If I give my character Shield-Trained to treat a Heavy Shield as a light shield and a simple weapon, I know I can still wield it as a shield. But if I increase the size category to get more damage, would I still be able to use it as a shield? If not, would stuff like Shield Spikes and Bashing still apply to any damage I would do with it?
Dhá Sciath wrote: If I give my character Shield-Trained to treat a Heavy Shield as a light shield and a simple weapon, I know I can still wield it as a shield. But if I increase the size category to get more damage, would I still be able to use it as a shield? If not, would stuff like Shield Spikes and Bashing still apply to any damage I would do with it? I've asked similar questions in a recent thread. The consensus was that Bashing and Shield Spikes don't stack as they are both effective size increases, but a large shield, Bashing and Enlarge Person would stack for a total of +4 size categories (3d6 damage). With Shield-Trained, a large sized Heavy Shield would be a one-handed weapon. You could also add shield spikes if you wanted to be eligible for Effortless Lace to negate the large weapon penalty. If you want to shield bash and get the AC benefit, Improved Shield Bash is a good feat to have.
I thought it was well established that Shield Spikes and Bashing both stack *because* they are virtual size increases, unless there has been a new ruling.
Dhá Sciath wrote: I thought it was well established that Shield Spikes and Bashing both stack *because* they are virtual size increases, unless there has been a new ruling. There is an FAQ that covers this. I think it's arguable that since spikes make the shield physically larger it could stack with a magically virtual size increase, but as written they don't stack.
Okay, so the argument is that Shield Spikes change the physical size, and Bashing changes the virtual size of it? That's good to know. I've been using Hero Lab, so I'm just using whatever it tells me and double check with my DM's to see if they want to keep going with the same damage modifiers we've been using.
Dhá Sciath wrote: Okay, so the argument is that Shield Spikes change the physical size, and Bashing changes the virtual size of it? That's good to know. I've been using Hero Lab, so I'm just using whatever it tells me and double check with my DM's to see if they want to keep going with the same damage modifiers we've been using. That sounds good, run it by your GM for approval. If you have the gold a Maelstrom Shield is a good choice as you get free trip attacks with every shield bash.
But I'm still wondering if it'd be usable as a shield, because Hero Lab isn't allowing me to equip it as such, but still applying all the bonuses from Shield Spikes and Bashing.
Dhá Sciath wrote: But I'm still wondering if it'd be usable as a shield, because Hero Lab isn't allowing me to equip it as such, but still applying all the bonuses from Shield Spikes and Bashing. I don't have Hero Lab, so I can't help you there, but you can definitely use a shield for both AC and shield bashing. Without Improved Shield Bash, every time you attack with your shield you will lose the AC bonus.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
You can't use as a shield, a shield that isn't sized for you as there are no rules to allow for that.
Spiked and Bashing are both virtual size increases and don't stack.
I think the problem was that they released an NPC is some adventure that used the combination in that way, causing all the confusion.
And Spiked Shields are listed as a different weapon, which confuses it even further.
Dhá Sciath wrote: I think the problem was that they released an NPC is some adventure that used the combination in that way, causing all the confusion. The reason is that in 3.5, Wizard of the Coast released a FAQ which explicitly stated that Bashing and shield spikes stacked. So when Paizo took over the 3.5 game, that was part of the rule base.
Then, Paizo (a la the PDT) invented/imposed new stacking rules that were never part of the original game design. They decided that some things would be "virtual" size increases and some things would be "actual," and like does not stack with like.
Quote: And Spiked Shields are listed as a different weapon, which confuses it even further. Yes, I argued that point. Ultimate Equipment even states that a spiked shield is a weapon "in its own right." The PDT rejected that argument and insisted a spiked shield is simple a shield with a "virtual" size increase. It's an absurd ruling, especially since no such categories existed when the WotC authors wrote the weapons and there was no intent to have spiked shields be considered a "virtual" size increase along with something like Lead Blades.
The question is why did the PDT do this? It's not clear. I'm guessing the spiked shield may have been a casualty of the PDT's shotgun approach to curbing Druid's and their ability to stack "as if" buffs on their pets. It may have been due to James Jacobs' post that he felt Bashing should not be allowed to be put on a weapon and a spiked shield was a weapon--he seemed to think a 2d6 off-hand weapon was a violation of an unwritten rule. Of course he made zero analysis on the feat/cost investment to get there, so it comes off as more emotionally driven rather than "balance" driven.
