A thaumaturge in my party wants a mirrored shield so he can use it as his "Mirror" implement. His reasoning is the old medusa lore and the mirrored shield idea. Any advice or thoughts on this would be appreciated.
|
6 people marked this as a favorite.
|
There are some rule parts that hint at other intentions:
"thaumaturges always choose small, portable, handheld mirrors as implements"
"While an implement is useful to you, it typically has no value if sold"
"a special object of symbolic importance"
More important is the restriction on hand usage from implements empowerment:
"You don't gain the benefit of implement's empowerment if you are holding anything in either hand other than a single one-handed weapon, other implements, or esoterica, and you must be holding at least one implement to gain the benefit."
Ruling that a shield could be used as an implement would circumvent this restriction. I can understand that this would be nice for the player, but don't think it is the intent of the rules.
|
4 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Personally I'd rule that he can have a shield-sized mirror, but it wouldn't be durable enough to be used as an actual shield
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
While one should be diplomatic about it, in general you should not grant requests to free up slots such as hands unless the rules explicitly grant it. Hands are one of the biggest defining slots in PF2E, so when you start combing hand items you're nullifying what is intended to be a cost. For the same reason, wearing a mirror necklace, gluing a mirror to a gauntlet or sword, or getting an animated object mirror familiar shouldn't count. It's basically like letting someone use a full shield and a two-handed weapon at the same time.
You can always homebrew a unique magic shield that can act as an implement, but this should be a major reward unique to that campaign, like something actually provided by a deity for fighting a medusa queen.
You could use a giant mirror as an implement and get the shield/glass shield cantrips and flavor those as a mirrored shield, but Thaumaturge is very specific about not using actual shields.
I know I'm late to the party, but there is a way to balance it. Using a parry weapon in the other hand (scizore looks like the only common one-handed martial d6 option), then reflavoring the +1 AC as raising the mirrored shield. Getting the glass shield cantrip, as someone suggested earlier, is another good option.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
This is totally RAW and RAI to allow this and is fine to do. People get really weird about thaumaturge implements so lets break it down:
Mirror implement:
Quote: Mirror implements represent misdirection, illusion, and sleight of hand, bending and shifting a perspective and the way you look at things. While larger mirrors hold the same mystic connotations, thaumaturges always choose small, portable, handheld mirrors as implements so they can use them easily while adventuring. Implement:
Quote: Your implement is a special object of symbolic importance: your badge as you treat with the supernatural and a powerful tool if things turn violent. Choose an implement from the options to which you have access. You begin play with a mundane item of that type, and you gain the initiate benefit for that implement. While an implement is useful to you, it typically has no value if sold. If you acquire a new object of the same general implement type, you can switch your implement to the new object by spending 1 day of downtime with the new item. As you advance as a thaumaturge, you will collect up to three implements and unlock the hidden potential stored within each, so you can mix and match their benefits to suit your situation. Implement Empowerment:
Quote: The power of your implement can also be turned to the more common task of combat, its power adding to and amplifying the effects of runes and other magical empowerments. When you Strike, you can trace mystic patterns with an implement you're holding to empower the Strike, causing it to deal 2 additional damage per weapon damage die. Channeling the power requires full use of your hands. You don't gain the benefit of implement's empowerment if you are holding anything in either hand other than a single one-handed weapon, other implements, or esoterica, and you must be holding at least one implement to gain the benefit. Shield:
Quote: A shield can increase your character's defense beyond the protection their armor provides. Your character must be wielding a shield in one hand to make use of it, and it grants its bonus to AC only if they use an action to Raise a Shield. This action grants the shield's bonus to AC as a circumstance bonus until their next turn starts. A shield's Speed penalty applies whenever your character is holding the shield, whether they have raised it or not. Historical Context to Mirrors:
Mirrors have existed out to 8000 BCE and made of various materials including obsidian, silver, and copper. I'm not sure if there is an obsidian/copper equivalent in the rules, but a silver shield item (2nd level) or Dawn Silver shield (8th level). Also copper pieces exist so a copper shield is feasible. The ability to have a mirror polish finish ona shield is substantiated by the Turnabout Shield which is basically a silver shield + some magic properties (so scratch those and use the L2 silver shield and mirror polish it).
Putting it all together:
- Is a shield a hand held object that is smaller than a large mirror (you know like a big wall hang/mounted full body mirror) - YES
- Can I select an implement that isn't a L0 0gp item - YES
- Is the shield an 'other implement' - YES
- Can I mirror polish a shield out of a historically accurate mirroring material (specifically silver) - YES
THUS: a L2 silver shield that your mirror finish polish can be a shield implement, it works with Implement Empowerment with no issue. Hell you could even probably use a mirror finish blade which also has precedence.
This is the process you need to follow for implements because some of them are hyper specific and some are not and quite open to what they can be. Bell for example can be ANY bell (like a Jiang-Shi Bell). Regalia can be almost anything that could be used as a means to denote your noble status (weapons, shields, rods, crowns, rings, etc.).
There is a big trend with thaumaturge implements that people envision that it must be a 0gp L0 item that can't have any practical purpose beyond being an implement. That sentiment is not stated anywhere in the rules. I've literally had people try to tell me that a sword/weapon can't be a symbol of regal status despite 1001 historical or fantasy based equivalencies that can easily be cited/found.
Before people claim there is no downside lets consider the following:
- You're stuck using a specific material for something like a shield which doesn't have the best hardness and likely can't be a specific shield until that L9 one (so decrease in shield functionality).
- If your implements are armour, weapons, shields, etc. you can often be required to 'check your goods' at the doors to various social situations. You may find yourself in combats without your implements or negatively impact your out of combat interactions. For example a sword regalia implement (which gives bonus to CHA skills) will be hard to draw and wield for those bonuses without scaring the people you're trying to wine and dine with diplomacy.
|
3 people marked this as a favorite.
|
orphias wrote: A thaumaturge in my party wants a mirrored shield so he can use it as his "Mirror" implement. His reasoning is the old medusa lore and the mirrored shield idea. Any advice or thoughts on this would be appreciated. I get what your player is trying to do. The one thing I would tell them is that, first off, the mirror needs to be facing them. When they use the mirror, what they are doing is angling it and sending their reflection to the spot they see in the mirror.
Second, I would suggest that the first hit they get on that shield, they would need to spend time buffing it out to make it reflective again.
Third, the mirror shield is not flat, it is concave so it distorts the image it reflects and would be ill suited.
Fourth, the way I read it, and this is just my DM interpretation, it's not that you pick an object and make it your implement, you stumble upon one that just happens to become your implement. But that is JMHO.
Basically they want to min/max and, heck, I am not even against that. I would suggest if you allow them to have a shield AND a mirror or other implement, that you only allow a buckler as those are worn on the forearm.
|
7 people marked this as a favorite.
|
I'm going to post this over here too since it came up again and this thread has a better title for this.
Red Griffyn wrote: Implement:
Quote: Your implement is a special object of symbolic importance: your badge as you treat with the supernatural and a powerful tool if things turn violent. Choose an implement from the options to which you have access. You begin play with a mundane item of that type, and you gain the initiate benefit for that implement. While an implement is useful to you, it typically has no value if sold. If you acquire a new object of the same general implement type, you can switch your implement to the new object by spending 1 day of downtime with the new item. As you advance as a thaumaturge, you will collect up to three implements and unlock the hidden potential stored within each, so you can mix and match their benefits to suit your situation.
That is not RAW or RAI.
A shield is most definitely not the same item type as a mirror. Not according to the game rules.
A 'historical' or 'IRL' argument is not a RAW or RAI argument.
Finoan wrote: I'm going to post this over here too since it came up again and this thread has a better title for this.
Red Griffyn wrote: Implement:
Quote: Your implement is a special object of symbolic importance: your badge as you treat with the supernatural and a powerful tool if things turn violent. Choose an implement from the options to which you have access. You begin play with a mundane item of that type, and you gain the initiate benefit for that implement. While an implement is useful to you, it typically has no value if sold. If you acquire a new object of the same general implement type, you can switch your implement to the new object by spending 1 day of downtime with the new item. As you advance as a thaumaturge, you will collect up to three implements and unlock the hidden potential stored within each, so you can mix and match their benefits to suit your situation.
