Easl wrote: 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) I can see how you can have a 1H non-weapon implement (with no alternative uses) and a 1H weapon and thus be limited. So its not like I think the result you arrive at can't happen. But I can also see how you can have a other cases where your 1H implement also has alternative uses. The assertion of your premise relies on the use of an entirely independent object/design term (i.e., esoterica) I think is the ultimate killer for the logic for me.
There is nothing preventing you from having a s+!*ty or great implement choice (i.e., the power floor is low). I could pick max bulk, max handedness (thus preventing the holding of two or more implements), minimum effectiveness, low item hit-points/break threshold, low hardness, etc. item as an implement so long as it conforms to the requirements in each implement description. Then and only then do you test whether the allowable implement chosen will work with the esoterica feature in the class. You could play a thaumaturge that never uses or qualifies for Implement Empowerment/exploit weakness because they can't ever effectively pull out esoterica but still benefits from the other features of implements. That in of itself shows that esoterica can't and doesn't impact on what is an implement. Its the apple pie all over again. Apples are in no way defined by pie crust, but they do interface to make apple pie. You're asserting that apples and pie crust are somehow dependent on each other because they interface, but that doesn't logically follow.
At that point we have two competing theories. One where you have an additional assertion that this design intent is RAI to limit functionality, and one where it is more simplified with out the additional assertion. Usually in a situation like that you'd apply occam's razor and pick the argument with less premises. But I assume with relation to a game that is not a satisfying answer.
Lets assume we also want to pick the option that maintains 'game balance'. That is where my other arguments are being used to show why/how that this doesn't actually increase DPR/Time to Kill/break/defenses/etc. per-established by any other non-thaumaturge game balance. It isn't as simple as 2H damage can't use shields because the IE damage is only 1 of 2 parts of compensation for having a non-attack stat KAS, doesn't assess tradeoff of DPR for defenses (since as established you're giving up probably ~30% of your DPR or a -4/-5MAP strike for a +2 bonus to shields vs.+1 from other easily obtained effects, if you ever have the actions to even use it). It also ignores that most other classes have that +1 to hit for 10 levels and passive non-action damage bonuses built into their chassis.
I don't disagree that the popularity of my position is lower than yours, but I've never found popular vote consensus to be a reliable evidence of whether something is more likely to be true or not.
Quote: 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. So the guardrail for this slippery slope argument already exists and can be easily enforced. Is there any historical or in game precedent for this omnibus item existing? If yes then its already reasonable to allow it. If no then its up to GM caveat to allow it to work because there is no blueprint for that object. A mirror shield has historical reference and in game precedent so it passes the reasonable test. Is there a 9 in one implement, weapon, shield, suit of armour, broom of flying, franken object? No. So immediately I think most of the most 'outrageous/offensive' manifestations won't be a reasonable addition (unless the GM is okay with it).
This test is already the test you are doing inherently for every object someone tries to pick as an implement because we have to rely on shared human culture/language development to define the collective 'meaning of what is a shield'. You aren't likely to sell a GM on the fact that a house is a hand held shield even though I can creatively envision a large enough being to lift said house and use it to 'shield itself from damage'. So the easiest way to take this out of GM adjudication land is to rely on in game/historical precedents. There is no house that is a shield options in real life or in the game, thus we can assume it is an 'reasonable' option.
But lets set aside that easy to apply test and look at the assertion and what it really means for the class power. Let say you can imagine any reasonable omnibus item that covers all your bases so you never have to swap hands. Lets imagine a mirror polished silver shield with shield spikes and the GM was kind enough to allow us to apply the inscribed trait onto it. Is that actually an increase in power? I'd argue that it doesn't push the meta ceiling of the class and that it has huge detractors/downsides that make it a really bad idea/balanced. The downsides include:
1.) You now have 1 single object that can be destroyed/stolen to shut down your entire character. This is a huge weakness and almost certainly my GMs would be coming for this implement.
2.) Any out of combat benefits are tied to that object which may have anti-synergy with its use (e.g., negotiating with your regalia sword drawn or tome bashing shield should drop people's attitudes or have consequences in social encounters).
3.) You often will get parted from armaments voluntarily (e.g., entering the socialite party, being in the presence of the king, being put into prison) which may mean you're left without any implements or their conferred benefits. It would be 'great to have a mirror shield to teleport out of the jail, but whoops they confiscated it (which they might not have done if it was a random mirror on your person). Perhaps you're going to spend a L2 feat on Call Implement, but that has an opportunity cost of a multiclass dedication, grabbing diverse lore + scroll feats, divine disharmony, etc.
3.) You likely are trading individual item power for sub-optimal options that combine into one item (i.e., power for versatility tradeoffs). I need to use a silver shield that has a Hardness 3, HP 12, and BT 6 vs. the lesser sturdy shield with Hardness 8, HP 64, and BT 32. So to get my mirrored shield I all but need to give up on shield blocking since it can destroy my implement and that is even worse if it has shield spikes for a weapon implement which is now one weapon size smaller than a 1D8 option and destroys my tome inscriptions so I lose my flexible skills. Alternatively I can spend a 3rd level+ general feat, and a lot more wealth by level on a shield rune for the off chance I get 1 action a combat to block, that the +2 makes a difference, and then use my reaction to shield block (which again from my many posts above is extremely difficult due to the classes highly oppressive action economy). So wonderful you have a shield/mirror/implement all wrapped into one but its a worse shield and worse weapon and very fragile.
4.) Not just any combination works. Elements of the omnibus item can have anti-synergy with the use of the other implements or use cases. For example you just described a shield with a cup like indentation (what happens if you get knocked prone or otherwise are disarmed or have weird gravity spells cast on you are you going to lose your liquid? So really a case by case basis needs to be assessed and you can run into unforeseen pain points.
5.) Anti-synergy with class features. There are class feats/features that become worse or non-functional if all your implements are in one item. For example, the L18 feat implement's assault is an amazing feat (basically a ranged whirlwind strike). But that a weapon/shield/regalia shield now no longer benefits from implement empowerment, the regalia damage bonus, the L16 implement's flight feat I took to have a constant fly speed, and exploit weakness because all of those require me to be holding at least 'one implement' which stops as soon as my omni item leaves my hand.
Now what do you gain:
A.) Potentially up to three implements wielded at one time. This can only happen at L15+ and you never get beyond the 1st tier of implement benefits with the third implement (without additional feat investment that can bump you to adept at L18 -> which competes with implement's assault).
B.) A generic free hand to do other things with.
C.) the 2-3 passive implements have a way of being out/active where otherwise they may have been difficult to draw because they lack an active effect from which to draw/activate the item.
D.) The functionality of a non-implement use case (e.g., shield).