The PDT's ruling on "as if" is, imo, one of their top 5 worst rulings. If there is some major unfairness that occurs with feats/spells and animal companions, then address that. If the PDT thinks a bashing spiked heavy shield is really some crime against nature, then address that. But telling me a clubs with spikes and a shield with spikes should be treated differently by a spell which "increases momentum and density" is nonsensical. The willfulness of it, turns me off from the game.
N N 959 wrote: he seemed to think a 2d6 off-hand weapon was a violation of an unwritten rule. That is actually the truth.
In 3.5, there were leaked/explained/etc that weapons had a formula. After that was leaked, there was a community effort (not by WotC) to codify it into something that could be used to make new weapons. The Spiked Chain was the "best" weapon at 106% of "normal" and Gauntlet was like 80 or 90%.
Paizo devs have talk in the past about an excel sheet (I think, but it might have just been another formula) that they use to do the same.
All this is coming from memory, and I don't have links handy. But there definitely are unwritten rules on how good a weapon can be and a bashing spiked weapon breaks all those rules. My guess is WotC didn't feel like they wanted to change the text (because their errata policy is "we don't reprint books so don't change stuff".)
James Risner wrote: But there definitely are unwritten rules on how good a weapon can be and a bashing spiked weapon breaks all those rules. No, your uttering pure BS. First off all, you have no idea what rules you're talking about because as you stated, they are "unwritten." Second, the weapon can't break rules because once you start adding in Feat / Enhancement costs, the rules have no validity. Or rather, there is no metric or analysis that can be done on a spreadsheet. Sure, a mundane simple light weapon can't do 1d10, nor can +5 longsword of Sneak Attack cost 1000gp, but that's not what were talking about. Furthermore, James Jacob is a not a rules guy. That's a polite way of saying his judgment and analysis if how rules work has been frequently contradicted by the PDT. Based on his commentary posted on SRD, Jacobs seems to approach the game from what he wants on a personal/emotional level as opposed to an objective or impartial analysis.
And FYI, you can still get a 2d6 offhand weapon, so the FAQ didn't stop that. There's a reason why the PDT doesn't ever post an empirical analysis to justify their rule changes.
Quote: My guess is WotC didn't feel like they wanted to change the text (because their errata policy is "we don't reprint books so don't change stuff".) That's completely wrong. WotC issued a FAQ which explicitly stated the weapon was legal and working as intended.
The fact is, and it is a fact, the PDT invented a rule regarding "as if" stacking and it had nothing to do with what the authors were thinking when the things that use "as if" language were authored. What's more, using "as if" language is a complete departure from normal stacking paradigm as all other stacking/non-stacking types are based on something that is arguably an IC concept and something the actual PC's would be aware of e.g. divine modifier, circumstance modifier, competence modifier, ability modifier, enhancement modifier. "as if" is completely OOC. It has no IC component because it was simply a formula/language to OOC modify the dice used.
N N 959 wrote: they are "unwritten."
James Jacob ... frequently contradicted by the PDT.
you can still get a 2d6 offhand weapon
WotC issued a FAQ which explicitly stated the weapon was legal and working as intended.
The rules are not in a rule book, but there are rules written in word and/or excel documents used to develop the books, so they are written down and exist.
I think you will find James Jacobs is close to 90-95% correct on his predictions of rules. He was right on bashing spiked, adding two abilities to the same thing, and a ton of other questions asked. I know it's common thing apparently to say he isn't a rules guy, but he seems to understand ultimately how the rules get errata better than most of those saying "he isn't a rules guy" just based on factual evidence of his success rate at predicting future errata.
I was addressing the fact that WotC FAQ it as "working" when they had previously said a weapon of that calculation shouldn't be possible. I offered up a theory as to why there is a discrepancy. You don't like my theory, fine. Bashing Spiked shields hasn't ever been compliant with the "unwritten" rules for weapons. At least in Pathfinder, we have a rule saying it doesn't stack.
James Risner wrote:
The rules are not in a rule book, but there are rules written in word and/or excel documents used to develop the books, so they are written down and exist.
And I can tell you without fear of contradiction that no rule or forumula can consistently determine a metric for intangibles and contextual benefits. You can't qualitatively compare two items that contain dissimilar element or values on different axis. It can't be done. So there is no formula or spreadsheet that can convincingly tell us that a +1 Bashing heavy spiked shield is empirically better than any other weapon that costs the same amount but uses even one different mechanic.