That is not RAW or RAI.
A shield is most definitely not the same item type as a mirror. Not according to the game rules.
A 'historical' or 'IRL' argument is not a RAW or RAI argument.
Eh, IRL is a pretty good argument base when it comes to implements and what's symbolic of what. It's just that Mirror is a very narrow definition, unlike other things like Amulet that are very open-ended.
It's one of the reasons the Regalia definition leads to issues - weapons are symbols of authority for very obvious reasons.
I like the "so, you're blocking with your mirror and breaking it?" response though. Unlike some other dual-use possibilities, it's really hard to use a mirror except as a mirror. (Although arguably one could be regalia. Mirrors used to be very valuable, after all, and there's at least one major IRL example for it. Though also, it's not really freeing up your hands at all that way because it's still only one kind of implement)
|
3 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Dubious Scholar wrote: Eh, IRL is a pretty good argument base when it comes to implements and what's symbolic of what. It's just that Mirror is a very narrow definition, unlike other things like Amulet that are very open-ended. IRL isn't a very good argument for what the game categorizes items as.
Your shield also can't be your Amulet Implement.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
I am all for flavoring things as you like, have a shield-sized mirror, whatever.
But circumventing game mechanics is not flavoring, and having a thaumaturge with a raised shield retaining its damage bonus is clearly not intended by the rules.
Implement's Empowerment makes a 1h weapon to a quasi 2h weapon, and you don't go around allowing your fighter to wield a greatsword and a steel shield either.
|
4 people marked this as a favorite.
|
The way I see it, the thaumaturge pays a "hand tax" for using implements. Implement's Empowerment is intended as a sort of rebate on that. You need only one hand to do 2H amounts of damage because your other hand is presumed to be occupied with implements and esoterica.
If you're not actually paying a "hand tax" because you're managing to argue that your shield/other weapon/2H weapon is actually also an implement, then you don't need/deserve the implement's empowerment rebate anymore. Not doing 2H damage while wielding a shield is the normal world for other classes, too.
It's not that thaumaturges could never use a shield or 2H weapon implement. Pretty much all your other class abilities still work fine, just not implement's empowerment.
---
Another argument against allowing shield-mirrors: what even would the point be of the restriction in implement's empowerment if it just mean "you need to do your homework and contrive an argumkent that your other hand thing is an implement as well"?
It doesn't really stop at mirrors/shields then. Maybe your chalice is mounted on top of a stick and can be used as a mace? Regalia lists a "scepter", that could certainly be a mace as well. Could an amulet be a really big amulet and also be a shield?
Ascalaphus wrote: Regalia lists a "scepter", that could certainly be a mace as well. Not 'could'. Scepter IS a mace, just ceremonial :)
I'm very confused as to how this would work.
I can't find any items that are stated to be both a shield and a mirror. The closest that I can find is the Turnabout Shield which states that it is "polished to a mirror finish," but nowhere does it state this means that it counts as a mirror item.
Is there some item in a new book that I'm not aware of that states that it qualifies as both a shield and a mirror?
-----
But if the argument is that simply flavoring any item as shiny makes it qualify as a mirror for rules purposes then does that mean that a gauntlet, sword, chalice, bell, brass-covered tome, etc. can also qualify as mirror implements?
I'm hoping that a remaster thaumaturge refurbishes implement's empowerment. I don't think it's an absurd ask to want to use a shield as a class with a bias to melee. Or to be able to use a bow (hence the bias for melee).
The focus on having to hold your implement in hand works much better for some implements than others. Why do you have to hold an amulet in hand instead of wearing it around your neck? Why shouldn't regalia be a crown on your head? Much of the benefit of Tome is always on, which is good, because many skill checks you might be making with tome-skills would require free hands.
The original thaumaturge playtest made much of doing stuff with magic numbers, like three times three implements. But the final version doesn't lean into this so heavy. There could potentially be new implements in new books. Like a cloak, that you just wear. Or... a shield implement.
Maybe if a remastered version doesn't first clutter your hands so much, it can then not need implement's empowerment to make up for it anymore. If some implements just need to be worn to be fully operational, it opens the way for 2H thaumaturges, sword and board and bow and arrow thaums.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Ascalaphus wrote: I'm hoping that a remaster thaumaturge refurbishes implement's empowerment. I don't think it's an absurd ask to want to use a shield as a class with a bias to melee. Or to be able to use a bow (hence the bias for melee). Exploit Vulnerability also has 'implement in hand' as a requirement, and 'use any weakness' is IMO pretty strong. EV + IE is almost a two-phase single feature: you get +2/die for just doing your thaumaturge thing, and then for 1 action and a roll you can try to buff that up even further. I think if the devs get rid of hand use for IE, they are going to have to get rid of it for EV too for the class mechanics to work well together. And that's...powerful.
I also think passive implement effects gets a bit away from the Thaumaturge's unique theme. This is the class that shakes their mojo stick at the enemy or sprinkles weird stuff on their blade. A Thaumaturge that simply wears stuff for passive magic bonuses is not much different from any martial who spends her gold on non-weapon magical equipment. Or, now, an Exemplar using their Ikon immanence effects. So if you want a PC that simply wears unique magical stuff...be an Exemplar?
Getting back to the OP, yeah it seems completely against RAI. The intent of the (messy...complicated) class mechanics is clearly to prevent that hand from being used for other actions.
Gisher wrote: I'm very confused as to how this would work.
I can't find any items that are stated to be both a shield and a mirror. The closest that I can find is the Turnabout Shield which states that it is "polished to a mirror finish," but nowhere does it state this means that it counts as a mirror item.
Is there some item in a new book that I'm not aware of that states that it qualifies as both a shield and a mirror?
No, there is no such item. There's someone declaring "a shield can be polished to a mirrorlike sheen and is thus also a mirror, so it works."
The only other item that mentions anything like that is the [url=https://2e.aonprd.com/Equipment.aspx?ID=2825Reflecting Shield[/url], which is also not actually a mirror.
Quote: But if the argument is that simply flavoring any item as shiny makes it qualify as a mirror for rules purposes then does that mean that a gauntlet, sword, chalice, bell, brass-covered tome, etc. can also qualify as mirror implements? "My club is shaped like a baton and is thus a wand implement, and also has a piece of regalia in the pommel so is also my reglia implement." You can get very silly with this very quickly.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Ascalaphus wrote: I'm hoping that a remaster thaumaturge refurbishes implement's empowerment. I don't think it's an absurd ask to want to use a shield as a class with a bias to melee. Or to be able to use a bow (hence the bias for melee). It's pretty clearly a design choice to have the class fantasy using various tools (your implements and esoterica), not acting like a Fighter.
The bow limitation is the harsh one because those are 2h weapons, but you can use a gun or throwing weapons. The Thaumaturge in my Kingmaker game has a Returning Chakram and its pretty fun when needed.
Quote: The focus on having to hold your implement in hand works much better for some implements than others. Why do you have to hold an amulet in hand instead of wearing it around your neck? Why shouldn't regalia be a crown on your head? Much of the benefit of Tome is always on, which is good, because many skill checks you might be making with tome-skills would require free hands. Precisely because some implements not requiring hands would just make them flat out easier to use than others, and having to decide what to use and when is a decision the player has to make. It's not like you need to be holding some of them all the time: amulet can be swapped out when using the reaction, and then swapped back when activating another implement.
These are doodads that you need to manipulate to make work, not always on magic items.
Quote: Maybe if a remastered version doesn't first clutter your hands so much, it can then not need implement's empowerment to make up for it anymore. If some implements just need to be worn to be fully operational, it opens the way for 2H thaumaturges, sword and board and bow and arrow thaums. Or maybe its okay if those things don't exist, and that a class having to make decisions about what its going to do and what it's going to give up to do it is part of what makes it interesting rather than the same as every other class?
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Tridus wrote: Gisher wrote: I'm very confused as to how this would work.
I can't find any items that are stated to be both a shield and a mirror. The closest that I can find is the Turnabout Shield which states that it is "polished to a mirror finish," but nowhere does it state this means that it counts as a mirror item.
Is there some item in a new book that I'm not aware of that states that it qualifies as both a shield and a mirror?
