially posted and/or officially clarified, it invites everybody to abuse them, each in their own special way.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Scott, you may be the only person who thinks this is on any sort of pressing time schedule.


James Risner wrote:
Scott, you may be the only person who thinks this is on any sort of pressing time schedule.

Then I am 1 customer, and this is me complaining.

This is an opportunity for Paizo Publishing to make a public statement about its customer service.

Paizo Publishing will take this opportunity whether it takes it or not.


Maybe their silence is their statement. Oh! Let's all try that for a while.


Quote:
That's kind of where I'm going with this. The state of affairs still creates this situation that encourages lawyerly players like me to exploit the rules, and activist judges like you to disregard the rules.

An activist judge has a different definition than one that disagrees with you. You do not need to take 99.99% of a population and decide that it needs a pejorative adjective because it does not follow your personal whims, you could just shorten that to "judge".


I do wish we could get more mini-errata than we do now. I'm not so sure why the devs hate those so much. Working on something like that sounds like fun to me. But if they aren't the sort to like that sort of thing, maybe it's the sort of thing they should just delegate out.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Melkiador wrote:
I do wish we could get more mini-errata than we do now. I'm not so sure why the devs hate those so much. Working on something like that sounds like fun to me. But if they aren't the sort to like that sort of thing, maybe it's the sort of thing they should just delegate out.

Both SKR and MS have touched on this in the past. They don't like publishing incorrect information. So they all get together and hash out the errata/FAQ that gets published before it's published.

Pumping out quick little nuggets are not quick, if you spend 30 minutes to an hour on each one.


unless you're using quick relatively to compare 1 hr to weeks or months. then 30 min to an hour seems pretty damn quick.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Seen a lot of people saying 5 minutes.


James Risner wrote:
Seen a lot of people saying 5 minutes.

Even if that were true, it's 5 minutes times however many times someone can legalistically twist your words with some loophole, or just say "no it isn't" with no rational behind it.

Doing some quick math on that it would take....huh. How long until the heat death of the universe?

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

61 players requesting Klarity.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Don't forget the demands of, oh, writing books, which is what the design team actually gets paid to do.

So, they have to schedule a meeting, have that meeting, agree to Jason's satisfaction that they have a consensus on a rule, agree on how to word it, and post. If they don't agree, or can't find a solution that they feel is suitable, it doesn't happen. That's for FAQs.

Errata is even worse. Design team have to identify problem to errata, reword the rule, then it has to be developed, edited, and copy fit to the page (remember that Paizo rule that words on a page must always go to the bottom of the page, 'cause it's a doozy).

All while actually writing books.

There's no such thing as a quick FAQ/errata at Paizo, and I, personally, like it that way.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Chemlak wrote:

Don't forget the demands of, oh, writing books, which is what the design team actually gets paid to do.

So, they have to schedule a meeting, have that meeting, agree to Jason's satisfaction that they have a consensus on a rule, agree on how to word it, and post. If they don't agree, or can't find a solution that they feel is suitable, it doesn't happen. That's for FAQs.

Errata is even worse. Design team have to identify problem to errata, reword the rule, then it has to be developed, edited, and copy fit to the page (remember that Paizo rule that words on a page must always go to the bottom of the page, 'cause it's a doozy).

All while actually writing books.

There's no such thing as a quick FAQ/errata at Paizo, and I, personally, like it that way.

Not to mention explain it out once they rule it because someone will continue to argue its wrong.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

63 klar-ing-ons on the bridge.

Scarab Sages

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Talonhawke wrote:
Chemlak wrote:

Don't forget the demands of, oh, writing books, which is what the design team actually gets paid to do.

So, they have to schedule a meeting, have that meeting, agree to Jason's satisfaction that they have a consensus on a rule, agree on how to word it, and post. If they don't agree, or can't find a solution that they feel is suitable, it doesn't happen. That's for FAQs.

Errata is even worse. Design team have to identify problem to errata, reword the rule, then it has to be developed, edited, and copy fit to the page (remember that Paizo rule that words on a page must always go to the bottom of the page, 'cause it's a doozy).

All while actually writing books.

There's no such thing as a quick FAQ/errata at Paizo, and I, personally, like it that way.