Quote: I think you will find James Jacobs is close to 90-95% correct on his predictions of rules. Considering he is one of the top employees at Paizo and has undoubtedly listened to innumerable discussions on the rules at work, his success rate should be higher. Yet, he is 100% wrong on some of his beliefs and intuitions about how the rules should work. More importantly, iirc, his responses read like editorial comments rather than rules analysis.
Quote: He was right on bashing spiked No, he wasn't right about bashing. His assertion was that you can't add bashing to a weapon and he was wrong. WotC rules 100% allowed you to add bashing to a spiked shield. Even worse, Jacobs absolutely did not identify the reason that Paizo decided it wouldn't stack, and more importantly, he was wrong when he said it because WotC said that it DID stack. Paizo changed the rules, Jacobs was not at all correct about how it worked.
Quote: I know it's common thing apparently to say he isn't a rules guy Because Jacobs said that about himself when he got criticism for getting the rules wrong.
Quote: he seems to understand ultimately how the rules get errata better than most of those saying "he isn't a rules guy" just based on factual evidence of his success rate at predicting future errata. Gee, I'm sure that isn't at all influenced by the fact that he works there and is in on a lot of these meetings, is it?
Quote: I was addressing the fact that WotC FAQ it as "working" when they had previously said a weapon of that calculation shouldn't be possible. Link?
Quote: I offered up a theory as to why there is a discrepancy. The discrepancy exists because Paizo changed the rules without changing any of the associated language. That's the reason and there is no other.
Quote: You don't like my theory, fine. Bashing Spiked shields hasn't ever been compliant with the "unwritten" rules for weapons. Essentially false because WotC explicitly said the two things stack in a FAQ. So it clearly was compliant with the rules. Assertions that there might have been some violation are worth their actual weight in gold. I've seen nothing that supports such an assertion besides a guy who admits he isn't a rules guy.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Gallant Armor wrote: Dhá Sciath wrote: I thought it was well established that Shield Spikes and Bashing both stack *because* they are virtual size increases, unless there has been a new ruling. There is an FAQ that covers this. I think it's arguable that since spikes make the shield physically larger it could stack with a magically virtual size increase, but as written they don't stack. I know it's a little late, but I'm bringing this in because it's relevant and doesn't get any more official than this:
The Pathfinder Design Team specifically states that Bashing and Shield Spikes do not stack as a result of the Size Stacking FAQ.
Just so people don't get the idea that just because it's not from a magical effect or what have you, that it supposedly doesn't count as a similar benefit.
N N 959 wrote: I can tell you without fear of contradiction that no rule or forumula can consistently determine a metric for intangibles and contextual benefits.
No, he wasn't right about bashing.
Because Jacobs said that about himself when he got criticism for getting the rules wrong.
Essentially false because WotC explicitly said the two things stack in a FAQ.
I'm sorry you feel that way, because WotC has one, the forums created one in 3.5 era, and It has been said that Paizo has one by staff.
Well, I don't know what to say on the bashing issue other than to say I couldn't disagree with your assessment of the facts.
He said it about himself for the same reason SKR often said you are welcome to play the game you like. If you tell someone how something works, and it differs from the listener's Idea of how it works, they tend to argue more. Only on errata, do players accept it.
Then finally, you are missing my point. That they felt boxed into giving that response by their limited Errata policy. Paizo has a better Errata policy, and a way to fix things. So we get fixes.
Anyway, it's pretty clear you and I are on opposite sides of this issue. I don't see any way we can come to agreement.
James Risner wrote: I'm sorry you feel that way, because WotC has one, the forums created one in 3.5 era, and It has been said that Paizo has one by staff. Have you seen the spreadsheet, any of them? I'm guessing no. So you have no idea exactly what is on the spreadsheets and what it covers or how it is used. Your claim that the spiked shield violated the rules is totally and wholly unsubstantiated. You've got nothing to back that up other than some errant comment from Jacobs who, I'll bet, is not responsible for said spreadsheets.
So while I can believe there is a spreadsheet for creating mundane weapons, it loses validity once weapon's effectiveness is modified by context/circumstance, feats, and special abilities, which is exactly what is happening in this case.
