|
| 4 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
I have a player talking about Two-Handing a spiked shield of bashing. I've looked for a faq and I've found some threads with people arguing various positions, but no official stances, so I thought I would ask what the RAW of the matter is.
1. Do shield spikes count as a separate weapon that can be enchanted, separate from the heavy shield they're placed on?
My guess is no.
1a. Are weapon enhancements on a shield priced separately from shield enhancements, or is a +1 shield that is also a +1 weapon counted as a +2 weapon?
2. Do shield spikes and bashing stack, giving you a shield that hits for 2d6?
Again, my guess is no.
3. Can you use a heavy shield as your main weapon attack in one hand, or as a two-handed weapon, without using it as an improvised weapon?
This line makes me think they can only be used as off-hand weapons.
You can bash an opponent with a shield, using it as an off-hand weapon. Used this way, a shield is a martial bludgeoning weapon.
|
1) They make the Shield a piercing Martial Weapon, and deal more damage.
Feats like Weapon Focus(Heavy Shield) apply to both Spiked, and non-Spiked varieties.
1a) Separately.
2) This is debated, due to the language of shield spikes. The only written example says yes, but others say no.
3) Yes, and yes. See this FAQ.
In the end, a shield is a weapon.
It functions as a weapon, can be used with feats that apply to weapons, can be enchanted as a weapon, belongs in a Fighter Weapon Group, and if is an One-handed weapon, like the Heavy Shield, it can be wielded in two hands, for x1.5 Strength to damage, and -1 to +3 Power Attack, just like any other One-handed weapon.
Also, there are no "off-hand only" weapons.
1 and 1a) yes Shield Spikes are separate from the shield. So a +1 shield with +1 shield spikes costs 3000+shield gp. This works exactly the same with a normal shield by the way. You can enchant it as a weapon separately from the shield enhancements.
So you can have a +3 blinding shield (16k) with +3 flaming defending 'shield bash/spikes' (50k) for a total cost of 66k+shield gp
2) Yes. A spiked shield is still a shield. The +1 from bashing is still an enhancement bonus and won't stack with any weapon enhancement bonus on the shield spikes. (This is probably the most contentious ruling. I dislike this if I'm honest, and would rule that you can't do it in my home game. I really can't find a rules justification for it though)
3) Shields are weapons. They are on the weapon table. It is very hard to justify treating them any differently from any other weapon. You can main hand a shield and attack two handed. See also shield bash here (it also mentions about enchanting it separately as a weapon).
I have a player talking about Two-Handing a spiked shield of bashing. I've looked for a faq and I've found some threads with people arguing various positions, but no official stances, so I thought I would ask what the RAW of the matter is.
1. Do shield spikes count as a separate weapon that can be enchanted, separate from the heavy shield they're placed on?
My guess is no.1a. Are weapon enhancements on a shield priced separately from shield enhancements, or is a +1 shield that is also a +1 weapon counted as a +2 weapon?
2. Do shield spikes and bashing stack, giving you a shield that hits for 2d6?
Again, my guess is no.3. Can you use a heavy shield as your main weapon attack in one hand, or as a two-handed weapon, without using it as an improvised weapon?
This line makes me think they can only be used as off-hand weapons.You can bash an opponent with a shield, using it as an off-hand weapon. Used this way, a shield is a martial bludgeoning weapon.
1. Shield Spikes are called out as being an 'attachment' item. That is, Shield Spikes are essentially a separate item, but when attached to a Shield, the Shield becomes its own item (a Spiked Shield). This makes sense flavorwise, since Spikes on both Armor and Shields are usually molded into the steel and such that the Spikes are inseparable from the Shield (unless it is smithed off, which takes time and resources). It also makes sense mechanically, because you can't really effectively bash with only the spikes of a shield without also bashing with the shield itself, and vice-versa, and it doesn't let you get into +30 item shenanigans.