No, there is no such item. There's someone declaring "a shield can be polished to a mirrorlike sheen and is thus also a mirror, so it works."
The only other item that mentions anything like that is the [url=https://2e.aonprd.com/Equipment.aspx?ID=2825Reflecting Shield[/url], which is also not actually a mirror. Ok, then they are arguing for my second theory.
Tridus wrote: Quote: But if the argument is that simply flavoring any item as shiny makes it qualify as a mirror for rules purposes then does that mean that a gauntlet, sword, chalice, bell, brass-covered tome, etc. can also qualify as mirror implements? "My club is shaped like a baton and is thus a wand implement, and also has a piece of regalia in the pommel so is also my reglia implement." You can get very silly with this very quickly.
Exactly. It seems like this line of reasoning is a steep, slippery slope to chaos.
That's why I'm unclear why people are making the argument that merely flavoring a shield as shiny eliminates the difference between item categories like 'shield' and 'mirror.'
I'm not particularly familiar with the Thaumaturge, but it seems pretty obvious that such a principle would make the concept of separate implement categories basically meaningless.
Errenor wrote: Ascalaphus wrote: Regalia lists a "scepter", that could certainly be a mace as well. Not 'could'. Scepter IS a mace, just ceremonial :) I'm actually mostly fine with that one. I still consider it a houserule since a scepter item is not a weapon and should probably be using the improvised weapon rules if you hit someone with it.
But a mace is a 1-hand weapon at least. It isn't causing balance problems or enabling builds that are designed to not be allowed.
Now, if you want your Regalia Implement scepter/mace in one hand and a shield in the other, that is a problem for Implement's Empowerment. Same as if it was a Weapon Implement mace in one hand and a shield in the other.
I also wouldn't allow your Regalia Implement scepter to be so large that it instead qualifies as a 2-hand greatclub.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Finoan wrote: Errenor wrote: Ascalaphus wrote: Regalia lists a "scepter", that could certainly be a mace as well. Not 'could'. Scepter IS a mace, just ceremonial :) I'm actually mostly fine with that one. I still consider it a houserule since a scepter item is not a weapon and should probably be using the improvised weapon rules if you hit someone with it. BTW I never meant that scepters are/should be weapons in the game. I just thought that in real life they were kind of ceremonial maces. But even that is not true, it seems. I checked, and old scepters were actually full-sized staves. And looks like they were never weapons first, ceremonial second, but just a symbol from the beginning.
Errenor wrote: Finoan wrote: Errenor wrote: Ascalaphus wrote: Regalia lists a "scepter", that could certainly be a mace as well. Not 'could'. Scepter IS a mace, just ceremonial :) I'm actually mostly fine with that one. I still consider it a houserule since a scepter item is not a weapon and should probably be using the improvised weapon rules if you hit someone with it. BTW I never meant that scepters are/should be weapons in the game. I just thought that in real life they were kind of ceremonial maces. But even that is not true, it seems. I checked, and old scepters were actually full-sized staves. And looks like they were never weapons first, ceremonial second, but just a symbol from the beginning. Ceremonial maces are also their own thing... and do derive from more functional ones. And then there's swords. Swords as symbols of authority are pretty ubiquitous.
Please provide the definition of a mirror in PF2e:
- What are the mechanics of a mirror (does it reflect images, if so how)
- What are the restrictions of the term mirror (only of certain chemical compositions or dimensional specifications or only hung on walls or held in hands?)
- What is this 'class of objects' you call 'mirror objects' what does the 'mirror' trait say.
I'll save you time. They don't exist.
On one hand you guys are superimposing your own presuppositions of 'what a mirror is' based on your own real world expectations of what mirrors are in your day to day lives. Then immediately turning around and invalidating that same approach for someone with a wider definition of 'mirror'. Then piling onto that by saying using real life corollaries for a 'non-fantastical' aspect of the game is an invalid approach, when that is the same hypocritical position being taken by the community. Its just incredulity disguised as rational argument when in fact it is simply you drawing an arbitrary line in the sand and saying this thing is mirror but this other thing that performs the same function is 'not mirror'.
What is a mirror? Well we don't have ANY in game rules for what a mirror is. There is a 'mirror object' but it has literally no text, no traits, and requires 1 hand (which contradicts the implication in the mirror implement that you can have larger non hand held mirrors). So since we have no in game definitions lets use external definitions:
Quote: Definition 1 - Merriam Webster:a polished or smooth surface (as of glass) that forms images by reflection
Definition 2 - Dictionary.com: a reflecting surface, originally of polished metal but now usually of glass with a silvery, metallic, or amalgam backing.
Definition 3 - Oxford English Dictionary:An object having a smooth, flat (or sometimes slightly curved) surface and intended to reflect a clear image, made of polished metal in ancient and...
Definition 4 - Encylopedia Britannica:mirror, any polished surface that diverts a ray of light according to the law of reflection.
The typical mirror is a sheet of glass that is coated on its back with aluminum or silver that produces images by reflection. The mirrors used in Greco-Roman antiquity and throughout the European Middle Ages were simply slightly convex disks of metal, either bronze, tin, or silver, that reflected light off their highly polished surfaces. A method of backing a plate of flat glass with a thin sheet of reflecting metal came into widespread production in Venice during the 16th century; an amalgam of tin and mercury was the metal used. The chemical process of coating a glass surface with metallic silver was discovered by Justus von Liebig in 1835, and this advance inaugurated the modern techniques of mirror making. Present-day mirrors are made by sputtering a thin layer of molten aluminum or silver onto the back of a plate of glass in a vacuum. In mirrors used in telescopes and other optical instruments, the aluminum is evaporated onto the front surface of the glass rather than on the back, in order to eliminate faint reflections from the glass itself.
So pretending like a flat, convex, or concave polished piece of metal (you know like a shield) can't be a mirror is wrong on a historical basis, a logic basis, a scientific basis, and from fantasy literature basis. It just shows you guys have a biased presupposition of what a mirror is, not that you're right. Pretending like using this basis for a 'non fantastic' rules element is invalid is hypocritical and nonsensical. I'll agree using physics to work out how magic works is invalid. But using literal plain language definitions and historical context as to how a 'mirror works' is not nonsense and its literally the only approach you CAN take.
The premise that you can't have an object that served multiple functions is also a bad argument because most objects in this game can have more than one purpose. I could use a mirror to start a fire, but it isn't a firestarter. I could use a sword as a shovel but it isn't a shovel. I could use a hat to catch water and drink out of it but it isn't a bucket or a cup. a polished metal shield with a mirror like finish is just 'a mirror' that can also be used as a shield
|
7 people marked this as a favorite.
|
A mirror in the real world is not a mirror in the game world. Trying to use real world technicalities to give yourself a power boost is akin to arguing that knights and bishops in the real world have the potential to be royalty so should be able to move like queens in Chess.
If you want to homebrew it, go wild, you don't need to justify it to anyone, but it's not how the game works on its own.
|
3 people marked this as a favorite.
|
The balance of a thaumaturge lies in the fact that he is a single-handed weapon martial whose other hand holds a non-utilitarian implement.
Now you can decide that a mirror shield is a mirror. You can decide that a shield is regalia. Maybe you could even have a tome within a shield. And so forth.
But all of those are giving the character a range of utility that it pretty clearly wasn't intended to have.
Overall, games are not designed to be able to hold up in court, and game designers rely on the good faith interpretations by players to get their ideas across. Even in video games, people frequently use cheats to win in competitive games and justify it by saying that if it wasn't intended then the designers should have made it impossible, but no game dev team can possibly accomplish that.
|
5 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Red Griffyn wrote: snip This is a lot of mental gymnastics to try to squeeze some extra power out of the game for an already effective class... but there's no gas here. You keep jumping between RAW arguments and "common sense" arguments without ever latching onto anything concrete.
Not to mention as other people have pointed out, the Thaumaturge is built around fairly specific parameters and giving you a free shield is clearly violating those standards.
Ultimately you still get stuck on the say you need an item of the same general type, which a shield clearly isn't. Show us the rules or the external context that tells us otherwise.
Quote: I'll save you time. They don't exist. There's just nothing here.