Quote: He said it about himself for the same reason SKR often said you are welcome to play the game you like. If you tell someone how something works, and it differs from the listener's Idea of how it works, they tend to argue more. Only on errata, do players accept it. Uh..no. He said it because he thought he knew how the rules should work and he was wrong. Multiple times.
Quote: Then finally, you are missing my point. That they felt boxed into giving that response by their limited Errata policy. Paizo has a better Errata policy, and a way to fix things. So we get fixes. If you're arguing that the reason the WotC issued FAQ saying spiked+bashing stacked was because they didn't want to errata anything, I can only laugh.
Quote: Anyway, it's pretty clear you and I are on opposite sides of this issue. I don't see any way we can come to agreement. We're not debating an issue, we're debating facts. It's a fact that Jacobs was wrong about bashing and why it should nor be allowed. Not only that, you can still obtain an off-hand weapon that does 2d6. So whatever imaginary rule you think this violated must not exist because you can still violate said rule.
My guess is that you think the ruling was a clarification. It was not. Paizo changed the rules. That's all there is to it.
It seems to me that what James is saying is that 2d6 for a light off hand weapon goes against the design constrains of the game. I would not get stuck on it being a spread sheet, general guiding principles, a formula or a point buy system - like the one released in one of the companions.
It seems clear that even if this were allowed it would be because of an oversight and not intentional game design.
First, it's not a light weapon and it cost 9k. Second, an impact Morningstar in the off-hand is also 2d6 weapon.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
A morningstar isn't a light weapon though.
Let's look at it like this:
Light weapons usually do 1d4 or 1d6 damage. One-handed weapons usually 1d6 or 1d8.
A light shield bashes for 1d3, a light spiked shield for 1d4.
A heavy shield bashes for 1d4, a heavy spiked shield for 1d6.
So far, we have spiked shields as slightly sub-par off-hand weapons. What changes if we add Bashing to the mix?
A simple shield gets promoted to 1d6, a heavy shield to 1d8 points of damage, which puts them into average damage ranges for a weapon without any special crit ranges or special traits. This puts them on equal footing with most regular weapons.
If we allow Bashing to work with a spiked shield, we get a 1d8 light weapon. There are no other 1d8 light weapons (other then kobold tail attachments), not simple ones, not martial ones, not exotic ones.
A heavy Bashing spiked shield would be a one-handed weapon doing 2d6 damage for for the price of a +1 enhancement (+2 total, +4000 gp), while the impact morningstar is eating a +2 enhancement for a total of +18000 gp.
So, I dare say, it is pretty obvious why you can either promote a shield to a piercing weapon (and enhance those shield spikes as normal for weapons), or cough up the dough for the Bashing enhancement, but not both. So that shields, when used as offensive weapons, stay in the general capacity of light and one-handed weapons. Allowing both would create a 'proud nail' of a weapon, so they brought the hammer down on this one.
Lycar wrote: A heavy Bashing spiked shield would be a one-handed weapon doing 2d6 damage for for the price of a +1 enhancement (+2 total, +4000 gp), while the impact morningstar is eating a +2 enhancement for a total of +18000 gp. Ah, so now you're ready to talk about costs of enchantment? Then that opens the door for all the other factors that go into the weapon.
I can use a +1 Impact morningstar AND get the benefit of my shield AC. I can't do that with a shield. So my AC is going to be lower.
Oh...your arguing that Improved Shield Bash let's me retain the shield benefit? Well, for the cost of the feat, I can get Weapon Focus on the Morningstar, and now I'm getting +2 to hit. What's more, I can dual wield morningstars and maximize my benefit. You're also overlooking that changing the shield from bashing to piercing is a huge negative while the morningstar can do both. In some situations, the shield is almost worthless as a weapon where the morninstar will do fine. There is no converse situation.
Quote: So, I dare say, it is pretty obvious why you can either promote a shield to a piercing weapon (and enhance those shield spikes as normal for weapons), or cough up the dough for the Bashing enhancement, but not both. So that shields, when used as offensive weapons, stay in the general capacity of light and one-handed weapons. No, it's not obvious because WotC used the same math and said it was 100% legal. What's more, I can come up with all kinds of weapon + enchantment/feat combos that will outperform a bashing spiked heavy shield. And let's not even get into the ridiculous things casters get to do, like cast snowball as a first level spell.
What you then have to resort to is your opinion that one factor is more or less important than another, but no math is going to prove that.