However the class meta already allows for these these things to be true anyways so there is no real gain in class power ceiling:
i.) for A. you can already have 2 implements out via unarmed builds or weapon implement builds. I can easily have a 1D8 1H unarmed strike that is basically equivalent to a 1H weapon option so there is no real DPR gain. So the class design is balanced around having any two implements out in any combination of advancement. You can even now use the tentacle potion (free every day with exemplar) to have a tail/limb that can hold things if you want to hold 3 implements at once.
ii.) for A. its a free action to swap between implements, so really we're only concerned with 'active' implement features because any passives or reaction type benefits can already be conferred via built in class abilities to switch implements as a free action to activate them.
iii). For B.) you can build or buy ways to allow for draw mitigation which means 'putting away an implement for 1 action' and free action drawing an item from something like a retrieval belt is the same action economy as having a free hand in many cases.
iv.) for C.) this is actually just healthy for the game. Paizo is looking for ways to eliminate and remove design instances of 'I can't use my class feature' (e.g., swashbuckler's getting panache on failures and better instead of just successes or better). So this is just an actual improvement that should be available anyways and I'd make a bet that if Thaumaturge gets remastered that it will include more wording to further enable thaumaturge ease of use/accessibility to class features.
v.) for D.) this is only a power increase if you have the actions to use it, which you just don't have for this class. As well, it has to be compared to the step up value compared to other possible ways of achieving the same end result. So a shield that gives +2 isn't a +2, its a +1 vs. something like a buckler or shield spell. The benefits are often not that much incrementally better even if you assume you would be able to use it.
Conclusion: Having the omnibus item is IMO a net neutral power gain, because the 'gains' often have significant downsides that need to be considered. The class is already designed around being able to hold any two implements in any combination with a 1D8 weapon out so at best we're just concerned about potential active combinations of a third implement (at lower leveled progression) combination with any two other implements at L15+. If you can provide a clear example of something that confers meta-power ceiling boost (rather than a generic shield + X) then we can talk about it case by case and show what its detractors are and whether they are worth it. Either way, if there is no in game or historical reference case of the omnibus item then I think its reasonable for a GM to say 'no' if they want to. As it applies to the shield + mirror this passes all the relevant tests and is a net neutral power gain due to all the downsides that come along with having a sub-optimal silver shield as your shield if you ever intend (or have an action to) use it as a real shield.
Easl wrote: 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.
But I'm not using RL physics at any point in my arguments, that is a straw man. You agree that we can have a shield that acts as a mirror, but it has nothing to do with physics just historical and in game precedents. What limiting language is there in the mirror implement that restricts us from using any mirror that qualifies? Paizo hasn't communicated any such restriction in the class, in a FAQ, from a designer, etc. and it just comes down to the arbitrary inclusion of one additional premise that doesn't have sufficient backing to adopt it. The example you provided talking about handeness is not the same as specific wording limiting thaumaturge implements as described in my previous post. Saying Paizo doesn't want it to work only works if you have an example of Paizo saying that. It isn't self evident to me that your premise is true and is in fact counter to precedent set in the game by key examples provided of items that are 'magical, mirrors, and shields' in combination with the language that you can upgrade/pick magic non-mundane items to be your implements as you progress in level.
As for the logical argument structure provided, are you saying that Premise 3 is wrong or the conclusion? If so what language do you have as evidence? Esoterica (a completely independent item) doesn't in any way confine or define what works as an implement. Do you have a different set of language that doesn't boil down to 'I think Paizo's design intent doesn't allow this?' Remember there is no discussion of RL physics here and I am happy to concede that 'the magic of implements is a wonderful black box'. But when I read the rules language around the black box it never explicitly or implicitly says anything about the 'special nature of implements prevent the item from serving any other function than what the implement ability is'. The fact that you can pick magic items to make your implement and those magic items can have a wide range of versatile options/uses is clearly an intended result and the underlying class design points to multi-uses as completely fine. By definition a bell/amulet/weapon/etc. implement that is ALSO a functional version of those same things clearly points to an underlying structure of multiple purposes of implement + other.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Maps Subscriber
I would allow a shield to be used as a mirror impliment, however if it is raised in combat and you are attacked, it is ruined until you spend 30 minutes and a Crafting check to repair the polished sheen to the shield, on top of whatever time would be needed to repair the shield otherwise.
I mean, the act of raising a shield implies that you are thrusting it in between yourself and harmful blows, attempting to intercept incoming attacks with it. It makes sense that would ruin the polished sheen that is required for it to qualify as a mirror.
Keirine, Human Rogue wrote: I mean, the act of raising a shield implies that you are thrusting it in between yourself and harmful blows, attempting to intercept incoming attacks with it. It makes sense that would ruin the polished sheen that is required for it to qualify as a mirror. Or, you could say it actually breaks the magic :) Thaumaturge is occult. And more weird at that. Or maybe the other way aroud - more occult than 'simple' 'conventional' magic of bards and sorcerers. It's all about meanings, thoughts, perceptions, stories, emotions and so on. The moment you use an object as a shield - it stops being a mirror. And that's it: the magic just can't bear it and breaks, even if temporarily.
But much easier and more straightforward is just don't allowing it at all than inventing gotchas :)
Keirine, Human Rogue wrote: I would allow a shield to be used as a mirror impliment, however if it is raised in combat and you are attacked, it is ruined until you spend 30 minutes and a Crafting check to repair the polished sheen to the shield, on top of whatever time would be needed to repair the shield otherwise.
I mean, the act of raising a shield implies that you are thrusting it in between yourself and harmful blows, attempting to intercept incoming attacks with it. It makes sense that would ruin the polished sheen that is required for it to qualify as a mirror.
I think its reasonable to do that if you use shield block and it takes damage (i.e., damage in excess of its hardness). But that is the only time it actually 'takes' any damage or implies the shield did anything. It could be you put it up and the enemy then makes and altered thrust/slash/etc. to get around it and thus misses. The 'what happens' on a miss (did you step left, did it glance off your armour/shield, did you parry, etc. is all effectively flavour/narrative only). Its the same with the shield spell. Unless you use the reaction it never effectively gets touched.
Errenor wrote: Keirine, Human Rogue wrote: I mean, the act of raising a shield implies that you are thrusting it in between yourself and harmful blows, attempting to intercept incoming attacks with it. It makes sense that would ruin the polished sheen that is required for it to qualify as a mirror. Or, you could say it actually breaks the magic :) Thaumaturge is occult. And more weird at that. Or maybe the other way aroud - more occult than 'simple' 'conventional' magic of bards and sorcerers. It's all about meanings, thoughts, perceptions, stories, emotions and so on. The moment you use an object as a shield - it stops being a mirror. And that's it: the magic just can't bear it and breaks, even if temporarily.
But much easier and more straightforward is just don't allowing it at all than inventing gotchas :) You did invent a gotcha. You're just applying it to 'workings of implements' as a blanket gotcha instead of a specific manifestation of an implement selected by a PC. Nothing in the rules points to 'the magic of implements' breaking when you don't use them in hyper specific ways. Nothing in the rules points to 'how the magic of implements works' in any specific or mechanical way.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Red Griffyn wrote: Errenor wrote: Keirine, Human Rogue wrote: I mean, the act of raising a shield implies that you are thrusting it in between yourself and harmful blows, attempting to intercept incoming attacks with it. It makes sense that would ruin the polished sheen that is required for it to qualify as a mirror. Or, you could say it actually breaks the magic :) Thaumaturge is occult. And more weird at that. Or maybe the other way aroud - more occult than 'simple' 'conventional' magic of bards and sorcerers. It's all about meanings, thoughts, perceptions, stories, emotions and so on. The moment you use an object as a shield - it stops being a mirror. And that's it: the magic just can't bear it and breaks, even if temporarily.
