They're listed and described in the armor section of the book, so they count as shield for things like Shield Focus. However, they don't count as light shields (as nothing says so).
Mechanically, they're a mix between light shield (+1 bonus, armor check penalty, weight) and heavy shields (arcane spell failure chance, inability to use hand for anything else). It depends on the GM on how to treat them for stuff like Shield Wall - personally I'd treat them as light if they're on their own, and heavy if you wield two and have the TWF feat.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd rule they operate like light shields as they are labeled light weapons. There isn't anything explicitly saying so, but given that the light steel shield is treated like a light weapon for shield bash, I have no reason to believe it doesn't work the other way around.
Dwarven Warshields are explicitly listed as a shield in the source material. Thus any feat that applies to generic shields or generic weapons would apply.
It is unclear as to whether or not they are light or heavy unless I've missed an errata somewhere, in the event that this is an important distinction.
In my game, my character's dwarven warshield is being treated as a light shield, partially due to the +1 shield bonus and partially due to the rule that a weapon that provides a shield bonus is treated as a light shield.
https://www.d20pfsrd.com/equipment/weapons/
Shield (1 DP): The weapon counts as a light shield made of wood or metal and can have armor spikes (your choice). Add the gp price of the shield and any armor spikes that the weapon gains from this quality to the weapon’s gp price. This quality can be added only to one-handed melee weapons.
|
As others have said, there's not a RAW answer.
I personally would treat it as a heavy shield because
A hand holding a dwarven warshield can’t be used for anything else.
That's pretty much the main difference between a light and heavy shield when it comes to wielding. (ASF and ACP vary even within those two categories, so I don't really view them as definitive.)
partially due to the rule that a weapon that provides a shield bonus is treated as a light shield.
That's not a rule, that's one of the weapon qualities form the entire optional, seriously inbalanced, and virtually unused "Weapon Design" subsystem from Weapon Master's Handbook. It's an after-the-fact thing and not a base for actual official weapons.
As others have said, there's not a RAW answer.
But there is - RAW, it's neither light nor heavy. It's just that these RAW create some super weird rule interactions with stuff like Shield Wall (as in 'some things don't work even though they're supposed to'), so strictly sticking to it is bad for the game.
Most feats and abilities that specifically interact with only “light shields” or “heavy shields” were written back when there were only 4 types of shields (Bucklers, Light Shields, Heavy Shields, & Tower Shields). These feats and abilities were not future proofed, nor were all new shield types categorized as one of the original 4 shield types. You will see table variation on how they are handled. Some tables will rule them based on their shield bonus, others might look at other aspects, and some still might rule them as neither. All are reasonable and equally valid rulings.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Functionally, both the Dwarven War-Shield and the Klar are very similar... both have entries in the Shields and the Weapons sections on AoN. For ease of use and in an effort to reduce table variation... I would rule both the same.
I understand that the Klar includes the descriptive lines that say it counts as a light shield with shield spikes... and the Dwarven War-Shields lack this rather important piece in their description. But if it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck...
Functionally, both the Dwarven War-Shield and the Klar are very similar... both have entries in the Shields and the Weapons sections on AoN. For ease of use and in an effort to reduce table variation... I would rule both the same.
I understand that the Klar includes the descriptive lines that say it counts as a light shield with shield spikes... and the Dwarven War-Shields lack this rather important piece in their description. But if it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck...
light and heavy shields also have a weapon section. (they are martial weapons). some classes that spec in shield fighting have them as both the shield proficiency and the weapon proficiency.
there are more birds in the pound then only ducks, just saying..
Functionally, both the Dwarven War-Shield and the Klar are very similar... both have entries in the Shields and the Weapons sections on AoN. For ease of use and in an effort to reduce table variation... I would rule both the same.