And finally, I can STILL get a 2d6 bashing shield in the off-hand. For 2,500g, permanent Enlarge Person gets me there a lot cheaper than an impact morningstar.
Quote: Allowing both would create a 'proud nail' of a weapon, so they brought the hammer down on this one. Yes, clearly. Evidenced by the fact that the games everywhere have been overrun by bashing heavy spiked shield toting melee types between the WotC FAQ explicitly allowing it and the PDT FAQ disallowing it. The weapon is so overpowered and the investment to obtain it and use it effectively were so trivial, my PC couldn't drop prone without empaling himself onto a heavy spiked shield of bashing.
N N 959 wrote: If you're arguing that the reason the WotC issued FAQ saying spiked+bashing stacked was because they didn't want to errata anything, I can only laugh.
We're not debating an issue, we're debating facts. It's a fact that Jacobs was wrong about bashing
Laugh then, as that is exactly what I'm saying. An example being the Deepwarden's Con to AC was limited to Max Dex, confirmed by the author and it wasn't going to be put in Errata documents. So all the forums loved to say "It's not Dex so not Limited to max Dex". So every week we'd see an argument over the issue because WotC didn't want to issue errata.
As for the fact, I'm disputing your facts with my own facts. That it was a clarification on bashing/spiked stacking, that happened to match the new rules on "stacking size changes".
If you're dual-wielding morningstars, you're taking a -4 to hit with both weapons, as a morningstar is not a light weapon. Weapon Focus and a +1 enhancement bonus only off-set to a standard two-weapon fighting penalty, where as a heavy spiked bashing shield (with Shield-trained) is a light weapon, meaning you only have -2 to hit with both weapons. After the same bonuses (+1, Weapon Focus (shield bash)), the shield has a better to-hit.
As for the permanent enlarge person, you are correct in that it gives you a 2d6 bashing shield in the off-hand for cheap. However, enlarge person does have several other drawbacks, though, as it gives a -1 size bonus to hit (off-set by a +2 to Str), and -1 size bonus to AC. It also means that, unless new gear is sized for a larger creature (either costing you more or what you find has to be sized appropriately), you cannot replace your current gear, as by RAW magic armor and weapons do not resize. You will have to pay to have your current gear upgraded, which means finding someone who can do it or having a GM allow downtime for crafting (assuming your wizard is taking Item Creation feats). Being a Large sized creature might also cause other, non-numerical difficulties such as people mistaking you for a giant or not fitting through the front door of an inn, as well as having to squeeze through underground spaces that are too small for you. Much better to buy a wand of enlarge person and have the wizard cast it on you each fight (and cheaper).
I also seem to recall that I once saw that armor enhancements and weapon enhancements are different, but I can't find the relevant rule, so I may not be remembering correctly.
I'd also like to point something else out. While Pathfinder was built on the WotC D&D 3.5 OGL, it has since grown into its own RPG system. Paizo has introduced new classes and mechanics, and with the Unchained ruleset, revised some core classes. Therefore, I would argue that a WotC FAQ has little relevance for Pathfinder as it stands now. The way WotC had their system set up is not the same as how Paizo has their system set up. Pathfinder, I believe, stands on its own, now, and the way WotC did things no longer has the same amount of relevance to the decisions of the PDT than it did when Pathfinder first came out.
For future reference, the last, sarcastic comment at the end of your post detracts from your argument. I would suggest avoiding it in the future. It makes you come across as arrogant, which I don't thinks as your intention.
Phntm888 wrote: If you're dual-wielding morningstars, you're taking a -4 to hit with both weapons, as a morningstar is not a light weapon....stuff A heavy shield is not a light weapon, so you're also taking -4. Shield-Trained is a trait that you may or may not have access to and in PFS comes at the cost of another trait. What's more, you have to worship Gorum.
What should be immediately obvious to you and others is that you're having to contrive the comparison to be able to argue your point. Inserting a Trait with a specific restriction in an effort to bias the outcome is exactly that, an effort to bias the outcome. At the start of this tangent, I told RIsner, no spreadsheet gets you to where you want ago. Your entire method debating the issue reinforces that.