Red Griffyn wrote: Please provide the definition of a mirror in PF2e... It seems to me that you are arguing that there isn't any symbolic significance to a mirror being used as an implement but rather that the only necessary characteristic is functional — that any object that is able to reflect light would qualify as a mirror implement.
So similar physics is your criteria rather than the symbolic rules of magic.
Am I correct in that understanding?
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Just get a really nicely polished sword with a fancy tassel and some inlaid gemstones so it can be your mirror, regalia, and weapon all at the same time.
... Put everlight on the inlaid gemstones so it can be your lantern too.
Red Griffyn wrote: On one hand you guys are superimposing your own presuppositions of 'what a mirror is' based on your own real world expectations of what mirrors are in your day to day lives. Personally I find that to be mildly insulting.
That is most definitely not what I am doing. I am using the item categorization rules of the game and leaving my presuppositions of 'what a mirror is' entirely out of it.
A mirror is not classified as a type of shield.
Gisher wrote: Red Griffyn wrote: Please provide the definition of a mirror in PF2e... It seems to me that you are arguing that there isn't any symbolic significance to a mirror being used as an implement but rather that the only necessary characteristic is functional — that any object that is able to reflect light would qualify as a mirror implement.
So similar physics is your criteria rather than the symbolic rules of magic.
Am I correct in that understanding? All of the restrictive language for a mirror is in the mirror implement rules text:
Quote: Mirror implements represent misdirection, illusion, and sleight of hand, bending and shifting a perspective and the way you look at things. While larger mirrors hold the same mystic connotations, thaumaturges always choose small, portable, handheld mirrors as implements so they can use them easily while adventuring. Mirror implements are associated with the harrow suit of keys, and the astrological signs of the stranger and the swallow. There you go. That is it and all there is to it. It must be:
- Small which is a relativistic quality that is useless here without a frame of reference to what is a 'large mirror' but its reasonable to me that a large mirror is likely a wall mounted full length body mirror.
- Portable which I would take to mean of sufficiently low bulk you can walk around with it. Shield qualifies as you can lift and walk around with it thus it is 'portable'.
- Handheld which means it must be held in your hand. A shield is held in your hand.
Implicit in 'mirror implement' is that it ALSO serves the mechanical function of a mirror. Which as I clearly proved via many possible external definitions of a mirror that a polished piece of metal qualifies for. If we had a gamification internal mirror definition I would use that but as stated we don't so we have to use what we do have.
I couldn't even begin to tell you what you mean by the symbolic 'rules of magic'. Give me some text in the system that remotely talks about mirrors, how they function in the setting of golarion, etc. If you provide that I can comment on it. Without that we need to use existing real world examples of mirrors because the game designers didn't suppose that people would literally refuse to acknowledge clear examples of mirrors. People are just refusing to accept that they didn't know what a mirror was and that they had/currently do hold a highly limited and narrow view of 'mirror'. Now that people have been informed about broader mirror definitions its on them if they refuse to acknowledge reality.
Squiggit wrote: This is a lot of mental gymnastics to try to squeeze some extra power out of the game for an already effective class... but there's no gas here. You keep jumping between RAW arguments and "common sense" arguments without ever latching onto anything concrete.
Not to mention as other people have pointed out, the Thaumaturge is built around fairly specific parameters and giving you a free shield is clearly violating those standards.
Ultimately you still get stuck on the say you need an item of the same general type, which a shield clearly isn't. Show us the rules or the external context that tells us otherwise.
Ah yes, the classic argument of 'nu-uh' followed by 'your a power gamer'. I'm the only one quoting rules or providing examples. That is called 'making an argument' and your lack of an argument doesn't undermine my argument. Everyone else's argument sums to 'I don't like it' because I have my own interpretation of RAI for underlying thaumaturge design.
I think the collective understanding of the underlying thaumaturge balance point is wrong in this thread and the community at large. I agree that its clear that they want the thaumaturge to be limited to a 1H weapon. However, consenting to that proposition does not mean that I'd let people smuggle in the 'and in your other hand is this non-utilitarian implement'. There is no basis for that statement or belief and it is the key fundamental misunderstanding people try to saddle the class with.
The non-utilitarian implement angle is fundamentally flawed because of the following points:
1.) The implements have their own examples of being multi purpose. A weapon implement is by definition a utilitarian implement despite giving you functions beyond a weapon.
2.) The class clearly states you can pick and upgrade as you find more items. This clearly shows that you can be powering up your items and that they are only 'mundane' for the purpose of preventing L1 gold abuse. I can pick a L5 wand for the wand implement or a magic bell, etc. that provide other utilitarian benefits outside of the framework of the implement definition. Here is the wording:
Quote: You begin play with a mundane item of that type, and you gain the initiate benefit for that implement. While an implement is useful to you, it typically has no value if sold. If you acquire a new object of the same general implement type, you can switch your implement to the new object by spending 1 day of downtime with the new item. 3.) There are numerous ways to end up with multiple implements in your hands that subvert having a non-utilitarian use item. These include things like:
- Unarmed strikes that don't use hands (e.g., kashrishi 1D8 finesse horn, or switch hitter builds like a cactus leshy + seedpod),
- Magic solutions to allow you to hold objects (e.g., tentacle potion on a tail based ancestry -> now available to every horn of plenty exemplar/exemplar archetype build). You could even hold 3 implements all at once!
- retrieval belts or similar free action ways of filling your hands.
- Combination items that combine multiple functions (I had some in my post before but there are weapons with the parry trait (i.e., weapon + shield) or shields like klars/dart shield/gun shields that are weapon + shield).
- Casting equivalent spells (you know like 'shield' or an amped 'shield') that serve the same 'utilitarian functions' that you're trying to pretend can't work or it'd break the game balance.
4.) The existence of many in class ways to swap implements also shows that the design of the class isn't intended to be punitive to the player and to open up MANY ways for you to free action pull out an implement for its implement abilities. Having an implement have a utilitarian purpose doesn't challenge this and actually aligns with the design goal of not having to jump through hoops to juggle all the things a typical player might want to enable their preferred playstyle (i.e., sword and board). Trying to state it is the opposite of this is antithetical to the underlying class design.
5.) The existence of implements that are much more restrictive (e.g., the weapon implement) shows that other implements are allowed to be more permissive in their use cases where they are not overly prescriptive in their form/function requirements. Regalia is literally almost anything. That is fine and it is built into the design.
Squiggit wrote: Just get a really nicely polished sword with a fancy tassel and some inlaid gemstones so it can be your mirror, regalia, and weapon all at the same time.
... Put everlight on the inlaid gemstones so it can be your lantern too.
You're the one descending into absurdity with your strawman. As stated by the mirror implement it must be handheld. Other parts of the class points to 'wielding' the implement. Are you taking a hand off your sword to fondle your inlaid gemstones? Then you aren't wielding your weapon and THAT takes an action to regrip. If you aren't taking a hand off your weapon then you clearly aren't wielding your implement. The hand balancing is already built into the design of implements and you don't need to try and superimpose your bad RAI interpretation on top of what is already there.
Agonarchy wrote: A mirror in the real world is not a mirror in the game world. Trying to use real world technicalities to give yourself a power boost is akin to arguing that knights and bishops in the real world have the potential to be royalty so should be able to move like queens in Chess.
If you want to homebrew it, go wild, you don't need to justify it to anyone, but it's not how the game works on its own.
Pretty hilarious that the act of providing rules arguments, real world arguments, impact to meta arguments, or you know just 'any argument' is somehow twisted in people's minds to be less convincing them me just simply stating an unfounded opinion. That isn't how 'convincing people' works. If I'm the one stating rules then I'm the one who is running the game properly and you're the one who is 'home-brewing'.