I understand that the Klar includes the descriptive lines that say it counts as a light shield with shield spikes... and the Dwarven War-Shields lack this rather important piece in their description. But if it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck...
light and heavy shields also have a weapon section. (they are martial weapons). some classes that spec in shield fighting have them as both the shield proficiency and the weapon proficiency.
there are more birds in the pound then only ducks, just saying..
Light and heavy shields have different damage values and are counted as different categories of weapons… light shields are light martial weapons that deal 1d3 (1d4 with spikes) damage, heavy shields are one-handed martial weapons that deal 1d4 (1d6 with spikes) damage…
That said… a klar has the weapon stats of a spiked heavy shield with the shield stats of a light shield… one-handed martial deals 1d6 damage… but it explicitly counts as a light shield…
Dwarven war shields are in an odd spot for their weapon block… light exotic weapon deals 1d6 damage with light shield defensive stats.
Functionally, both the Dwarven War-Shield and the Klar are very similar... both have entries in the Shields and the Weapons sections on AoN. For ease of use and in an effort to reduce table variation... I would rule both the same.
I understand that the Klar includes the descriptive lines that say it counts as a light shield with shield spikes... and the Dwarven War-Shields lack this rather important piece in their description. But if it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck...
light and heavy shields also have a weapon section. (they are martial weapons). some classes that spec in shield fighting have them as both the shield proficiency and the weapon proficiency.
there are more birds in the pound then only ducks, just saying..
Light and heavy shields have different damage values and are counted as different categories of weapons… light shields are light martial weapons that deal 1d3 (1d4 with spikes) damage, heavy shields are one-handed martial weapons that deal 1d4 (1d6 with spikes) damage…
That said… a klar has the weapon stats of a spiked heavy shield with the shield stats of a light shield… one-handed martial deals 1d6 damage… but it explicitly counts as a light shield…
Dwarven war shields are in an odd spot for their weapon block… light exotic weapon deals 1d6 damage with light shield defensive stats.
The Klar actually raises some questions...
It states that it counts a as a light shield with "Armor Spikes". Do they mean shield spikes?
The Dwarven War-Shield also says it can't benefit from shield spikes, but what if the intent was that its just a light shield that behaves as though it already has shield spikes by default?
Regardless, I still classify it as a light shield since it is in the light weapons category and I see not reason a light weapon that can be used as a shield isn't also a light shield.
Edit: looked around on the forums and found this page where the creator of the item commented on it. I guess it just isn't a heavy or light shield and just is a shield...
The Klar has an FAQ.
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.[/quote
I’m starting to see a pattern with a lot of controversial and poorly written items, feats, and archetypes… every time someone finds a quote from the author for them it’s always the same writer…
I’m starting to see a pattern with a lot of controversial and poorly written items, feats, and archetypes… every time someone finds a quote from the author for them it’s always the same writer…
Maybe. But also the standards shifted over time. Originally, the text wasn't meant to be read in such legalistic ways. We were intended to read between the lines. But the rise of Pathfinder Society led to too many disagreements about how things work, and the source books started getting more and more proofed against strong options.
|
|
I’m starting to see a pattern with a lot of controversial and poorly written items, feats, and archetypes… every time someone finds a quote from the author for them it’s always the same writer…
There's at least a bit of selection bias at play there. Isabelle is one of the few authors who would regularly comment on how the material she wrote was intended to be interpreted. Other authors could be just as guilty but didn't comment on the boards. At least we have author intention to look at with her items.
But... yeah. Isabelle is responsible for many of the most notoriously unclear or overpowered items. Including Bladed Brush, Stargazer, and Warrior Poet. A lot of it would fill an unused niche if used only in the way she envisioned it but wasn't a good fit for the whole PF1 ecosystem. Or should have had much more text to clarify the edge cases that didn't occur to her when writing. On the plus side she has several times made statements equivalent to "if I could go back and change it I would." On the negative side, she has said she wrote a lot of material to cover "deficiencies" in existing options. (And I don't think she did a great job considering whether those "deficiencies" were balance-related.) On the Huh? side - where was Paizo development in all this?