Quote: I'd also like to point something else out. While Pathfinder was built on the WotC D&D 3.5 OGL, it has since grown into its own RPG system. Paizo has introduced new classes and mechanics, and with the Unchained ruleset, revised some core classes. Therefore, I would argue that a WotC FAQ has little relevance for Pathfinder as it stands now. While we could debate the relevance of what you're saying on a general level, in this instance what WotC said is 100% relevant. Why? Because the core mechanics are essentially identical in all the ways that matter to this issue. Weapons all do the same damage. The attack penalties are all the same. The feats in question, are all the same. So the existence of the Slayer or the Unchained Rogue has zero impact on the viability of a bashing heavy spiked shield. The weapon does the same damage it did in 3.5.
James Risner wrote: As for the fact, I'm disputing your facts with my own facts. That it was a clarification on bashing/spiked stacking, that happened to match the new rules on "stacking size changes". Ignoring what comes across as a shifting of the goal post, you're right. The bashing/spiking response was a clarification, they did not issue a separate FAQ addressing it.. But that's not what I've been discussing. I've been discussing the FAQ which changed the rules. The OP noted the "discrepancy" between the FAQ and the rules, so I have been talking about the FAQ, not the clarification. Paizo changed the rules for spiked shields with the FAQ. That's why posters continually point out that the spiked shield is a weapon and not a virtual size increase...because the rule books tells us it's a weapon "in its own right."
N N 959 wrote: Ignoring what comes across as a shifting of the goal post, you're right. That's why posters continually point out that the spiked shield is a weapon and not a virtual size increase...because the rule books tells us it's a weapon "in its own right." I assume you are saying you have been shifting the goal post, because I've not. I've been saying the same thing, that which you've been disagreeing.
In the old threads, where countless posts by James Jacobs and SKR were used to demonstrate that spiked bashing shields don't stack. All of which were ignored until a FAQ. Then continued to be ignored until an explicit, direct, to the precise point FAQ was issued. Which I don't understand why it was needed, but it was.
James Risner wrote: N N 959 wrote: Ignoring what comes across as a shifting of the goal post, you're right. That's why posters continually point out that the spiked shield is a weapon and not a virtual size increase...because the rule books tells us it's a weapon "in its own right." I assume you are saying you have been shifting the goal post, because I've not. I've been saying the same thing, that which you've been disagreeing.
In the old threads, where countless posts by James Jacobs and SKR were used to demonstrate that spiked bashing shields don't stack. All of which were ignored until a FAQ. Then continued to be ignored until an explicit, direct, to the precise point FAQ was issued. Which I don't understand why it was needed, but it was. You've been trying to justify the non-stacking as an already-in-place rule. It was not. That isn't even debatable. Then you try and pretend Jacobs told us why they didn't stack...he did not. He had no clue.
There was absolutely no "as if" rule in existence. That is easily proven, and you even admitted that it was a "new rule.". Jacobs isn not an authority when it comes to the rules. As he's been totally contradicted by the PDT. Jacobs reasoning for why it didn't work has nothing to do with why it doesn't work now. I don't know how many times that needs to be repeated.
Furthermore, they didn't issue an "explicit, direct, to the precise point FAQ" on bashing and shield spikes asserting such is just a flat out lie. The PDT addressed "as if" buffs, which includes a whole host of things. The PDT didn't even mention spiked bashing shields in the FAQ.
As for SKR, please provide a link where he says you can't have such a weapon. I've never seen anyone reference such a post.
Your last post was pretty much factually wrong in ever sentence. Well, a better way to put it is I disagree with your statements entirely.
James Risner wrote: That it was a clarification on bashing/spiked stacking, that happened to match the new rules on "stacking size changes". Paizo changed the rules. You admitted it was a new rule. That's the end of it.
Quote: As he's been totally contradicted by the PDT You can disagree that gravity exist all you want, but that doesn't change reality.
N N 959 wrote: Paizo changed the rules. Exactly. And that means, this is what is officially how shields and spikes and Bashing work in Pathfinder. You can play the game however you want. But your wishes have zero impact on how the official rules go.
N N 959 wrote: You can disagree that gravity exist all you want, but that doesn't change reality. Funny, I'd call your responses the same thing. Rejecting the existence of gravity.
Anyone insisting that Jacobs hasn't been contradicted by the PDT is in denial, at best.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
N N 959 wrote: Anyone insisting that Jacobs hasn't been contradicted by the PDT is in denial, at best. I don't understand how James Jacobs saying "a weapon shouldn't deal 2d6 so bashing spiked shouldn't stack" is him being contradicted. I'm not the one in denial.