But much easier and more straightforward is just don't allowing it at all than inventing gotchas :) You did invent a gotcha. You're just applying it to 'workings of implements' as a blanket gotcha instead of a specific manifestation of an implement selected by a PC. Nothing in the rules points to 'the magic of implements' breaking when you don't use them in hyper specific ways. Nothing in the rules points to 'how the magic of implements works' in any specific or mechanical way. No, nothing in the rules does that. That was not about the rules, it was about the narrative.
And rules are simple. Shields aren't mirrors. And mirrors aren't shields. All your many pages of beating around the bush can change nothing about it.
Red Griffyn wrote: 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).
Red Griffyn wrote: But I'm not using RL physics at any point in my arguments, that is a straw man. Don't try to gaslight us.
Finoan wrote: Red Griffyn wrote: 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).
Red Griffyn wrote: But I'm not using RL physics at any point in my arguments, that is a straw man. Don't try to gaslight us. Wait you so your take away from "historically silver mirrors as polished bits of metal are also available in the game rules" is that I'm talking about RL physics?
What kind of nonsense is that? Do you even know what the study of physics entails? It doesn't involve citing historical examples and game precedents.
RL physics would be me talking about how the implement magic works via 'physics'. Some examples could be:
- snell's law lets us reflect or refract allowing different shapes/materials to work.
- quantum tunneling of photons reflecting off my body through the shield allows me to point my image anywhere.
- My shield interacts with different wavelengths of light to allow different bands of wavelengths to enable reflection to different locations.
- That my image is actually enabled through radioactive materials, especially gamma radiation that is capable of penetrating solid materials to within 15ft.
- Talking about foci points and virtual images allowable angles.
- How the shield/mirror absorbs the light reflected/emitted from my body and then gains energy to then transmit that image forward since it isn't a perfect black body.
But I didn't do any of that lol.
It isn't lost on me that you presented an unsound logical argument after proclaiming that I hadn't provided any argument. Then instead of commenting on my critique and subsequent rebuttal jumped to 'trying to gaslight me about gaslighting you'. You could just admit that you're wrong since your argument was bad and change your position.
I'm just going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're that you are an intelligent person that is intentionally trolling at this point. The alternative would be...unfortunate.
Errenor wrote: Red Griffyn wrote: Errenor wrote: Keirine, Human Rogue wrote: I mean, the act of raising a shield implies that you are thrusting it in between yourself and harmful blows, attempting to intercept incoming attacks with it. It makes sense that would ruin the polished sheen that is required for it to qualify as a mirror. Or, you could say it actually breaks the magic :) Thaumaturge is occult. And more weird at that. Or maybe the other way aroud - more occult than 'simple' 'conventional' magic of bards and sorcerers. It's all about meanings, thoughts, perceptions, stories, emotions and so on. The moment you use an object as a shield - it stops being a mirror. And that's it: the magic just can't bear it and breaks, even if temporarily.
But much easier and more straightforward is just don't allowing it at all than inventing gotchas :) You did invent a gotcha. You're just applying it to 'workings of implements' as a blanket gotcha instead of a specific manifestation of an implement selected by a PC. Nothing in the rules points to 'the magic of implements' breaking when you don't use them in hyper specific ways. Nothing in the rules points to 'how the magic of implements works' in any specific or mechanical way. No, nothing in the rules does that. That was not about the rules, it was about the narrative.
And rules are simple. Shields aren't mirrors. And mirrors aren't shields. All your many pages of beating around the bush can change nothing about it. Right, nothing in the rules supports your straw man assertion that 'shields aren't mirrors' because there are literally 3 shields that are mirrors. All your lack of arguments can change nothing about it.
Let me know when you are ready to present any kind of logically sound argument for your position.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Red Griffyn wrote: At that point we have two competing theories. One where you have an additional assertion that this design intent is RAI to limit functionality, and one where it is more simplified with out the additional assertion. I don't see the standard interpretation as introducing any additional assertions. IE says clearly you can't be holding anything else.
Quote: So the guardrail for this slippery slope argument already exists and can be easily enforced. Is there any historical or in game precedent for this omnibus item existing? I find this a terrible and unconvincing guardrail, for three reasons.
The first is that our history doesn't have working thaumaturgical implements in it, so of course you're not going to find examples of historical attempts by RL people to create omnibus thaumaturgical bell/chalice/tome shields in it.
The second reason is now you're having to invent a rule of thumb on how to adjudicate edge cases to make your interpretation work. Which is an indication that maybe your interpretation isn't the right one.
Last, gongs are bell shields, and many ancient shields held writing on them. Likewise many ceremonial regalia is drawn from combat items (shields, weapons, armor). So if you're allowing mirror shields but not bell shields or tome shields or chalice aspergillum maces and regalia maces and scythes, allowing regalia shields and shortbows (used by native Americans in their ceremonies), then you're just carving out an exception for mirror. Which is bad rules-making. Are you allowing all those things? Regalia shortbows, really?
Quote: But lets set aside that easy to apply test and look at the assertion and what it really means for the class power. IMO your power discussion is irrelevant. If it keeps the class power level balanced, that is an argument that your interpretation is well balanced. It is not an argument that the devs intended your interpretation. Well-balanced homebrew exists, but the statement "this is well-balanced" is entirely irrelevant to the question "is it rules as intended."
Quote: What limiting language is there in the mirror implement that restricts us from using any mirror that qualifies? Paizo hasn't communicated any such restriction in the class, My 11/7 post gave you the three main quotes I think support my position.
Quote: But when I read the rules language around the black box it never explicitly or implicitly says anything about the 'special nature of implements prevent the item from serving any other function than what the implement ability is' The rules also never explicitly say anywhere that a crossbow can't be an axe and a shield. So based on "if the rules never explicitly prevent it, it must be allowed" logic, I can have a shield-axe-crossbow in your game? How about a wand longsword? Here is may longbow-longsword, I am always prepared for both melee and ranged, yay.
The whole point of trying to discern intent is that the rules can't say everything. So we try and figure out dev intent where the rules are silent.
I, and most people, think the dev intent for the Thaumaturgist class is that the implement/esoterica hand is "used" for that purpose, not others at the same time. You think the dev intent for the Thaumaturgist class is that the implement/esoterica hand can simulatenously be used to raise shield and shield block because most any implement can be incorporated into or counted as a shield. By that same logic, you think the intent is that non-Weapon implements can be combo'd as weapons (e.g. a thaumaturge with a regalia mace in one hand and shield in the other). I think we are back to the situation where we are arguing about fundamental premises rather than conclusions from shared premises, so short of a dev quote about this very subject I'm not sure there is any new evidence or argument which will change either of our positions.
Easl wrote: shield-axe-crossbow ... a wand longsword... longbow-longsword Oh, I like these. They are just so nice.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Red Griffyn wrote: Wait you so your take away from "historically silver mirrors as polished bits of metal are also available in the game rules" is that I'm talking about RL physics? No, it is more the "Mirrors have existed out to 8000 BCE and made of various materials including obsidian, silver, and copper" part. And that being 'polished to a mirror finish' changes the game's classification of item type.