1a. They are treated separate, but the cost of the two separate calculations are added together. So if I had a +1 Bashing and a +1 Furious Spiked Shield, they cost the price of a +2 Armor and a +2 Weapon combined.
2. No. A lot of people argued that because Spiked Shields were treated as their own separate weapons in their own categories, they stacked together, and they were technically correct. However, this FAQ says that actual size increases and effective size increases (which both Shield Spikes and the Bashing quality emulate) do not stack with themselves (though of course, an actual size increase stacks with an effective size increase as normal).
3. Using a shield as a weapon does not constitute it being improvised, especially when it is listed on the weapons table, and when it has its own category for Fighter Weapon Groups.
**EDIT**
A random party of Ninjas appeared...
|
|
First: Remember that they count as martial weapons for the purpose of being used as weapons.
1. Spikes are a part of the shield, I've seen devs putting it like "you can't enchant the studs in studded leather armour".
1a. I'm pretty sure that a regular +1 shield only grants +1 enhancment bonus to AC, you'll need a seperat weapon enhancment for damage and to-hit chance (otherwise shield would be the cheapes weapon). Don't know if they count towards the same limit though.
2. You are correct. Spikes don't do damage them selves. Spiked shields are seperat items with altered damage type and die to one higher (it wouldn't be 2d6 anyways).
3. It is made as an off-hand attack, just like how some natrual attacks are secondary or primary, shields are not designed as weapons. They would suffer the off-hand penalty even if you only used them and no weapon in main-hand.Due to the nature of how shields are equiped, I wouldn't really allow someone to two-hand a shield. Maybe after some thought,tough they'd still be treated as off-hand weapons in regards of to-hit and x1.0 in damage.
EDITED
That's all wrong, and all houserules. Also, a bit silly.
Captain America frowns on such silliness.
|
|
Shields are weapons. They are on the weapon table. It is very hard to justify treating them any differently from any other weapon. You can main hand a shield and attack two handed. See also shield bash here (it also mentions about enchanting it separately as a weapon).
My thought was that the rules for shield bashing called out "as an off-hand attack" and so I thought that was the only way you could use the shield as a weapon by default, which made me think: "Well, they could still grab it by the edges and smash someone with it like a barstool, but then they're basically using it as an improvised club, not as a shield."
|
|
I'm fine with whatever the actual ruling was. I just saw the line about offhand attacks in my book, and when I looked it up found people saying things didnt or did stack, with arguments, and so I came to get clarification.
It seems I got clarification on most of the bits I was unclear on, aside from the stacking of Bashing and Spikes.
Interesting to hear about the +1 enhancement bonus from stacking not counting when you go to price out your weapon enchants on the thing.
The shield is not restricted to the off-hand. It had that language because it was assumed the player would use it in an off-hand. You can also use two handed attacks with them.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
2) This is debated, due to the language of shield spikes. The only written example says yes, but others say no.
There is debate, but really there shouldn't be.
The FAQ makes it abundantly clear, that the Spiked Shield is a virtual size increase and it won't stack with Bashing.
I believe the "debate" centers around the belief in some people that they intended to let them stack and may have forgot about them when they wrote the FAQ. The original FAQ question was "do spiked shield and bashing or improved natural attack and strong jaw stack?" They answered it by saying "+1 size and +2 size don't stack". Both those examples are +1 and +2 size abilities.
|
|
2) This is debated, due to the language of shield spikes. The only written example says yes, but others say no.There is debate, but really there shouldn't be.
The FAQ makes it abundantly clear, that the Spiked Shield is a virtual size increase and it won't stack with Bashing.
I believe the "debate" centers around the belief in some people that they intended to let them stack and may have forgot about them when they wrote the FAQ. The original FAQ question was "do spiked shield and bashing or improved natural attack and strong jaw stack?" They answered it by saying "+1 size and +2 size don't stack". Both those examples are +1 and +2 size abilities.