James Risner wrote: N N 959 wrote: Anyone insisting that Jacobs hasn't been contradicted by the PDT is in denial, at best. I don't understand how James Jacobs saying "a weapon shouldn't deal 2d6 so bashing spiked shouldn't stack" is him being contradicted. I'm not the one in denial. First, that wasn't the reason he gave. He said you can't put Bashing on a spiked shield because a spiked shield is a weapon and bashing is an armor property.
Second, the 2d6 was his statement that such a weapon should not be allowed, he never claimed that was the reason they don't stack.
Third, the PDT said they don't stack because they both use "as if" language. That has nothing to do with either statement made by Jacobs, Ergo, he was wrong.
Fourth, the PDT didn't issue the FAQ on bashing spiked heavy shields. They issued the FAQ on "as if" so they never addressed the shield in FAQ. This statement of yours,
Risner wrote: explicit, direct, to the precise point FAQ was issued is flat out incorrect.
The PDT made a post confirming spiked shields are under the "as if" umbrella. Obviously because they agreed that there was some valid confusion. People who don't know about the clarification are still confused as to why it applies to spiked shields.
Fifth, you can still get a 2d6 off-hand weapon. So Jacobs is once again, 100% contradicted that such a weapon is restricted by the rules.
Sixth, when Jacobs made his statements, there was no "as if" FAQ and the default rule was that the weapon was legal. Scarred Warrior supports that conclusion as does the 3.5 FAQ which clarified that the weapon does 2d6.
Seventh, Jacobs has been contradicted by the PDT on several occasions, guess what? He's not a rules guy. By his own words.
You seem to want to cling to some reality in which a 2d6 bashing heavy spiked shield was never legal...except that reality doesn't exist.
Paizo changed the rules to make them not stack, so yes, based on what you've been posting, it appears you are in denial. But you know what, if that works for you...go with it.
N N 959 wrote: First, that wasn't the reason he gave. He said you can't put Bashing on a spiked shield because a spiked shield is a weapon and bashing is an armor property.
Second, the 2d6 was his statement that such a weapon should not be allowed
Third, the PDT said they don't stack because they both use "as if" language. That has nothing to do with either statement made by Jacobs, Ergo, he was wrong.
Fourth, the PDT didn't issue the FAQ on bashing spiked heavy shields. They issued the FAQ on "as if" so they never addressed the shield in FAQ.
4a) The PDT made a post confirming spiked shields are under the "as if" umbrella.
Fifth, you can still get a 2d6 off-hand weapon.
Sixth, when Jacobs made his statements, there was no "as if" FAQ
Seventh, Jacobs has been contradicted by the PDT on several occasions, guess what? He's not a rules guy. By his own words.
1) His statement boils down to "they don't stack", and I can't help you don't see that. A spiked bashing shield is a "spiked shield for damage or a bashing shield for damage, take the highest". I also can't help his apparent to me explicitly saying as much, doesn't seem explicit to you.
2) Not true. The "because 2d6 is too much" was always a response to "why don't you think it works". Because the game is designed such that it doesn't work. Call it TMI, he was giving you additional info.
3) James Jacobs never said they didn't stack due to "as if", but as I pointed out in #1, he said they didn't stack because one modifies the base shield and the other modifies the base shield, ergo they don't stack.
4) The original thread that spawned the FAQ was a spiked bashing shield, so you are using revisionist history to say they didn't address it. Not only did they address it, they coded the response to encompass other things beyond spiked bashing shields.
4a) Mostly people didn't want to accept it, the chain of evidence was clear back to the original spiked bashing shield. So yes, they explicitly covered the spiked bashing in the FAQ with the update.
5) You can get 2d6 with magic with one-handed. I'm unaware of any way to get it with a light weapon. Plus let's say there is a way. How is it different than any other "not yet FAQ" issue that might get corrected to be as designed later?
6) The default rule was they didn't stack. When it came to head as the "next FAQ we need to make" they expanded the scope to include strong jaw and improved natural attack, among other things.
7) I can't remember a time when he was contradicted by FAQ. Funny thing is he is the rules guy for all non-PDT products (his words). He's been on the right side of a ton of issues like spiked bashing, double dex to Trip attempts, and other things.
I've explained all your positions, and shown how there could be alternate interpretations for those things.