Red Griffyn wrote: Right, nothing in the rules supports your straw man assertion that 'shields aren't mirrors' because there are literally 3 shields that are mirrors. All your lack of arguments can change nothing about it.
Let me know when you are ready to present any kind of logically sound argument for your position.
Strawman is where I present a warped and twisted variation of your argument and argue against that modified version. I am not doing that. Poking holes in your argument is not a strawman. Neither is presenting my own argument that these item types are separate.
These shields you mention don't even have 'mirror' in the name. A Silver shield doesn't even have any reflective properties. And the reflective properties of the Turnabout Shield never causes it to be classified as a 'mirror' item type. All that a Turnabout Shield reflects is ammunition.
Being 'polished to a mirror finish' doesn't make the item type turn into a mirror.
A Mirror is adventuring gear. That is its item type.
An Enigma Mirror is a spellheart.
A Void Mirror is mounted in a frame.
A Mirror of Sorshen is a held magical item. And an artifact, but that isn't as important.
A Mirror Implement does not have an item type of 'Mirror' and it certainly doesn't have an item type of 'Shield'. It has an item type of Held Item.
Of those 'Mirror' items that I listed, only the adventuring gear Mirror and the Mirror of Sorshen has an item type that matches the Mirror Implement: held item.
A shield definitely does not have a matching item type, no matter how reflective it is.
Wow, this thread got spicy (and more than a little silly) when I looked away.
.
- - Single items being multiple implements at once:
I think this is pretty clearly against the rules. And as no one is arguing otherwise, this is a red herring / being used as an easy to beat strawman.
_____________________________
.
- - Implement items needing to have no other function / use:
This sounds right at a glance, but does not hold up at all. Note that this is actually the only spot IMO where the exact RaW is "wrong" or unusable, as "While an implement is useful to you, it typically has no value if sold" just doesn't work at all in real play. It's clearly RaI that: "being an implement adds no special value to the item." Otherwise, you could not use a weapon implement at all (or at the most generous, none with a known-value rune in there)
As I can image that many tables allow other implements like Wand to also function as a normal magic spell wand, or Tome to also be a grimoire, I cannot agree to deny Mirror use as a shield.
__________________________________
.
- - A shield as Mirror implement being OP:
This really doesn't seem to be overpowered at all to me. Given just how crazy thorough the thread has been, I'm amazed there's been 0 talk about how shields need to be strapped to the arm. This prevents them from being easily swapped out, and a Thaum properly wielding a shield-Mirror is making a bigger hand commitment compared to an item-Mirror implement. IMO this strap would mess with the free Interact implement swap, which further "balances" the concept into being a side-grade. I can't even say a buckler style would be too OP, as it doesn't have the free-hand trait, and would also trade away boss/spike striking in addition to the normal buckler downgrade.
There's also enough existing rules to say that a broken shield would be unusable as an implement, introducing a new form of risk over the vanilla item-Mirror. (though disabling it after a single block is nakedly just being a dick and not trying to arbitrate neutrally)
_____________________________
.
- - Overall yes/no shield as Mirror:
No*. This ruling applied honestly would require all other implements to be useless items outside the precise function mentioned in their implement entry.
Yes*. A shield easily meets the textual criteria describing the Mirror. Note that while it could be used for Mirror stuff while only held/swapped around as a normal item, blocking/Raising with it requires it to be fully wielded and strapped.
_____________________________
.
IMO it is very important to not hinge broader categorical questions on exact text gotchas due to Paizo's... poor QA/revision process.
Note that Thaum still has blatantly wrong text after all this time, Second Implement still says that Chalice has a Reaction FFS. And Thaum also says *all* implements supposedly must have 0 value if sold, which breaks Weapon and others. (One function of errata is to fix "harmless errors" like that...)
Whether or not Thaum's implements are additional functions put into otherwise useful items should be the wider question at play here.
This question very much could go either way. However, I don't think any table that allows Wand/ect to "double up" with a non-implement use has much of a leg to stand on to deny shield-Mirror.
Trip.H wrote: - - Overall yes/no shield as Mirror:
No*. This ruling applied honestly would require all other implements to be useless items outside the precise function mentioned in their implement entry.
Yes*. A shield easily meets the textual criteria describing the Mirror. Note that while it could be used for Mirror stuff while only held/swapped around as a normal item, blocking/Raising with it requires it to be fully wielded and strapped.
Fascinating.
And while the Shield/Mirror is being wielded as a shield and used for Raise a Shield and Shield Block, does it still only qualify as an Implement (and not a Shield) and therefore doesn't turn off Implement's Empowerment (which specifically doesn't allow holding anything other than one weapon and Implements)?
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Errenor wrote: Easl wrote: shield-axe-crossbow ... a wand longsword... longbow-longsword Oh, I like these. They are just so nice. I prefer the weapon one of my players had written in her character sheet a very long time ago (I think 2nd or 3rd edition or something):
"Longshort".
shroudb wrote: Errenor wrote: Easl wrote: shield-axe-crossbow ... a wand longsword... longbow-longsword Oh, I like these. They are just so nice. I prefer the weapon one of my players had written in her character sheet a very long time ago (I think 2nd or 3rd edition or something):
"Longshort". And this is perfect. The main thing is not trying to imagine what this could be.
(We kind of mildly ignoring that combination weapons now exist. But still funny and changes nothing.)
Finoan wrote: Fascinating.
And while the Shield/Mirror is being wielded as a shield and used for Raise a Shield and Shield Block, does it still only qualify as an Implement (and not a Shield) and therefore doesn't turn off Implement's Empowerment (which specifically doesn't allow holding anything other than one weapon and Implements)?
I'd say if the shield doesn't have a boss/spike, it's not a weapon. If it does, then that's the 1 weapon limit.
Again, if a multi-functional spell wand-Wand does not break Imp Emp, then it would be inconsistent to say that a shield-Mirror does break it.
__________________________________________
To rephrase more clearly:
yes*,
if I consider it valid for implements to also have other functions, the shield-Mirror would not automatically break Imp Emp because it's (also) a shield. Note that all this shield-Mirror talk could also apply to shield-Regalia. A more literal "family crest" that a Thaum carries fits just as well as the notion of a sword Regalia.
no*,
if no implements are allowed to have additional functionality, neither is Mirror. The Wand must not be a wand, and you cannot start a fire with that Lantern. This also means that all the "sword Regalia" are not allowed in anything other than a cosmetic capacity.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Trip.H wrote: To rephrase more clearly:
yes*,
if I consider it valid for implements to also have other functions, the shield-Mirror would not automatically break Imp Emp because it's (also) a shield. Note that all this shield-Mirror talk could also apply to shield-Regalia. A more literal "family crest" that a Thaum carries fits just as well as the notion of a sword Regalia.
And that is where I have to draw the line and say that this is not RAW.