The attempt to even say there is a significant 'power increase' here is laughable. A melee thaumaturge often needs to exploit weakness, move, attack. that is 3 actions and not keeping up with the game meta unless they can attack twice. The action tax is even worse for the mirror implement because a 15ft teleport requires an action every round and won't cover the distance you need to move a lot of the time. So you guys are trying to protect the 'sacred balance' of a class with equivalent action taxes to a magus, adding another action taxing implement, and then trying to somehow find an action somewhere to raise the shield? Its literally going to happen once a combat at best and to the detriment of their DPR output by likely losing a MAP-4 or MAP-5 attack. Even when it happens, enemies might not even attack them and so their action is wasted. The class doesn't even have shield block so they'd have to invest further. You're actively 'nerfing' and losing power in the class by pursing a shield raise. I'm not going to just jump on your bandwagon in a 'race to the bottom' of the class meta.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Red Griffyn wrote: On one hand you guys are superimposing your own presuppositions of 'what a mirror is' based on your own real world expectations of what mirrors are in your day to day lives. I don't think the answer to the OP question rests on whether a shield can function as a RL mirror. I think it rests on the Thaumaturge class rules for IE which seem to want to limit the class to a single one-handed weapon and implements/esoterica and that's it. Nothing functional in the implement/esoterica hand.
Do you, Griffyn, think the class power rules were written with a desired intent of the devs that Thaumaturges create mirror shields, amulet shields, tome shields ("I wrote on it!"), regalia maces, wand clubs, and other things like that? Or is your argument more like: "the devs may not have wanted or anticipated such dual use implements, but there is a way to interpret the words which would allow it." ?
|
5 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Red Griffyn wrote: That isn't how 'convincing people' works. It's not really up to you what counts or does not count as convincing for another person, except insofar as you can try to present the best argument you can. Simply declaring your arguments correct and convincing and people who disagree with you as wrong is... meaningless. Like yeah of course you'd think you're right otherwise you'd just be trolling, but no one else owes you recognition if they don't find your argument compelling.
Honestly, the Regalia weapons don't really break the math the way a shield does. As noted, IE is your compensation for the hand usage - your 1h weapons deal 2h damage because you don't have a free hand generally.
A regalia weapon does, admittedly, step on the toes of the weapon implement some in how it frees up hands, but outside of regalia+tome/lantern pairings, doesn't really offer advantages in hand use since you can free action swap implements anyways for actions/reactions.
It also doesn't really benefit your damage output, since dual wielding on its own doesn't provide any damage benefit in 2E - you need some activity that adds additional benefits like Double Slice. But because Thaumaturge's damage booster is via weakness, the dual wielding feats don't play nice for you since it only applies once. The math actually works out that you deal slightly more expected damage swinging the same weapon twice compared to Double Slice because of that.
In general though, Regalia's the only implement category that you can really justify a weapon being aside from weapon. RAI - it probably wasn't intended. RAW, Regalia has one of the broadest descriptions of what qualifies and there's lots of in-universe and real life examples of weapons functioning as symbols of authority or badges of office, so...
Squiggit wrote: Red Griffyn wrote: That isn't how 'convincing people' works. It's not really up to you what counts or does not count as convincing for another person, except insofar as you can try to present the best argument you can. Simply declaring your arguments correct and convincing and people who disagree with you as wrong is... meaningless. Like yeah of course you'd think you're right otherwise you'd just be trolling, but no one else owes you recognition if they don't find your argument compelling. So instead of engaging with any real argument with evidence or rationale to the contrary you're just going to get mad at the fact that I believe in the general concept that having an argument at all is better than having no argument?
Are you trolling or just going to sidestep discussing things? What about any of the points I brought up in my last 2-3 posts? You're attacking the person behind the argument not the argument which is pointless.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Red Griffyn wrote: So instead of engaging with any real argument with evidence or rationale to the contrary you're just going to get mad at the fact that I believe in the general concept that having an argument at all is better than having no argument? Are you trolling or just going to sidestep discussing things? What about any of the points I brought up in my last 2-3 posts? You're attacking the person behind the argument not the argument which is pointless. I can say something. You don't have any argument.
Easl wrote: Red Griffyn wrote: On one hand you guys are superimposing your own presuppositions of 'what a mirror is' based on your own real world expectations of what mirrors are in your day to day lives. I don't think the answer to the OP question rests on whether a shield can function as a RL mirror. I think it rests on the Thaumaturge class rules for IE which seem to want to limit the class to a single one-handed weapon and implements/esoterica and that's it. Nothing functional in the implement/esoterica hand.
Do you, Griffyn, think the class power rules were written with a desired intent of the devs that Thaumaturges create mirror shields, amulet shields, tome shields ("I wrote on it!"), regalia maces, wand clubs, and other things like that? Or is your argument more like: "the devs may not have wanted or anticipated such dual use implements, but there is a way to interpret the words which would allow it." ? Yes I am saying the class power rules were written with a desired intent to be permissive to dual use implements. I don't think it was every implement or some were more restrictive in their form factor but yes it appears clear to me the underlying class was build with that in their power budget. I think the concept that it was not intended to do this comes primarily from the misinterpretation of the line 'start with a mundane item'. People have 'overextended that to imply the item must be single purpose (i.e., implement only) without proper justification. The 5 bullets in my post above provides my rationale as to why the class design points to that conclusion.
The rails to avoid abuse are already built into the implements:
1.) They have to be wielded, which has a specific implication (so you can't just make anything an implement and be able to switch back easily to a non implement item
2.) Most implements have out of combat benefits that are hard to realize if they are dual purpose. A regalia weapon for example needs to be actively handled to get your passive bonus to CHA skills which puts a big damper on social encounters when you're trying to negotiate with a sword in hand.
3.) Implements have restrictive language as to what form factor they can be. So the mirror must be hand held, weapon implements must be 1H, etc.
4.) The action economy of using the implement for the other use case is generally cost prohibitive on the class anyways.
5.) In most set-ups you can probably already achieve the same or similar result without the item being dual purpose (at which point you're not pushing meta your just artificially restricting build diversity to the one true shield wielding ancestry combo which is bad for the game's health).
What underpins all of the implements will be 'what is an amulet, a mirror, a wand, etc.' If the game doesn't provide adequate rules of the object then you have to rely on typical or historically available examples. That is allowed because these objects have real life corollaries and they aren't 'magical' in any sense (i.e., I'm not asking how you can teleport 15ft with a mirror but I'm asking what is a mirror -> its an important distinction in what is acceptable).
None of your examples are going to push the meta of the game and I'd let them PCs use them.
Errenor wrote: Red Griffyn wrote: So instead of engaging with any real argument with evidence or rationale to the contrary you're just going to get mad at the fact that I believe in the general concept that having an argument at all is better than having no argument? Are you trolling or just going to sidestep discussing things? What about any of the points I brought up in my last 2-3 posts? You're attacking the person behind the argument not the argument which is pointless. I can say something. You don't have any argument. You said it and so it must be true. Side step side step. Echo chamber echo chamber. Bad faith interlocutors continue to exist.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Red Griffyn wrote: Yes I am saying the class power rules were written with a desired intent to be permissive to dual use implements. Well, that's different from I think what is the normal interpretation, but your game, your rules.
Quote: I think the concept that it was not intended to do this comes primarily from the misinterpretation of the line 'start with a mundane item'. People have 'overextended that to imply the item must be single purpose (i.e., implement only) without proper justification. Personally that's not where I get it from. I get it from the following:
You keep your esoterica in easy-to-access places on your person and are well practiced in brandishing your implement and esoterica together, so you can draw and use esoterica with the same hand you're using to wield an implement." If implements can be shields and weapons, then the thaumaturge has this ability that nobody else has, to use a single hand to wield the shield/weapon AND esoterica (AND use the implement) all at the same time.
EV: You are holding your implement. combined with You retrieve an object from your esoterica. Again, this lets the thaumaturge juggle a 'regular' item use AND an implement use AND an esoterica use all at the same time. Which I think is not RAI.
Personal Antithesis: You improvise a custom weakness on a creature by forcefully presenting and empowering a piece of esoterica... So again, the text supports that 'second hand' to be actively used for holding esoterica and implements in combo. Letting the PC do that while also swinging a club or raising a shield with that hand does not seem to me to be the intent.
IE: Channeling the power requires full use of your hands. You don't gain the benefit of implement's empowerment if you are holding anything in either hand other than a single one-handed weapon, other implements, or esoterica, and you must be holding at least one implement to gain the benefit I think for many GMs this will be the key text. Dual-use items will be, I think, considered by many GMs to count as "other than". A shield mirror is a shield, so it is something "other than" a single one-handed weapon, other implements, or esoterica. However I can see how a GM, if they wanted to, could instead interpret that to mean it's not an "other than" because it remains an implement.