Yeeeeeah, I not going to agree with you on some of that.
I don't really think this is the thread for this debate, but I would avoid using the "abundantly clear" statement.
The FAQ makes it abundantly clear, that the Spiked Shield is a virtual size increase and it won't stack with Bashing.It actually fails to do that. In fact, the FAQ to which you refer doesn't even mentioned a spiked shield. What we do have is this FAQ:
Shield Bash: If I am proficient with wearing shields, can I make a shield bash without a nonproficiency penalty?
Armor proficiencies and weapon proficiencies are different things.
Table 6–4: Weapon (page 142) lists light shields, heavy shields, and spiked shields as martial weapons.
In black and white, it says that a spiked shield is a martial weapon...not a virtual size increase to a shield. Why is that significant?
Because an item cannot be both a virtual increase to a weapon and weapon in its own right. There is no such category of things that do both.
I believe the "debate" centers around the belief in some people that they intended to let them stack and may have forgot about them when they wrote the FAQ.There is no debating that the person(s) who penned shield spikes had any inclination that these things should or would fall into the same category as Lead Blades or Bashing. There is no logical basis for grouping them. What the PDT did is identify OOC language as a basis for grouping spells. This is fundamentally contrary to the paradigm under which things had been grouped back when this stuff was written.
Now, all that having been said, the PDT could have come to some belief that spiked shields stacking with bashing/lead blades is some sort of game breaker. We saw an ancient post by a Dev that a 2d6 off-hand weapon is some sin against creation. I don't buy it. Spending 9k to get a 2d6 off-hand weapon that is piercing damage and puts a -4 on both your off-hand and main hand is hardly game-breaking, especially when it burns a feat (or you get -6 / -10). In fact, using such a weapon is a probably sub-optimal. So I flat...
The Shield Spikes entry says this:
These spikes turn a shield into a martial piercing weapon and increase the damage dealt by a shield bash as if the shield were designed for a creature one size category larger than you (see “spiked shields” on Table: Weapons). You can't put spikes on a buckler or a tower shield. Otherwise, attacking with a spiked shield is like making a shield bash attack.
The bolded parts specifically say the only difference between a Shield Bash with a regular shield and a spiked shield is the damage type and the effective size increase (which IS there, and is also supported by the damage difference between the two entries on the table). Outside of those two differences, the weapon is effectively the same. It is only listed on the weapons table for ease of reference.
There is a FAQ (that I linked to in my previous post) that says Actual Size Increases and Effective Size Increases can be combined, but you can stack multiple Actual Size Increases and Effective Size Increases together (only one of each). It also gives a size-stacking example with a shield, suggesting that Bashing + Spiked combos were the reason this was FAQ'd. Here's the text:
As per the rules on size changes, size changes do not stack, so if you have multiple size changing effects (for instance an effect that increases your size by one step and another that increases your size by two steps), only the largest applies. The same is true of effective size increases (which includes “deal damage as if they were one size category larger than they actually are,” “your damage die type increases by one step,” and similar language). They don’t stack with each other, just take the biggest one. However, you can have one of each and they do work together (for example, enlarge person increasing your actual size to Large and a bashing shield increasing your shield’s effective size by two steps, for a total of 2d6 damage).
Bolded the important bits for ease of reference.
**EDIT**
As for mundane qualities stacking with spells, you're saying you would allow Masterwork Weapons to stack with a Magic Weapon spell? (AKA, I'd get +2 Enhancement to hit, but only +1 Enhancement to damage?) We both know those don't stack, not because they're the same effect, but because they're separate effects, that both give +1 Enhancement bonus to hit, and we know that bonuses of the same type (of which Enhancement bonus isn't an exception) don't stack. This situation is absolutely no different.
|
It seems I got clarification on most of the bits I was unclear on, aside from the stacking of Bashing and Spikes.
As a bit of context, I was the one who proposed the original FAQ request, and I specifically questioned the interaction between Bashing and Shield Spikes.