Having a magical item as an implement is fine. That is specified in the rules for an implement. But it has to be the same type of item. Having a Bottomless Stein as your Chalice implement works just fine. (No, it wouldn't let you increase the frequency that you could use your Chalice Implement abilities)
Personally, I wouldn't allow by RAW creating a Shield with a mirror-like surface and calling it a Mirror Implement. That is the wrong item type.
But even if you could, it is still a Shield if you are able to use it as a shield. And holding a shield means that you are violating the requirements of Implement's Empowerment.
Implement's Empowerment wrote: 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 You don't even need to be wielding the shield. Holding it is sufficient to turn off Implement's Empowerment.
Finoan wrote: Trip.H wrote: And that is where I have to draw the line and say that this is not RAW.
Having a magical item as an implement is fine. That is specified in the rules for an implement. But it has to be the same type of item. Having a Bottomless Stein as your Chalice implement works just fine. (No, it wouldn't let you increase the frequency that you could use your Chalice Implement abilities)
Personally, I wouldn't allow by RAW creating a Shield with a mirror-like surface and calling it a Mirror Implement. That is the wrong item type.
But even if you could, it is still a Shield if you are able to use it as a shield. And holding a shield means that you are violating the requirements of Implement's Empowerment.
Implement's Empowerment wrote: 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 You don't even need to be wielding the shield. Holding it is sufficient to turn off Implement's Empowerment. Why would holding a Bottomless Stein not also disable Imp's Empowerment?
I honestly struggle to understand what seems to be some sort of double standard from my PoV.
Either an implement's additional function as a ___ "overrules" and disables Imp's Empowerment, or it does not.
As far as I can tell, there's no honest way to let one gesture w/ a Bottomless Stein (or a wand-Wand) to empower their strike, but disallow them from using shield-Mirror/Regalia to do the same.
It honestly sounds like you just oppose the conceptual notion of a mirror shield. Which is so incredibly embedded in modern culture that 1992's a Link to the Past was already featuring a mirror shield years before Ocarina of Time's own iteration of the idea.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Maps Subscriber
Red Griffyn wrote: Keirine, Human Rogue wrote: I would allow a shield to be used as a mirror impliment, however if it is raised in combat and you are attacked, it is ruined until you spend 30 minutes and a Crafting check to repair the polished sheen to the shield, on top of whatever time would be needed to repair the shield otherwise.
I mean, the act of raising a shield implies that you are thrusting it in between yourself and harmful blows, attempting to intercept incoming attacks with it. It makes sense that would ruin the polished sheen that is required for it to qualify as a mirror.
The 'what happens' on a miss (did you step left, did it glance off your armour/shield, did you parry, etc. is all effectively flavour/narrative only).
Yes, it is a narrative thing. And I'm saying, narratively, part of raising a shield is intentionally putting it in the path of blows so that, narratively, if you are attacked the shield takes a ding. The shield forces the blow to the side enough for you to side step, your shield knocks the arrow from it's path enough that it goes wide and doesn't threaten you any more. Narratively, there's more to each attack than just the roll. You're pushing around, testing defenses, all that stuff before the attack roll. And part of that bonus to AC that you get from having your shield raised is putting the shield in the path of attack.
You want your mirror implement to give you a bonus to AC, here's the trade off.
Trip.H wrote: This sounds right at a glance, but does not hold up at all. Note that this is actually the only spot IMO where the exact RaW is "wrong" or unusable, as "While an implement is useful to you, it typically has no value if sold" just doesn't work at all in real play. It's clearly RaI that: "being an implement adds no special value to the item." Otherwise, you could not use a weapon implement at all (or at the most generous, none with a known-value rune in there) OTOH, using your interpretation, every 1st level Thaumaturge can (1) start with mirror full plate or regalia full plate, or whatever (2) sell it for 30 gp, then (3) spend a downtime day to get the implement they really wanted out of fairly negligible cost equipment. That's clearly not RAI, you agree? But that's a consequence of your interpretation. As you say, once you allow wand wands and tome grimoires, you must allow mirror shields...but then also regalia full plate. Chalice mitres, Guisarme amulets, everything. (For amulet: "your amulet might be a magical diagram..." Magical diagrams can be drawn on just about anything. So, if you allow dual use items, amulet implements can be any item you can draw on.)
The 'no value if sold' is not unworkable and doesn't 'break' weapon. It means the implement magic helps make the item work as intended and once the implement magic is gone, it's no longer effective at what it is. There are plenty of fantasy tropes and precedents for that, such as fairy glamour items. And there are many PF2E examples, too, of items that PCs create which cannot be sold for profit yet by all rights and logic, should be sellable. It is not an unusual in-game concept. I have never heard anyone argue that, for example, the "has no value" statement about potions created by the cauldron feat really means " has no value beyond a regular potion's value." So why should the thaumaturge's "has no value" be any different?
Quote: As I can image that many tables allow other implements like Wand to also function as a normal magic spell wand, or Tome to also be a grimoire, I cannot agree to deny Mirror use as a shield. I agree GMs should generally strive for consistency. And there may be no harm to an individual game with many of the discussed combos. So at those tables, I have no problem with a GM putting fun first and saying yes. But at a table that values consistency, if my choices are 'allow all plausible combos' or 'no combos', I'm still leaning towards no combos. Or Finoan's 'same type only' limitation.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Easl wrote: I don't see the standard interpretation as introducing any additional assertions. IE says clearly you can't be holding anything else. IE doesn't say that at all. It tells you what you can hold. That includes implements, esoterica, and a 1H weapon. It in no way restricts what qualifies as an implement. You are asserting a new premise based on the inductive reasoning that because they gave one item in the list that is 'not an implement' or 'not esoterica' (i.e., a 1H weapon) that then implements and esoterica cannot serve non-impelment functions. Since it is inductive reasoning it is definitionally not necessarily true and I disagree with the assertion that it is convincing. The wording clearly lets implements be 'whatever they can be' because the only language restricting implements is in the implement specific language itself. It is logically inconsistent as a premise/argument because fundamentally all of the implements already break your premise/rule by being both an implement AND the actual object (i.e., mirror, bell, amulet, etc.). If a mirror implement can function as an actual mirror then you're trying to 'special plead' that it can't have yet another function despite the object having multiple functions inherent in its design (even unintended ones like using a mirror focus light to start a fire or as a crappy shovel for moving dirt). Its just one big inductive fallacy.
Easl wrote: I find this a terrible and unconvincing guardrail, for three reasons.
The first is that our history doesn't have working thaumaturgical implements in it, so of course you're not going to find examples of historical attempts by RL people to create omnibus thaumaturgical bell/chalice/tome shields in it.
The second reason is now you're having to invent a rule of thumb on how to adjudicate edge cases to make your interpretation work. Which is an indication that maybe your interpretation isn't the right one.
Last, gongs are bell shields, and many ancient shields held writing on them. Likewise many ceremonial regalia is drawn from combat items (shields, weapons, armor). So if you're allowing mirror shields but not bell shields or tome shields or chalice aspergillum maces and regalia maces and scythes, allowing regalia shields and shortbows (used by native Americans in their ceremonies), then you're just carving out an exception for mirror. Which is bad rules-making. Are you allowing all those things? Regalia shortbows, really?