All in all, I'm not sold on your interpretation being the right one. There may be a way to interpret all of the above text in the light you give it, but I do not think it's RAI.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
The thaumaturge class feature "Implement's Empowerment" adds 2 to the weapon die. That effectively moves the single-handed weapons' damage up to match two-handed weapons.
Specifically, a 1d4 reach weapon does the damage of a 1d8 two-handed reach weapon. A 1d8 non-reach weapon does the damage of a 1d12 two-handed non-reach weapon. That's just math, which hopefully we can all agree on. (i.e. the average of a 1d8 is 4.5, and the average of a 1d12 is 6.5, hence the 2 damage bonus exactly covers that.)
But by trying to argue your way into a shield, you're effectively arguing that a thaumaturge should get the damage of two-handed weapons along with the benefit of a shield. This is just clearly out of balance.
And once you accept that what you're asking for is out of balance with the rest of the game, you should just gracefully accept that it's not an interpretation that's in the larger game's interest.
{Late Add} Michael Sayre also noted in a question about the Jezail that wielding such a weapon (or, for another example, a bastard sword) in 2 hands eliminates the ability to use "one-handed" effects and runes, even if the weapon is listed as 1-handed.
While only tangentially related, "a 1-handed weapon that is used 2-handed counts as 2-handed" seems consistent with "a mirror that is also a shield counts as a shield when wielded as a shield". Which makes it an "other than" and thus not a viable off-hand thing for a thaumaturge wanting to activate their IE or EV powers.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Red Griffyn wrote: Errenor wrote: Red Griffyn wrote: So instead of engaging with any real argument with evidence or rationale to the contrary you're just going to get mad at the fact that I believe in the general concept that having an argument at all is better than having no argument? Are you trolling or just going to sidestep discussing things? What about any of the points I brought up in my last 2-3 posts? You're attacking the person behind the argument not the argument which is pointless. I can say something. You don't have any argument. You said it and so it must be true. Side step side step. Echo chamber echo chamber. Bad faith interlocutors continue to exist. Do you sincerely think that there is a grand failure to recognize the secret hidden rules of the game and that everyone is simply afraid to have their eyes opened to the truth in Webster's dictionary?
You found an interesting interpretation, the same way that I can mess with the idea that 1+1=2 by using objects instead of abstract numbers, but that is not how language is used in game design.
Easl wrote: Personally that's not where I get it from. I get it from the following:
You keep your esoterica in easy-to-access places on your person and are well practiced in brandishing your implement and esoterica together, so you can draw and use esoterica with the same hand you're using to wield an implement." If implements can be shields and weapons, then the thaumaturge has this ability that nobody else has, to use a single hand to wield the shield/weapon AND esoterica (AND use the implement) all at the same time.
EV: You are holding your implement. combined with You retrieve an object from your esoterica. Again, this lets the thaumaturge juggle a 'regular' item use AND an implement use AND an esoterica use all at the same time. Which I think is not RAI.
Personal Antithesis: You improvise a custom weakness on a creature by forcefully presenting and empowering a piece of esoterica... So again, the text supports that 'second hand' to be actively used for holding esoterica and implements in combo. Letting the PC do that while also swinging a club or raising a shield with that hand does not seem to me to be the intent.
IE: Channeling the power requires full use of your hands. You don't gain the benefit of implement's empowerment if you are holding anything in either hand other than a single one-handed weapon, other implements, or esoterica, and you must be holding at least one implement to gain the benefit I think for many GMs this will be the...
{Late Add} Michael Sayre also noted in a question about the Jezail that wielding such a weapon (or, for another example, a bastard sword) in 2 hands eliminates the ability to use "one-handed" effects and runes, even if the weapon is listed as 1-handed.
While only tangentially related, "a 1-handed weapon that is used 2-handed counts as 2-handed" seems consistent with "a mirror that is also a shield counts as a shield when wielded as a shield". Which makes it an "other than" and thus not a viable off-hand thing for a thaumaturge wanting to activate their IE or EV powers.
First, thank you for providing context to your statements. I greatly appreciate it and it shows you're discussing the topic in good faith
I think my objection to your rational would be based on three primary points:
1.) Esoterica are not intended to be 'items of consequence'. They are intended to be largely symbolic/flavour for the class. The examples provides include cold iron nails, scraps of scrolls and scriptures, fragments of bones purportedly from a saint, and other similar objects. Literally objects with no real rules fit/format.I think they used them to paint the picture of the guy covered in 101 baubbles rummaging around his pack for 'the right thing' who pulls it out just in the nick of time. In reality the esoterica is superfluous for the mechanics of the class. You can draw and hold esoterica despite holding and implement so its basically a no action draw pseudo free-hand object that itself doesn't effectively do anything. Since the rules text you quoted points to the fact that you can hold an implement and esoterica in one hand there is no need for your 'other hand' to be holding esoterica at any point and indeed any weapon implement thaumaturge can easily be holding a weapon and shield without any consequence.
2.) The implication that for all non-weapon thaumaturges that you'd be stuck with a non-implement weapon, implement, and thus getting a shield would be against the class design ignores that there are many ways around this limitation already. Instead of raising a shield I could use a weapon with parry, a buckler (which isn't held in my hand), cast shield, use unarmed strikes which are functionally equivalent to 1D8 1H capped weapons, or even seek out feats that make those options better like a +2 on parry. So if a weapon thaumaturge can do it, and almost any thaumaturge with minimial build selection can do it, then is it really in the class design budget to prevent this? I'd say no, and I'd say its actively detrimental to the health of the game to limit people to 'one true builds' like this.
3.) I think the problem with arguing for implement restrictions from the point of view of esoterica is that they are independent things. There is no language in esoterica that restricts the acceptable list of implements. Where they interact is when you go to use class features that require both. Apple pies have apples and pie crust. But what is an apple by definition is not influenced by what is a pie crust, although you might get a shitty apple pie if you pick bad apples/pie crust combinations. Really we should be saying what can be an implement and then applying the fact that you, RAW, can be putting esoterica in the same hand as the implement. Its okay that there are shitty option combinations. All it means is the power floor of the class is lower if you are bad at building PCs.
With respect to the sentiment that a 1D12 2H weapon + shield is outside game balance. I don't think this is a fair review of the end result. The class doesn't really have the action economy to use either the shield or mirror implement well and it certainly doesn't have the action economy to use both. It takes 2 of 3 actions every round to use the mirror implement and raise shield and that clearly won't let you strike twice or move further than 15ft in a round or use exploit vulnerability on a new enemy (since its mostly like a ranger's hunt prey but without the action compression feats like hunted shot). I think the IE +2dmg/wpn dice isn't there to get you 2H damage but to help compensate for the delayed accuracy from having your KAS as CHA and the the likely event that you need DEX,STR, CON, WIS, and CHA to use the class. Many thaumaturges aren't just going STR. Many go DEX/finesse with delayed STR and IE helps pad out the L1-L10 range until you can get a 18 STR, at which point you're back to being -1 to hit from your KAS not being your attack stat. So really that sentiment only appears true in a white room vacuum, but in play you aren't really giving a shield to a 2H weapon build because you're giving up your -4/-5MAP strike to raise the shield which drops your DPR way below any 2H build. Other classes like fighters/barbarians have their damage boosts as essentially freeby no actions (barbarian rages as a free action now and fighter has a +2 to hit with increased weapon specialization). Its definitely a give and take, not a runaway train as people are trying portray it as
As for you're quote from Michael, can you link to it so I can read it in full context? Paizo has a long and storied history with 'hands' and most of the discussion I've seen revolve around whether using a 1H+ weapon is treated as 1H or 2H. One-handed weapons with two-handed traits is more like a toggle since you have a lot of rules elements pointed at using a 1H object vs. a 2H object. It isn't immediately obvious that implements serving multiple functions is analogous to whether you can strike with a 2H object using a feat that restricts you to using 1H. I think they're very different problems since using a 1H shield as a 1H mirror doesn't violate any handedness principle as the functions aren't mutually exclusive in the rules (whereas using 1H or 2H is mutually exclusive in the rules).
|
5 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Red Griffyn wrote: 1.) Esoterica are not intended to be 'items of consequence'. They are intended to be largely symbolic/flavour for the class. I somewhat disagree. The contents are purposefully left vague but I think the whole point is that using them and an implement takes up the use of a hand, which cannot be used for anything else. So I don't see it as flavor, I see it as a de minimis or vague explanation for a specific mechanic they wanted to introduce.
