| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If the shield spell is wielded then that means it needs a free hand to do so
I don't know how much we can look to hands as it's not exactly consistent: for instance, if you doggedly insist on having it in a hand, then you'd also have to hold your fist or a gauntlet in your other hand: I don't see how free hand saying "This weapon doesn't take up your hand" is substantially different from Shield saying "but it doesn't require a hand to use". After all, wielding is "holding it in the number of hands needed to use it effectively" and the spell tells you you can "use" it without a hand. ;)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think the attack trait argument is pertinent. I mean Spiritual Weapon doesn't have the attack trait and its clearly used for attacks.
Though it is true that the spell, spiritual weapon, does not possess the Attack trait, it still makes Strikes.
I don't think the attack trait argument is pertinent. I mean Spiritual Weapon doesn't have the attack trait and its clearly used for attacks.Though it is true that the spell, spiritual weapon, does not possess the Attack trait, it still makes Strikes.
So you've come 360 but shown nothing. Ordinary Shield Bash doesn't have the attack trait. The whole "no attack trait" argument is meaningless because its a secondary action. If there was special text in the rules to explicitly allow a shield spell to be used in this way, there still would be no need for the attack trait to be on the shield spell. Its a bad argument.
Look using a shield spell like a real shield is perverse, and it probably fair to say most GMs won't allow it. But the whole terminology around it is so loose that a GM could reasonably allow it too, and not feel like he had made anything up.
Its an edge case, Paizo have clearly said make your own mind up in such cases. Thats what a GM should do.
Welcome to natural language rules.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think the attack trait argument is pertinent. I mean Spiritual Weapon doesn't have the attack trait and its clearly used for attacks.Though it is true that the spell, spiritual weapon, does not possess the Attack trait, it still makes Strikes.
So you've come 360 but shown nothing. Ordinary Shield Bash doesn't have the attack trait. The whole "no attack trait" argument is meaningless because its a secondary action. If there was special text in the rules to explicitly allow a shield spell to be used in this way, there still would be no need for the attack trait to be on the shield spell. Its a bad argument.
Look using a shield spell like a real shield is perverse, and it probably fair to say most GMs won't allow it. But the whole terminology around it is so loose that a GM could reasonably allow it too, and not feel like he had made anything up.
Its an edge case, Paizo have clearly said make your own mind up in such cases. Thats what a GM should do.
Welcome to natural language rules.
I for one, was not making any such argument (for or against bashing with the shield spell). I merely pointed out the rules as I know them.
Most everything you said in your most recent post above is true, though I take exception with the phrase "using a shield spell like a real shield is perverse." I think that such a statement is not only extreme, but also quite unnecessarily rude. There are numerous ways you could have better voiced your disagreement without resorting to the open denigration of the opposing opinion.
You are seeing offence where none was intended. Is "perverse" an insult? I just meant unusual or surprising. Further it is my opinion too. If a player asked to do this I would allow it.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
You are seeing offence where none was intended. Is "perverse" an insult? I just meant unusual or surprising. Further it is my opinion too. If a player asked to do this I would allow it.
Well, alright then. (I've always understood it to mean "different from the norm" with a hefty amount of negative connotation.)