1st Reason - Historical and in game precedents can inform form/function, not mechanics. If you reject historical examples then the game falls apart. Paizo hasn't defined every mundane object into the game and never will. Lets say Paizo didn't ever include a 'fishing rod'. Would you not allow people to fish with a rod with fishing line on it? The answer for most tables is obviously not. You can't drag in 'magic of implements' when the discussion has nothing to do with magic and is simply can polished pieces of metal provide the function of mirrors.
2nd Reason - You're doing this at all times. Your 'rule of thumb is' it can't have any other function. Yours has less adjudication of corner cases but it is significantly less satisfying and needlessly conservative. You couldn't describe yourself as a reasonable/permissive GM if you take your approach. You're advocating for a 'simpler rule to adjudicate' but that doesn't make it a good, consistent with RAW/RAI, or a fun rule.
3rd Reason - I'm not carving out an exception for a mirror. You just stated a bunch of things that have historical and/or game precedents. I would let them all work. It isn't an issue from RAW and it isn't a balance issue. Your position is a fallacy from incredulity. Take a shortbow example. You can literally use a boomerang which is a better shortbow (requires quick-draw or a returning rune), but you're saying a 'shortbow regalia' shouldn't work when the meta ceiling has simply passed it years ago. It doesn't really make much sense.
Easl wrote: IMO your power discussion is irrelevant. My argument doesn't rest on power discussion. It rests on RAW reading and how it supports my reading of RAI vs. yours. Discussion of power is to counter balance the fallacy from incredulity position that keeps getting stated about the all powerful omnibus implement. You can't make arguments that it isn't balanced to have no alternative functions with implements and then turn around and say that my detailed case for why balance is maintained is irrelevant. Its relevant to counter the arguments you're bringing up. Even if you wanted to say you don't care about balance, it is probably one of the more important factors for others who will let almost anything fly as long as it doesn't break the game balance/meta. So I don't think I'm going to stop talking about it unless everyone agrees its balanced.
Easl wrote: My 11/7 post gave you the three main quotes I think support my position. They don't support your position as per my previous posts. You need a specific instance from Paizo that is talking about thaumaturges and implements, not some other element of the game that is unrelated. This is because specific trumps general is a 'design principle'. So citing some other specific rule won't ever speak to or limit the general case in other rule elements of the game.
Easl wrote: The rules also never explicitly say anywhere that a crossbow can't be an axe and a shield. So based on "if the rules never explicitly prevent it, it must be allowed" logic, I can have a shield-axe-crossbow in your game? How about a wand longsword? Here is may longbow-longsword, I am always prepared for both melee and ranged, yay.
The whole point of trying to discern intent is that the rules can't say everything. So we try and figure out dev intent where the rules are silent.
I, and most people, think the dev intent for the Thaumaturgist class is that the implement/esoterica hand is "used" for that purpose, not others at the same time. You think the dev intent for the Thaumaturgist class is that the implement/esoterica hand can simultaneously be used to raise shield and shield block because most any implement can be incorporated into or counted as a shield. By that same logic, you think the intent is that non-Weapon implements can be combo'd as weapons (e.g. a thaumaturge with a regalia mace in one hand and shield in the other). I think we are back to the situation where we are arguing about fundamental premises rather than conclusions from shared premises, so short of a dev quote about this very subject I'm not sure there is any new evidence or argument which will change either of our positions.
Your examples are pretty bad and really undercut your point. We have historical and in game examples of ranged weapons with melee weapons like bayonets, stocks, etc. or under the entire trait called 'combination'. We literally have an axe musket which is all but an axe crossbow except for flavour and the firearm vs. crossbow weapon group for crits. We also have pistol shields that can be attached to any shield including klars to again in all except 'flavour' become a crossbow/shield/axe or conversely you could add shield spikes to a dart shield. We even have a 'bow staff' in the game AND real world examples of Bow Spears (Hazuyari) that are in essence your sword/bladed bow.
We also have in game examples of swords that can cast spells like a 'sword wand', which obviously don't have real world examples since you know...'magic isn't real'. But again, history can inform form/function and not 'the mechanics of magic'.
So your premise that things can't be other things is completely undercut by human history and a plethora of in game examples (including real world silver mirrors and in game mirror shields). The game is FILLED with multi-use versatile items just like the ones you tried to again use a fallacy from incredulity to dismiss. That a specific axe-gun exists but not a axe-crossbow is just a result of the fact that Paizo cannot realistically publish infinite combinations of random things (you know because of page count and economics). But it doesn't 'in its silence' mean that RAI is now somehow that 'a melee weapon/range weapon/shield is not allowed or intended to exist.
Even if we both agree to disagree, I appreciate that you have engaged with the argument in good faith. Its pretty rare these days.
Finoan wrote: Red Griffyn wrote: Wait you so your take away from "historically silver mirrors as polished bits of metal are also available in the game rules" is that I'm talking about RL physics? No, it is more the "Mirrors have existed out to 8000 BCE and made of various materials including obsidian, silver, and copper" part. And that being 'polished to a mirror finish' changes the game's classification of item type. Great well now you know that those are historical examples and not RL physics examples like the many I provided in my post so you can stop asserting that I'm making RL physics arguments.
Finoan wrote: Strawman is where I present a warped and twisted variation of your argument and argue against that modified version. I am not doing that. Poking holes in your argument is not a strawman. Neither is presenting my own argument that these item types are separate. You're responding to my criticism of someone else. Please read the posts and who is being quoted.
My critique of your argument is that it is is a logically unsound argument. There is no wording that supports your premise that mirrors are Hand Held Magic Items. Indeed follow your own link to the purported 'item category' that they are part of and filter for 'mirror'. There isn't a single mirror.
Finoan wrote: These shields you mention don't even have 'mirror' in the name. A Silver shield doesn't even have any reflective properties. And the reflective properties of the Turnabout Shield never causes it to be classified as a 'mirror' item type. All that a Turnabout Shield reflects is ammunition.
Being 'polished to a mirror finish' doesn't make the item type turn into a mirror.
A Mirror is adventuring gear. That is its item type.
An Enigma Mirror is a spellheart.
A Void Mirror is mounted in a frame.
A Mirror of Sorshen is a held magical item. And an artifact, but that isn't as important.
A Mirror Implement does not have an item type of 'Mirror' and it certainly doesn't have an item type of 'Shield'. It has an item type of Held Item.
Of those 'Mirror' items that I listed, only the adventuring gear Mirror and the Mirror of Sorshen has an item type that matches the Mirror Implement: held item.
A shield definitely does not have a matching item type, no matter how reflective it is.
Again, mirrors are not definitionally 'Magic Hand Held Items' or 'Held Items'. Your premise is wrong and is a logical fallacy called 'begging the question'. What that means is if you assume it is a hand held item and then definitionally call all other things (like shields 'not hand held items') then you've simply defined into existence the conclusion you seek. Its a well known fallacy device which makes your argument 'unsound'.
What qualifies as a mirror is not 'something with the word mirror in the name'. That is quite a superficial bad argument. A mirror is any object that can provide the function of a mirror. That will include any items for which mirrors are a Structure, System, and Component (SSC). That includes sub-systems.