Quote: So if a weapon thaumaturge can do it, and almost any thaumaturge with minimial build selection can do it, then is it really in the class design budget to prevent this? Ah. So if a chalice thaumaturge can drink from their offhand for healing, then all thaumaturges should be able to carry a healing potion in their implement & esoterica hand. Making it a shield/potion/implement/esoterica hand? Clearly that doesn't make sense, right? Different implements give you different offhand capabilities, and yes, it does seem to be part of the design of the class that picking implement A sometimes prevents using nonimplement ability B. Just as picking chalice gives you offhand healing that weapon doesn't, and picking amulet gives you offhand resistance that neither chalice nor weapon does, picking weapon gives you an offhand usage neither chalice nor amulet gives. Not every choice of implement gives the same offhand defense capability, so caveat emptor.
Quote: Really we should be saying what can be an implement and then applying the fact that you, RAW, can be putting esoterica in the same hand as the implement. Yes I agree. But you're trying to argue from physics that a shield can be a mirror, and RL physics is not IMO a reasonable basis for ttrpg magic. As a GM, I'd be pretty stringent with secondary functions of implements. The bell can be rung, but it can't be used as a shield. The tome can be read, but it can't be used as a shield. And, likewise, the mirror can be used to reflect light like a signal, but it can't be used as a shield. Call it the limits of thaumaturgical mojo or the fact that a shield mirror doesn't match the Platonic Ideal of a mirror sufficiently to hold the magic or whatever, but since I read the class rules limiting that second hand's use, I wouldn't buy a RL physics argument from a player that since shields can in RL reflect light, magical, thaumaturgical mirrors can be made out of functional shields. IMO that's not a valid argument. You want a mirrored shield based on RL physics? Okay you can have that, but then what it can do will be based on RL physics too. As a GM, physics doesn't trump rules particularly in the case of magical class powers. Rules generally trump physics.
Quote: As for you're quote from michael, can you link to it so I can read it in full context? My html foo is poor but does this work?. It was not just about handedness, it was about whether Blazons of Shared Power placed on a 1-H weapon work when that weapon is used 2-H? Answer: it does not. It temporarily stops working. So does a mirror which requires nothing else be held work when it's placed on a shield and the shield is held? Reasoning from that example, we would say no it does not. Because you are now also holding a shield. And just like the Sayre example, this is not about the object because the object didn't change at all; it's about the use.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Red Griffyn wrote: Errenor wrote: Red Griffyn wrote: So instead of engaging with any real argument with evidence or rationale to the contrary you're just going to get mad at the fact that I believe in the general concept that having an argument at all is better than having no argument? Are you trolling or just going to sidestep discussing things? What about any of the points I brought up in my last 2-3 posts? You're attacking the person behind the argument not the argument which is pointless. I can say something. You don't have any argument. You said it and so it must be true. Side step side step. Echo chamber echo chamber. Bad faith interlocutors continue to exist. Wow. You do understand things! Now of course they must apply to you, right? Also, having or not having arguments doesn't depend on amount written. It's just so sad sometimes.
It is unfortunate that the word 'argument' is overloaded in the English language.
When we are talking about an argument on these forums, we are expecting a presentation of logic and reasoning.
The 'argument' meaning of emotional attacks and name calling have no place here.
So as a logical argument I would present:
The game rules define several types of items. Such as 'Weapons', 'Armor', 'Shields', 'Wands', 'Staves', 'Held magical items', 'Worn magical items', 'Apex items', and 'Consumables'.
A Mirror Implement is of the type 'Held magical item'.
So a 'Shield' type item does not meet the requirement of being the same general item type as the Mirror Implement - no matter how mirror-like it is.
If you have a different logical argument to present - do so.
If you only have an emotional argument to throw at people, I am going to start flagging posts.
Easl wrote: I somewhat disagree. The contents are purposefully left vague but I think the whole point is that using them and an implement takes up the use of a hand, which cannot be used for anything else. So I don't see it as flavor, I see it as a de minimis or vague explanation for a specific mechanic they wanted to introduce. I think this is is a key presupposition on design intent that we differ on that will lead us ultimately to different conclusions. Since esoterica can be used in a free hand or a hand with an implement, I don't think its of all that much distinction/value because you're you're intended to have at least 1 implement out to benefit from IE (so esoterica will never take up more hands then the implement hand you're already using). Whereas an implement can't be held in the same hand as another implement and thus, from my perspective, has some real mechanical distinction/value.
Quote: Ah. So if a chalice thaumaturge can drink from their offhand for healing, then all thaumaturges should be able to carry a healing potion in their implement & esoterica hand. Making it a shield/potion/implement/esoterica hand? Clearly that doesn't make sense, right? Different implements give you different offhand capabilities, and yes, it does seem to be part of the design of the class that picking implement A sometimes prevents using nonimplement ability B. Just as picking chalice gives you offhand healing that weapon doesn't, and picking amulet gives you offhand resistance that neither chalice nor weapon does, picking weapon gives you an offhand usage neither chalice nor amulet gives. Not every choice of implement gives the same offhand defense capability, so caveat emptor. The point I'm making is primarily against folks saying that it is some kind of power grab/power increase. It really isn't because the meta already balances around and can handle it in a variety of builds/circumstances. I think what should be enabled is what is enabled and no more and no less. I wouldn't agree your example there is consistent. A chalice thaumaturge can drink from their chalice in any hand that holds a chalice. So I would agree that thaumaturges should be able to put a potion in a non-chalice implement and drink it if it's capable of carrying liquid. If I had a 'beer hat' with straws coming down to my mouth and that beer hat is my regalia of the beer tribe that denotes me as a king of the beer tribe then I'd expect that the beer hat can do both functions. My sucking down a potion from the bottles doesn't impose any kind of condition on the function of the regalia because the functions aren't mutually exclusive. It would still take an action to drink it just like it takes an action to raise the shield for it to function as a shield.
So really the distinction we're drawing is centered around exclusivity. You think the implement should be exclusive of all other functions. Whereas I don't agree and can give a number of examples where an implement of one form/function is not mutually exclusive from other use cases. Of course there will be some functions that are mutually exclusive, but since I can give counter examples the position that they 'must' be mutually exclusive isn't true.
Quote: Yes I agree. But you're trying to argue from physics that a shield can be a mirror, and RL physics is not IMO a reasonable basis for ttrpg magic. As a GM, I'd be pretty stringent with secondary functions of implements. The bell can be rung, but it can't be used as a shield. The tome can be read, but it can't be used as a shield. And, likewise, the mirror can be used to reflect light like a signal, but it can't be used as a shield. Call it the limits of thaumaturgical mojo or the fact that a shield mirror doesn't match the Platonic Ideal of a mirror sufficiently to hold the magic or whatever, but since I read the class rules limiting that second hand's use, I wouldn't buy a RL physics argument from a player that since shields can in RL reflect light, magical, thaumaturgical mirrors can be made out of functional shields. IMO that's not a valid argument. You want a mirrored shield based on RL physics? Okay you can have that, but then what it can do will be based on RL physics too. As a GM, physics doesn't trump rules particularly in the case of magical class powers. Rules generally trump physics. This is a nuance that I think people are failing to acknowledge. What you're calling a mirror and what I'm calling a mirror are both from real world 'physics'. I'm just expanding the definition with specific cases from history that are reasonable and rooted in available technology to those in a medieval era (i.e., a polished peice of metal doesn't require 21st century manufacturing techniques, just some polish and a smooth piece of metal). Most of the game requires us to do this activity because Paizo has not and will not define into existence the mundane that they consider 'apriori knowledge'. What is a mirror, what is a pot for cooking, what is a flint, what is a hat, etc. You're simply not going to find an in game definition for these mundane objects and we only know what they are because collectively humanity shares very similar experiences, shared language (i.e., English), and despite this we will have these kinds of discussions about definition. So if you're saying this method can't be used then you are cutting off your nose to spite the face. You couldn't even play a game like that where we can't come to a collective agreement on the meaning of words and by extension what mundane objects are like mirrors. It really has nothing to do with 'physics' and has to do with language use that is derived from historical advancement of human culture/technology.