Not to mention explain it out once they rule it because someone will continue to argue its wrong.

I'm guessing that one big part of their reluctance to issue quick decisions is that we as a community scrutinize every word of a rule to come up with our interpretations of how it works. Issuing a quick, off-the-cuff ruling without discussing it as a team means they're more likely to not think their wording through, and subsequently have it torn apart by the community looking for loopholes and ways to justify their own interpretations. If every official word the PDT writes is going to be pedantically analyzed, it's understandable they might want to take their time before writing any official words. Look at how much discussion has gone on here because of a typo, even when it has been clarified to be a typo. We as a community don't exactly encourage quick responses.

Paizo Employee Official Rules Response

10 people marked this as a favorite.

Answered in FAQ.

FAQ wrote:

Klars: A traditional klar “counts as a light wooden shield with shield spikes”, and a metal klar “counts as a light steel shield with shield spikes”. What exactly does this mean? Particularly, a klar is a one-handed weapon that deals damage like a heavy spiked shield, and it deals slashing damage instead of piercing damage, so where do the differences end?

A klar counts as a light shield for the purpose of using it as a shield (for instance, it grants a +1 shield bonus to AC, has a –1 armor check penalty, and has a 5% arcane spell failure chance). For the purpose of using it as a weapon, it is a one-handed weapon that deals 1d6 slashing damage, but it is otherwise similar to using a spiked shield (for instance, the damage doesn’t stack with the bashing ability, you lose the shield bonus to AC when attacking with the klar unless you have Improved Shield Bash, and so on). As a side note, anywhere that lists klars as counting as shields with “armor spikes” is a typo that will be handled in the next errata.


Thanks for those klarifications. They do clear up a lot, but...

Pathfinder Design Team wrote:
...but it is otherwise similar to using a spiked shield (for instance, the damage doesn’t stack with the bashing ability...

In which way do they not stack? Does a klar with bashing deal the same damage as a small shield with bashing? Or since the klar counts as benefitting from one size increase from its shield spikes would it still deal damage as one remaining size larger with the bashing enchant?

Basically, is it:
d6=>discount spike=>d4=add bashing=>d8

Paizo Employee Official Rules Response

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Melkiador wrote:

Thanks for those klarifications. They do clear up a lot, but...

Pathfinder Design Team wrote:
...but it is otherwise similar to using a spiked shield (for instance, the damage doesn’t stack with the bashing ability...
In which way do they not stack? Does a klar with bashing deal the same damage as a small shield with bashing? Or since the klar counts as benefitting from one size increase from its shield spikes would it still deal damage as one remaining size larger with the bashing enchant?

It otherwise counts as a light shield, so it would be a light shield two size categories larger (specifically, 1d6 damage for a Medium light shield).


James Risner wrote:
63 klar-ing-ons on the bridge.

Congrats James good job getting this one boosted up there.

Now about those 4-armed PC's? ;P


I have no plans to ever make a 4 armed PC, but that is a rather interesting question that could stand an answer.


Pathfinder Design Team wrote:
Melkiador wrote:

Thanks for those klarifications. They do clear up a lot, but...

Pathfinder Design Team wrote:
...but it is otherwise similar to using a spiked shield (for instance, the damage doesn’t stack with the bashing ability...
In which way do they not stack? Does a klar with bashing deal the same damage as a small shield with bashing? Or since the klar counts as benefitting from one size increase from its shield spikes would it still deal damage as one remaining size larger with the bashing enchant?
It otherwise counts as a light shield, so it would be a light shield two size categories larger (specifically, 1d6 damage for a Medium light shield).

For clarity, you may want to say it "doesn't benefit from bashing" instead of it "doesn't stack with bashing".

Sadly, this also means that there isn't usually much want to ever have this item now. A small shield with bashing can do the same damage and be light for use as an off-hand. And a large shield with bashing does more damage as a one-handed weapon, while giving you more AC.

Liberty's Edge

My Thunder and Fang Warpriest approves of this FAQ.

(although I personally think its placement would be better in the Golarion Rules and Questions FAQ, since the Klar is printed in several sources)

51 to 100 of 147 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder RPG / Rules Questions / Klar-i-FAQ-ations are needed on the Klar, Spiked Shield, and more. All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.