I don't even have to go past your first example trying to claim that an Enigma Mirror is not a mirror. The Enigma Mirror's first sentence is: Mist fills the glass of this small circular hand mirror". It is LITERALLY a small hand held mirror. The fact that you think a small hand held mirror can't be a mirror implement 'BECAUSE' its a spellheart is just evidence of why your argument is unsound and your conclusion is wrong. Its solid evidence of mirrors that are not just 'Magic Hand Held' objects.
Furthermore, trying to argue 'reflective properties' is nonsensical. There isn't a 'reflective trait' and thus there is no such thing as 'reflective properties". What do you think these shields mean when they say:
"polished to a mirror finish."
"polished to a mirrorlike sheen"
"polished to a mirrorlike sheen"
It means that the shield (all of which are polished silver) are so shiny that they act as mirrors! Mirror Finish is a literal metal manufacturing industry term that means its so clean/clear/reflective that it acts as a mirror. Trying to deny objective reality isn't a convincing argument.
Red Griffyn wrote: 1st Reason - Historical and in game precedents can inform form/function, not mechanics. I totally agree! But many of your posts are doing exactly that. They are arguing that the existence of reflective shields should inform the mechanics of "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".
Quote: 3rd Reason - I'm not carving out an exception for a mirror. You just stated a bunch of things that have historical and/or game precedents. I would let them all work. See my previous post to Trip H.; I am surprised that any player or GM could seriously think an interpretation that allows a Thaumaturge to start with regalia full plate is the rules as Paizo intended. Yes, I am incredulous, and yes, that's not a logical argument. But can you honestly tell me that you think Paizo intended the implement rules to let 1st level thaumaturges start with regalia full plate?
Quote: This is because specific trumps general is a 'design principle'. Another design principle is that Paizo writes in vernacular English, not techincal code. I personally think your argument that the RAW is not technically exclusionary language so cannot be intended as exclusionary fails to recognize this principle. I think the sentence I quoted above is intended to exclude the thaumaturge's 'implement' hand from being simultaneously used for raising a shield, even if there is no explicitly exclusive phrase in it.
I do kind of feel like we're arguing over whether the 'one is not a nickel' riddle is clever (you) or obnoxious (me). It relies on that same sort of mismatch between common speech implying exclusion while not technically requiring it.
Quote: So your premise that things can't be other things is completely undercut by human history and a plethora of in game examples (including real world silver mirrors and in game mirror shields). Hold on, you just said we can't use historical examples i.e. 'human history' to address mechanics questions. Yes? You also said specific trumps general, so the presence of specific dual use items listed in Paizo sourcebooks wouldn't trump the more general rule that players can't simply make up new dual use items. Yes?
In any event, I'm arguing that the thaumaturge class mechanics are not intended by Paizo to allow dual implement+shield combos, non-weapon implement+weapon combos, and the like, because of the text used in the thaumaturge class description. If at your table players are able to create and wield longbow+longswords because there's no explicit exclusionary text preventing them, well I think that would also not be rules as intended - but it is a different argument/discussion than this one because it has nothing to do with the thaumaturge class rules.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Red Griffyn wrote: Again, mirrors are not definitionally 'Magic Hand Held Items' or 'Held Items'. A Thaumaturge Mirror Implement is defined as:
Mirror Implement wrote: thaumaturges always choose small, portable, handheld mirrors as implements so they can use them easily while adventuring. Which makes them a held item.
And I am done arguing this. You cannot turn a shield into a Mirror Implement or hold a shield and still benefit from Implement's Empowerment while at my tables.
I'm hiding this thread.
Easl wrote: Red Griffyn wrote: 1st Reason - Historical and in game precedents can inform form/function, not mechanics. I totally agree! But many of your posts are doing exactly that. They are arguing that the existence of reflective shields should inform the mechanics of "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". But I'm not making that argument. The game says mirrors can have mirror implement 'powers' and to to achieve that pick any qualifying mirror. I'm only speaking to what could be a qualifying mirror (form/function of mirrors) and its the underlying thaumaturge class rules that are bootstrapping/empowering it with 'magical implement abilities'.
Easl wrote: Red Griffyn wrote: 3rd Reason - I'm not carving out an exception for a mirror. You just stated a bunch of things that have historical and/or game precedents. I would let them all work. See my previous post to Trip H.; I am surprised that any player or GM could seriously think an interpretation that allows a Thaumaturge to start with regalia full plate is the rules as Paizo intended. Yes, I am incredulous, and yes, that's not a logical argument. But can you honestly tell me that you think Paizo intended the implement rules to let 1st level thaumaturges start with regalia full plate? But the game doesn't let you do that. You get to pick a L0 item and full plate is a L2 item. So you don't even have to be incredulous here because it clearly isn't RAW/RAI. Not that a L2 item gold expenditure will matter by L5+, but no need to worry here.
Easl wrote: Red Griffyn wrote: This is because specific trumps general is a 'design principle'. Another design principle is that Paizo writes in vernacular English, not techincal code. I personally think your argument that the RAW is not technically exclusionary language so cannot be intended as exclusionary fails to recognize this principle. I think the sentence I quoted above is intended to exclude the thaumaturge's 'implement' hand from being simultaneously used for raising a shield, even if there is no explicitly exclusive phrase in it.
I do kind of feel like we're arguing over whether the 'one is not a nickel' riddle is clever (you) or obnoxious (me). It relies on that same sort of mismatch between common speech implying exclusion while not technically requiring it. You know, I think that is a fair point of view. I'll freely admit my own bias towards inclusion vs. exclusion so it isn't surprising that we would diverge here if the basis for your exclusion is just Paizo is bad at writing what they really intend (which I do agree with). I think that makes us leaving this unresolved a more satisfying conclusion. I'll probably always trend to accepting the RAW vs. RAI when RAI is ambiguous but I'm also fairly blessed with gaming groups of actual self moderating players (i.e., if it was breaking the game or making things not fun they'll avoid/rebuild even if it is RAW/RAI).
Easl wrote: Red Griffyn wrote: So your premise that things can't be other things is completely undercut by human history and a plethora of in game examples (including real world silver mirrors and in game mirror shields). Hold on, you just said we can't use historical examples i.e. 'human history' to address mechanics questions. Yes? You also said specific trumps general, so the presence of specific dual use items listed in Paizo sourcebooks wouldn't trump the more general rule that players can't simply make up new dual use items. Yes?
In any event, I'm arguing that the thaumaturge class mechanics are not intended by Paizo to allow dual implement+shield combos, non-weapon implement+weapon combos, and the like, because of the text used in the thaumaturge class description. If at your table players are able to create and wield longbow+longswords because there's no explicit exclusionary text preventing them, well I think that would also not be rules as intended - but it is a different argument/discussion than this one because it has nothing to do with the thaumaturge class rules. Right we can't use it to address mechanics. Hopefully my first response in this post clarifies what I mean (i.e., the form/function of a silver shield is informed by historical and in game precedents and empowered by the thaumaturge rules to have the 'magical mirror implement' mechanics). That has been my consistent argument throughout.