So if we can agree that you can have a shield that functions as a mirror we don't have anything to base the decision that a mirror shield can't be a mirror implement. We come back to the previously stated presupposition that you have regarding esoterica necessarily blocking hand function and the over-extension of the principle of mutual exclusivity.
Quote: My html foo is poor but does this work?. It was not just about handedness, it was about whether Blazons of Shared Power placed on a 1-H weapon work when that weapon is used 2-H? Answer: it does not. It temporarily stops working. So does a mirror which requires nothing else be held work when it's placed on a shield and the shield is held? Reasoning from that example, we would say no it does not. Because you are now also holding a shield. And just like the Sayre example, this is not about the object because the object didn't change at all; it's about the use. So I don't agree with your interpretation. The discussion is concerning something that isn't mutually exclusive being FAQ/Errat'd to be mutually exclusive. In this case if you have '2H on a weapon' you clearly have at least 1H on a weapon. So the person is arguing that you should be able to benefit from any 1H benefits (like balzons of shared power applying to two 1H weapons) when holding 2H weapons. However, Paizo is clearly and specifically in this case is making these two things mutually exclusive, despite the fact that they are not mutually exclusive. The game has defined into it rules elements for 1H, 2H, 1H+, and they are saying they are mutually exclusive just 'because they want them to' (i.e., because they have clearly denoted the design intent that they are different).
But you can't generalize this to the entire game and it can only be applied in specific circumstances where Paizo designers/staff have made such a comment in the context of implements/thaumaturges. Your position carries with it that there should be an underlying assumption that things are always mutually exclusive. But if we take that position things in the game break. It requires us to specifically know and agree on 'the intended function' of an object which would be likely impossible to agree to. There is a 'mundane' ball that you can buy. But what is the universally agreed function of 'a ball'. Is it for playing games/sports, is it for making bearings for mechanical devices, is is for really bland art class still life training? The answer really comes back to what do we understand as the use cases of balls from human history/historical examples of the object.
Now if you had a statement like that in the link provided that was specifically applied to thaumaturges and their implements then I would 100% change my position and agree with you because Paizo would have clearly stated their design intent. But that specificity is needed because fundamentally I can't agree that mutual exclusivity is a universally applied framework for the game as it would lead the game to endless nonsensical situations and effectively torpedo creative play as a massive unintended consequence.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Finoan wrote: It is unfortunate that the word 'argument' is overloaded in the English language.
When we are talking about an argument on these forums, we are expecting a presentation of logic and reasoning.
The 'argument' meaning of emotional attacks and name calling have no place here.
If you have a different logical argument to present - do so.
If you only have an emotional argument to throw at people, I am going to start flagging posts.
If you're directing any of those comments at me then you haven't been reading the things people are posting in response to me. I'm just returning the energy and content quality being leveled at me. You can clearly see that Easl and I are engaging in good faith discussion because he isn't trying to respond with a one liner quips/ad hocs/dismissive language/lack of real arguments or content.
With that out of the way lets evaluate your argument.
Premise 1:The game rules define several types of items. Such as 'Weapons', 'Armor', 'Shields', 'Wands', 'Staves', 'Held magical items', 'Worn magical items', 'Apex items', and 'Consumables'.
I agree premise 1 is true.
Premise 2: A Mirror Implement is of the type 'Held magical item'.
I disagree. It is not stated anywhere that a Mirror Implement is to be treated as a 'Held Magical Item'. Since this is nuanced, let me be clear. A mirror implement clearly is required to be 'held' because implements are required to be wielded and the implement must be a handheld mirror. However, there are many items like "Shields", "Weapons", etc. that are required to be held to be wielded but are not considered 'Held Magical Items' as identified in premise 1. Thus, premise 2 is making a logical leap by assigning it to a defined object category that is treated as mutually exclusive from the other categories (i.e., you're begging the question).
Furthermore, counter examples of 'mirrors' exist in multiple defined item type categories including:
Adventuring Gear
Spell-hearts
Talismans
Worn Items
Worn Items
Worn Items
Artifacts
Artifacts
Snares
Hazards
Cursed Items
Wands
Wands
Hand Held Items
Consumables/Gadgets
Armour
and most importantly:
Shields
Shields
Shields
Weapons
mirrors can clearly be held in hand but not defined as the capital "H" Handheld Magical Items category.
Therefore because Premise 2 is false, your conclusion is false.
To put forward an argument in the same structure of what you have put above if you don't want to engage with the plethora of arguments above then let me state it here below:
Premise 1: the mirror implement must be an item that must be held in 1 hand.
Premise 2: shields are held in 1 hand.
Premise 3: shields can also be mirrors as evidenced by the following items:
Shields
Shields
Shields
Conclusion: Shields can be mirror implements.
An extension to that structure is that the common element of the shields that are mirrors as well as many of the other item counter examples posted above are that they are polished silver or mithral. There are item crafting rules on using precious materials for silver and mithral shields. Thus by L2 you can have a silver shield that you can polish along with all the hardness, break threshold, weight, etc. rules associated with crafting a L2 silver shield.
|
4 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Red Griffyn wrote: I think this is is a key presupposition on design intent that we differ on that will lead us ultimately to different conclusions. Agreed, we are arguing about premises. Not arguing in the way of 'we both start with A but don't both end up at B.' The only thing I can say to that is that I know of nobody, ever, who has posted to these fora, who shares your premise. You seem to be in the minority in starting with the premise that the devs intended the implement/esoterica hand to be dual use by giving the implement a dual mundane use (as a a weapon, shield, whatever)
Quote: Quote: Ah. So if a chalice thaumaturge can drink from their offhand for healing, then all thaumaturges should be able to carry a healing potion in their implement & esoterica hand. Making it a shield/potion/implement/esoterica hand? Clearly that doesn't make sense... The point I'm making is primarily against folks saying that it is some kind of power grab/power increase. It really isn't because the meta already balances around and can handle it in a variety of builds/circumstances. I think what should be enabled is what is enabled and no more and no less.
But you have to be consistent. If I can polish a shield and use it as both mirror implement and shield, then I can hang a knocker on a shield and use it as both bell and shield. And I can make a cup-like indentation on the inside of my bell/mirror/shield and make it a bell/chalice/mirror/shield. And I can scribe text on the inside of it making it a tome/bell/chalice/mirror/shield. This follows directly from your mirror shield logic, so either you accept all of it or none of it. I think the vast majority of GMs are going to accept none of it. As for providing an in-game justification for that, it is simple and easy enough to say that implement magic - which is not governed by RL physics - doesn't work in such combinations. But then consistency requires you give up the mirror shield along with the bell shield, the chalice shield, the tome shield, and the mirror/bell/chalice/tome shield.
Quote: So if we can agree that you can have a shield that functions as a mirror we don't have anything to base the decision that a mirror shield can't be a mirror implement. Yes, we do. My basis is that ttrpg magic doesn't follow the rules of RL physics. I can fully agree with your approach to using RL physics to adjudicate whether a shield can be polished to a mirror finish. But there is no RL justification for claiming this object can hold the thaumaturgical magic needed to make it an implement. To understand how thaumaturgical magic works, we have to read what Paizo says about how it works. And to me and most everyone else, we read what Paizo says and it seems clear to us that the magic doesn't allow for such bell/tome/chalice/mirror shields.
Your latest response to finoan suffers from the same problem. You just take it for granted that your conclusion "shields can also be mirrors" leads logically and inevitably to "shields can also be mirror implements." But it doesn't, because RL physics doesn't dictate the rules of magical thaumaturgical implements. The PF2E rules are the only thing we have to figure that out. And those rules seem, at least to me, to indicate that dual use items don't exist, don't work. The magic doesn't work if you try and make your mirror a mirror shield. Why? Because Paizo doesn't want it to. That's it. That's the justification.
|