James Risner wrote:
1) His statement boils down to "they don't stack", and I can't help you don't see that. A spiked bashing shield is a "spiked shield for damage or a bashing shield for damage, take the highest". I also can't help his apparent to me explicitly saying as much, doesn't seem explicit to you.
2) Not true. The "because 2d6 is too much" was always a response to "why don't you think it works". Because the game is designed such that it doesn't work. Call it TMI, he was giving you additional info.
3) James Jacobs never said they didn't stack due to "as if", but as I pointed out in #1, he said they didn't stack because one modifies the base shield and the other modifies the base shield, ergo they don't stack.
4) The original thread that spawned the FAQ was a spiked bashing shield, so you are using revisionist history to say they didn't address it. Not only did they address it, they coded the response to encompass other things beyond spiked bashing shields.
4a) Mostly people didn't want to accept it, the chain of evidence was clear back to the original spiked bashing shield. So yes, they explicitly covered the...'
5) You can get 2d6 with magic with one-handed. I'm unaware of any way to get it with a light weapon. Plus let's say there is a way. How is it different than any other "not yet FAQ" issue that might get corrected to be as designed later?
6) The default rule was they didn't stack. When it came to head as the "next FAQ we need to make" they expanded the scope to include strong jaw and improved natural attack, among other things.
7) I can't remember a time when he was contradicted by FAQ. Funny thing is he is the rules guy for all non-PDT products (his words). He's been on the right side of a ton of issues like spiked bashing, double dex to Trip attempts, and other things.
1) The Jacobs rationale for why they don't stack was wrong. You don't get credit for predicting that the light switch will turn on the light because of magic, just because the light turns on.
2) And yet, we have several ways to get a 2d6 off-hand, so the "too much" comment was once again, not supported by the actual game rules.
3) Jacobs didn't know why they didn't stack. None of the reasons Jacobs put forth were the reasons given by the PDT. If I claim they didn't stack because the PDT doesn't like martials, then I'd be just as correct as Jacobs.
4) A flat out lie which you've often repeated. The original thread asked about a BUNCH of things. The PDT addressed the general rule of "as if" and conspicuously did not mention spiked shields, despite actually using a bashing shield in their example.
4a) Yes, after the clarification issued by the PDT, they established a spiked shield is an "as if" buff. People who haven't read the clarification still don't agree that the FAQ applies.
5) a heavy spiked shield is not a light weapon. Look it up. How do we know that the PDT isn't going to do an about face on their ruling of "as if" like they did with SLA's and Prestige class requirements? The question is irrelevant. What is a fact is that Jacobs was wrong. You can have an off-hand weapon that does 2d6. There is no prohibition against it in Pathfinder or 3.5.
6) The default rule was that they did stack. The rule were taken from 3.5 in which they stacked. You have proved absolutely zero evidence of any official rule that said they don't stack. And at least have one NPC that corroborates this. You have zero NPCs that contradict this in any source book. In fact, we have stronger authority that Shield Master only grants base shield bonus to attack and even that isn't the rule.
7) Go look at the SRD, there are several examples of him claiming A and the PDT saying not A. Vital Strike is a prime example.
Suffice it to say, I disagree with every single response in your last post. The good thing is that the reader can see why. I don't even need to point out the errors any more.
I also don't appreciate being called a liar. I don't think you are lying, I just don't agree with your viewsz
N N 959 wrote: 4a) Yes, after the clarification issued by the PDT, they established a spiked shield is an "as if" buff. People who haven't read the clarification still don't agree that the FAQ applies. I don't agree with Mr. Risner on a lot of things that he says, but I feel justified in stepping in and saying that he is right on the money with his claim of people not wanting to accept that the FAQ applied. Read the post again.
There was no need for a clarification or FAQ or errata from the PDT. As they said, the previously-created FAQ by itself is sufficient enough grounds for them to not stack. Really, the only reason Mr. Risner made that thread was solely because people (such as yourself) didn't accept that the FAQ was designed to apply to shield spikes, even though the PDT made the FAQ with full knowledge that the FAQ was created to apply to them (and numerous other things, such as Impact + Lead Blades, Enlarge Person + Giant Form, and so on).
The only thing they mentioned that needed to be changed was the mention of armor spikes in any shield spike (or spiked shield) entries. That's it. No "The Shield Spikes entry is (or isn't) supposed to say it's an effective size increase, this change will be reflected in the next errata," just armor spike silliness that caused confusion for no good reason.
Recent threads in Rules Questions
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