When the ruling was issued later in that same thread, the Design Team favored a more broad answer:
"if you have multiple size changing effects (for instance an effect that increases your size by one step and another that increases your size by two steps), only the largest applies"
You'd think their answer would cover Shield Spikes (an effect that increases your size by one step) and Bashing (an effect that increases your size by two steps), especially since that's the question I asked, but a large enough portion of the forums disagree with that possibility, and so threads like these (and the ones you've already read) just devolve into more "yes vs no" arguments.
So, take from that what you will.
Well, the design of the shield spikes are just out of whack and terribly explained by the design team and its basically fallen into the area of: "Designers cant agree right now"
So shield bashing in general is getting a rather bad hand as you basically have multiply rules that dont even synergize. ( Bashing is a shield enchantment for +1, but is of no benefit to a spike user in its current size ruling, the spikes have to be enchanted seperately aint a big deal but it conflict with the bashing +1 effect, and then you have the old discussion of Spikes + Impact + Bashing which i think was the main issue of the designers. )
So i think we should flag this for a FAQ and get it sorted, as of now its a terrible mess.
Personally i would rule it as that spiked shield is a mundane upgrade and thus is made as a weapon with its size inherent, and then you enlarge it with the magical size increase from bashing. ( In the same way that you can enchant a large weapon with impact to make it a huge damage die )
It seems I got clarification on most of the bits I was unclear on, aside from the stacking of Bashing and Spikes.As a bit of context, I was the one who proposed the original FAQ request, and I specifically questioned the interaction between Bashing and Shield Spikes.
When the ruling was issued later in that same thread, the Design Team favored a more broad answer:
"if you have multiple size changing effects (for instance an effect that increases your size by one step and another that increases your size by two steps), only the largest applies"
You'd think their answer would cover Shield Spikes (an effect that increases your size by one step) and Bashing (an effect that increases your size by two steps), especially since that's the question I asked, but a large enough portion of the forums disagree with that possibility, and so threads like these (and the ones you've already read) just devolve into more "yes vs no" arguments.
So, take from that what you will.
It's much more likely to assume that the Design Team made a more broad statement to cover all the bases (of which Shield Spikes and Bashing would be equivalent to), instead of just focusing on a single case, especially when the Design Team found it wasn't really necessary to focus on the single case when there are multiple subjects that mimic that case, and decided to go with the 2 birds 1 stone route.
I don't usually agree with James Risner on many things, but on this one I do; the FAQ and the item descriptions make the decision quite obvious. It's just people think Shield Bashes getting nerfed is badwrongfun and therefore it becomes an 'invalid ruling'.
I don't like it, it certainly reduces the effectiveness of my Shield Rangbarian build, but I'm not going to discount it because I don't like it.
|
|
It's much more likely to assume that the Design Team made a more broad statement to cover all the bases (of which Shield Spikes and Bashing would be equivalent to)It seems I got clarification on most of the bits I was unclear on, aside from the stacking of Bashing and Spikes.As a bit of context, I was the one who proposed the original FAQ request, and I specifically questioned the interaction between Bashing and Shield Spikes.
When the ruling was issued later in that same thread, the Design Team favored a more broad answer:
"if you have multiple size changing effects (for instance an effect that increases your size by one step and another that increases your size by two steps), only the largest applies"
You'd think their answer would cover Shield Spikes (an effect that increases your size by one step) and Bashing (an effect that increases your size by two steps), especially since that's the question I asked, but a large enough portion of the forums disagree with that possibility, and so threads like these (and the ones you've already read) just devolve into more "yes vs no" arguments.
So, take from that what you will.
I have no complaint with the way the PDT handled their response. That's exactly the way I expected them to respond.
I'm upset with the posters that claim, since the exact words "bashing" or "shield spikes" do not appear in the FAQ, that this FAQ doesn't apply to them.