Specific does trump general which is why historical/game precedent informs us. As Trip pointed out the discussion of omnibus items/implements is a red herring. I've only been arguing for mirror shields which have three specific examples of silver shields being polished to a mirror like sheen. There is also other item examples that are silver that has similar language. My 'test' of what is reasonable relying on historical/game precedents is just exactly the test of what is generally allowed and whether there are any specific examples that allow us to further inform what is permitted or prohibited. That's why I called it a guardrail. It just so happens that implements are a weird example of rules that imbue magic capabilities onto otherwise mundane objects with a highly versatile form/function.
That being said I'm a strong advocate of reflouvring/permissive GMing. What is truly lost by having my klar gun shield being 'reflavoured' as a axe/crossbow/shield? Mechanically it'll be 99% the same except for mini rules that don't really matter (e.g., use arrows vs. bullets/powder, klar not being in the axe weapon group, etc.). But we should separate out my actual argument of 'mirror shields are allowed RAW/RAI' and 'why would we even bother to say an axe/crossbow/shield is not allowed when I can all but recreate the mechanics with my klar/shield pistol. I'll help my players reflavour almost anything to meet their character concept. For example, the exemplar can easily be reflavoured as a no CHA thaumaturge with the ikons being 'implements' and their power being fueled by spirits held in the occult items. The flavour is completely transmutable, even though the mechanics are still 'exemplar mechanics'.
I'm happy to agree to disagree with you on RAI. I guess until Paizo clarifies it I'll continue to default to RAW in the thaumaturge class.
Finoan wrote: Red Griffyn wrote: Again, mirrors are not definitionally 'Magic Hand Held Items' or 'Held Items'. A Thaumaturge Mirror Implement is defined as:
Mirror Implement wrote: thaumaturges always choose small, portable, handheld mirrors as implements so they can use them easily while adventuring. Which makes them a held item.
And I am done arguing this. You cannot turn a shield into a Mirror Implement or hold a shield and still benefit from Implement's Empowerment while at my tables.
I'm hiding this thread. You're wrong. It would have to be Capital "H" Hand Held to be calling down a rules element. When it is 'h' handheld it is just flavour/descriptive text. That's just a known fact about how Paizo rules are intended to be interpreted and read:
Quote: Throughout this rulebook, you will see formatting standards that might look a bit unusual at first. These standards are in place to make the rules elements in this book easier to recognize.
The names of specific statistics, skills, feats, actions, and some other mechanical elements in Pathfinder are capitalized. This way, when you see the statement "a Strike targets Armor Class," you know that both Strike and Armor Class are referring to rules.
Its important to do that because literally almost every item (weapons, shields, etc.) is 'hand held' but not every item is 'Hand Held'.
May we not play at the same table then if you refuse to follow the rules or acknowledge when you have made a mistake.
Easl wrote: Trip.H wrote: OTOH, using your interpretation, every 1st level Thaumaturge can (1) start with mirror full plate or regalia full plate, or whatever (2) sell it for 30 gp, then (3) spend a downtime day to get the implement they really wanted out of fairly negligible cost equipment. That's clearly not RAI, you agree? But that's a consequence of your interpretation. As you say, once you allow wand wands and tome grimoires, you must allow mirror shields...but then also regalia full plate. Chalice mitres, Guisarme amulets, everything. (For amulet: "your amulet might be a magical diagram..." Magical diagrams can be drawn on just about anything. So, if you allow dual use items, amulet implements can be any item you can draw on.)
No, the starting gp limits are entirely irrelevant to this, accusing me of that claim only serves to muddy the waters. There is nothing anywhere close to the notion of using an implement to smuggle starting gp, either in my arguments or Thaum's text. Stop accusing me of nonsense I never said. Denying/allowing a shield-Mirror is completely irrelevant to that concern: any implement could be made from precious materials, like a sword-Weapon made of adamantine.
(And you can't exactly hold the armor you're wearing, so please refrain from building such silly straw-men out of my arguments)
Easl wrote: The 'no value if sold' is not unworkable and doesn't 'break' weapon. [...] Quote: While an implement is useful to you, it typically has no value if sold. That's the actual text. As written, if your implement has a sell-able gp value, it violates that text. Meaning that any known rune (which has a listed gp price) would violate that rule. If the rule were to be followed, only non-listed homemade/cosmetic items would be valid vessels for implement powers. And yes, I'll double down and say that rule would make Weapon unusable, as the lack of listed 0 gp weapons means that at minimum, homebrew is required.
To be clear, the context of that line is around the first implement. I suspect this was intended to refer and apply to only your precise starting gp worry, but the reality of the printed text fails to do that.
And because that "no value" line is a general rule that applies to implements as a whole, and lacks any later text to override it, that is the last word.
Even when I'm 90% sure the RaI of that text is to double-deny starting gp smuggling via implement, the actual on-the-books RaW is that no implement is supposed have gp value. (talk about something in need of errata, jeez)
Hence my "unusable RaW" comment.
___________________________________________________
Easl wrote: I agree GMs should generally strive for consistency. And there may be no harm to an individual game with many of the discussed combos. So at those tables, I have no problem with a GM putting fun first and saying yes. But at a table that values consistency, if my choices are 'allow all plausible combos' or 'no combos', I'm still leaning towards no combos. Or Finoan's 'same type only' limitation. Yup, as someone who started with Alchemist, I'm incredibly familiar with how amazingly stingy and conservative Paizo can be. By and large, I think the community (here as well, but other places like Reddit all the more so) are waaaay overly generous when it comes to what the "RaW" actually means. The most recent point I was surprised at the level of pushback on was Stick Bomb + Calculated Splash + Expanded Splash. It seems a fair number of players are rather invested in the notion that a throwing technique magically post-hoc improves the power of the Sticky Additive. Which would add a *flat* 10 persistent damage, on every splash bomb, for 0 A and 0 VVs.
When an unknown fraction of Alchemist players are literally more than doubling their Acid Flask damage with a non-existent feat combo at L10, yeah I can see why there's a lot of disparity of opinion on the class' combat performance.
.
As far as this thread goes, this Thaum question of dual-function vs useless implements is one I genuinely cannot be confident in divining Paizo's intent.
It honestly does seem that in some parts of Thaum's text, Paizo expects PCs to have implements double up with other functions. Yet, in other places, it looks like they feared a Thaum doing something like a sword-Regalia or a shield-Amulet, but they refused to actually include text explicitly saying so / banning that.
I'll say again that it is a blatant double standard to allow something like a Bottomless Stein-Chalice or a sword-Regalia, but deny the shield-Mirror. (The notion that a single scratch would disable it is still not a honest conclusion, though I do have some sympathy due to the modern experience of a "mirror" being misinformed because they use glass, and glass is 0% mirror.)
The first thing I think of when prompted by "magical mirror" is that of a scrying device (Mirror mirror on the wall) and the honest second place is the shield mirror, where polishing a brass shield was enough to reflect the Gorgon's petrifying gaze.
Kinda like Perseus was a Thaum working with scraps of god-sourced esoteric knowledge who spent a bit of downtime prep to Mirror up that shield.
|