If they had instead issued a narrow ruling, covering just Shield Spikes + Bashing, then the other cases like Lead Blades, Strong Jaw, etc. would continue to be debated.
Likewise, even if they listed out half a dozen different combinations that didn't work together, another thing would eventually be released, and that would suddenly not be subject to the FAQ (according to some posters).
I accept that you can't please everybody, but operating under the disingenuous pretense that you haven't been pleased, in order to flat out ignore a ruling that you disagree with, is what I have a problem with.
|
I agree that per the FAQ, because of the idiotic line in shield spikes that reference size increases, that a spiked shield and a bashing shield do not stack and does 1d8 damage.
What should happen, is that the size language should be removed from spiked shields, as they are not a virtual size increase, they are a separate weapon that does more damage. Just as a Morning Star does damage as Club one size larger, that does not mean that the addition of spikes to the club made it a virtual size increase.
|
|
Slight derail on terms: In real life, the term morning star could apply to several different weapons. A spiked flail, a spiked mace, and a simple club with nails on it could all be called a morningstar.
Per the weapon description in Pathfinder, the mace version is what is used "A morningstar is a spiked metal ball, affixed to the top of a long handle." However, it's stuck in the Flails group instead of the Hammers group.
I have a player talking about Two-Handing a spiked shield of bashing. I've looked for a faq and I've found some threads with people arguing various positions, but no official stances, so I thought I would ask what the RAW of the matter is.
1. Do shield spikes count as a separate weapon that can be enchanted, separate from the heavy shield they're placed on?
My guess is no.1a. Are weapon enhancements on a shield priced separately from shield enhancements, or is a +1 shield that is also a +1 weapon counted as a +2 weapon?
2. Do shield spikes and bashing stack, giving you a shield that hits for 2d6?
Again, my guess is no.3. Can you use a heavy shield as your main weapon attack in one hand, or as a two-handed weapon, without using it as an improvised weapon?
This line makes me think they can only be used as off-hand weapons.You can bash an opponent with a shield, using it as an off-hand weapon. Used this way, a shield is a martial bludgeoning weapon.
1a) no.
1b) Counted separately, added together for cost. Note that a Masterwork Shield does not have to be made a masterwork weapon before accepting the weapon enhancements. It's already masterwork. It does not gain a masterwork enhancement bonus to hit, however.
2) Under the current FAQ, Bashing and SPikes do not stack. A significant number of people, including myself, allow them to do so.
3)Yes, it's a one handed martial bludgeoning or piercing weapon. You can use it in your main hand, and you can use it in two hands. Its not an improvised weapon, it's a martial weapon.
==Aelryinth
One side has an extensive FAQ and rules from the CRB and the other side has one guy in a book somewhere, so you can see why it's so hotly debated.
Shield Spikes: These spikes turn a shield into a martial piercing weapon and increase the damage dealt by a shield bash as if the shield were designed for a creature one size category larger than you (see “spiked shields” on Table: Weapons). You can't put spikes on a buckler or a tower shield. Otherwise, attacking with a spiked shield is like making a shield bash attack.Bashing: A shield with this special ability is designed to perform a shield bash. A bashing shield deals damage as if it were a weapon of two size categories larger (a Medium light shield thus deals 1d6 points of damage and a Medium heavy shield deals 1d8 points of damage). The shield acts as a +1 weapon when used to bash. Only light and heavy shields can have this ability.Size increases and effective size increases: How does damage work if I have various effects that change my actual size, my effective size, and my damage dice?
As per the rules on size changes, size changes do not stack, so if you have multiple size changing effects (for instance an effect that increases your size by one step and another that increases your size by two steps), only the largest applies. The same is true of effective size increases (which includes “deal damage as if they were one size category larger than they actually are,” “your damage die type increases by one step,” and similar language). They don’t stack with each other, just take the biggest one. However, you can have one of each and they do work together (for example, enlarge person increasing your actual size to Large and a bashing shield increasing your shield’s effective size by two steps, for a total of 2d6 damage).
Everyone pointing out that the FAQ does not address shield spikes and bashing are ignoring the fact that if the devs wanted them to stack, could have easily called out an exemption for shield spikes and bashing in that very same FAQ.
|
|
I challenge everyone here to provide a logical or rational basis for singling out shield spikes as not working with Bashing.
And I will, once again, accept your challenge (though it'll likely take us nowhere, again, as even IC we're of different mindsets on this). I default to James Jacob's response on this matter. Although his example used a +1 Bashing Klar, the same idea applies.
How do you IC use a heavy shield offensively? You apply bludgeoning force with it. 1d4 damage.
How do you IC improve this tactic? You make it better by enchanting it with Bashing. 1d8 damage.
Pretty simple, so far.
Shield Spikes do not make a shield better at bashing. They turn it into a piercing weapon. 1d6 damage.
How do you IC improve this tactic? You make it better by enchanting it with Lead Blades. 1d8 damage.
Still simple, right?
How then, logically and IC, could you enchant a piercing weapon with a bashing enchantment? That smithy's gonna suggest you just remove the spikes.
@ N N 959: Does it make sense realistically? Not really. This is fantasy, with rules that are abstract of realism, meaning that doesn't really have ground here. The rules are the rules. If the rules say the mundane effect works as X, and X's don't stack with themselves, of which Bashing is an X (2X, to be more precise), then they can't combine to become 3X, period, end of discussion. It's that simple. I don't need to provide any more evidence, realistic or otherwise, to the plate. The rules say they don't work, so they don't work. If you want to play a game where they do work, then might I suggest you look at the Homebrew section, which is exactly what that is for.
Shield Spikes have a mechanical effect if they're attached to a shield. That doesn't instantly make the shield a new weapon, it simply alters it, especially when the language for Shield Spikes says that other than changing the damage dice and damage type, it's still the same damn weapon, which also shows parenthesized text to look at the entry in the weapons table to compare the differences. Since the specifics of the item description supersedes the general rule for the weapons table, the weapons table entry for Spiked Shields don't provide credence to supersede the FAQ.
You can sit there and say we should also apply that ruling for other spiked weapons, but we feasibly can't. The specifics of the Shield Spikes have no application for the generalization of Spikes on other weapons. You have no grounds here to say they should function the same, meaning they are separate entitites, where one has mechanics implications, and the other does not.
You are correct in that shield spikes and spiked shields are, in fact, separate entities. However, when you put shield spikes on a shield, it becomes a spiked shield, and is therefore combined as far as determining enhancement properties and such (since you aren't allowed to enhance Shield Spikes themselves).
And considering the FAQ was originally created to answer if Shield Spikes and Bashing would(/should) stack (as well as the other similar scenarios), it's not getting changed anytime soon.
Everyone pointing out that the FAQ does not address shield spikes and bashing are ignoring the fact that if the devs wanted them to stack, could have easily called out an exemption for shield spikes and bashing in that very same FAQ.The devs don't have to create a special exemption for spiked shields if the rulebooks say Shield Spikes already stack with the Bashing Enchantment. The Barbarian in the NPC Codex makes it clear that those shield spikes do not constitute a real size increase. His Heavy, Spiked, Bashing Shield does 2d6, and so shall my PFS characters'.
Scott, that example isn't proof, either.
Remember that books go through a 6 month development cycle. That barb was likely made up long before the revised rules and/or FAQ were published...probably MONTHS before. And the person who made him up had no clue that the rules were/would be revised.
So, the FAQ stands as it is. You don't have to like it, you just have to accept it and then override it.
==Aelryinth
How then, logically and IC, could you enchant a piercing weapon with a bashing enchantment? That smithy's gonna suggest you just remove the spikes.Morning Stars do more damage for the weighted, bashing end, and they do more damage for the sharp spikes. They stack. A club does 1d6; a dagger does 1d4; a morning star does 1d8. Stacks.
Magically making the spikes sharper, magically making some kind of momentum-mass-generator thingy, stacks.
QED
No they don't, because those effects aren't applicable here. Shield Spikes and regular Spikes, whether they're on other weapons, in traps, etc. aren't the same thing. Green Dragons and Black Dragons are the same thing, and they aren't, even though they both have Acid damage breath weapons, in the same way that Spiked Shields and other Spiked Weapons have Piercing damage in the entries.
They have different rules sets and different mechanics regarding their own unique abilities; trying to use one while applying it to the other leads to shenanigans.
But then again, since I'm able to have a +30 Klar that deals 3D20 in your game, I suppose it makes sense to you for this stuff to work.
|
|
Everyone pointing out that the FAQ does not address shield spikes and bashing are ignoring the fact that if the devs wanted them to stack, could have easily called out an exemption for shield spikes and bashing in that very same FAQ.The devs don't have to create a special exemption for spiked shields if the rulebooks say Shield Spikes already stack with the Bashing Enchantment. The Barbarian in the NPC Codex makes it clear that those shield spikes do not constitute a real size increase. His Heavy, Spiked, Bashing Shield does 2d6, and so shall my PFS characters'.
Three things:
1) The NPC Codex is riddled with errors. The most egregious of these are in the Animal Companion statblocks, which had the same author as the Dwarf in question. It's not a very strong foundation to stand on.
2) Statblocks do not create rules. Look to the Additional Resources document and look to see if that 2d6 shield is available in PFS (it's not).
3) PFS GMs are to follow all official errata, forum posts, and FAQs. Your character would be required to as well. So, no, if you sit down at a PFS table, your Bashing Spiked Heavy Shield will be doing 1d8 damage.
How then, logically and IC, could you enchant a piercing weapon with a bashing enchantment? That smithy's gonna suggest you just remove the spikes.No, because according to the Core Rulebook
Otherwise, attacking with a spiked shield is like making a shield bash attack.It's stated in black and white that attacking with spiked is to bash with the shield. Ergo, something that improves your ability to "bash" will apply to anything that is tantamount to making a "shield bash" attack.
The spiked shield is still "bashing." If the spiked shield were not "bashing" then I would agree with you.
There's also the fact that 'Morningstar' is not listed under 'Mace'.
If so, there would be the language, "Adding spikes to a mace increases the damage as if it were one size larger and changes the damage type to bludgeon/pierce. See 'MOrningstar' on the weapon tables.'
And then lo, Morningstars would have a built in virtua and lead blades wouldn't work on them, because it would just be a name for Mace, Spiked.
But they don't have that language, and spiked shields do. Thems the rules.
==Aelryinth
|
|
Also, that example in the NPC Codex is not legal for PFS Play:
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game: NPC Codex
The 1st and 7th level iconic characters found on pages 274-297 may be used in place of the downloadable pregenerated characters found on Paizo.com. The 12th level iconics are not permitted for PFS play. The text in the box on page 275 should be noted before using the iconic characters. The animal companions on pages 298-307 may be used as long as the character meets all the prerequisites to obtain an animal companion.
The only thing legal in the book is the 1st and 7th level iconics and the animal companions. Other than that, it's not a legal rules source.
Nobody is arguing that you can't do as you like at your own table, NN.
But at the official tables, they aren't going to stack. THe FAQ language is all-inclusive and makes no carve-out for non-magic vs magic (which is why the other example used is always Strong Jaw and INA).
The fact is, Spiked Shields DO use unique language, they ARE different from armor spikes, and are basically their own unique weapon.
I will also let them stack, I don't have a problem with it, nor do I let Shield Master ignore size penalties. But I also don't let Strong Jaw and INA stack, so I'm biased.
==Aelryinth