Can I enchant a Shield's spikes separately from the Shield itself?

[Iku Rex]

Hey, if you think that allowing someone to create a +20 equivalent item that only takes up one item slot and can be used as either a sheild or weapon is by the spirit of the rules, and can talk your DM into it, more power to you.

*shrug* Just don't try it in any game I run.

I don't think we should base rule discussions over the core rules on balance issues in a supplement...

If my interpretation of the DMG makes the shield expert feat "broken", the solution is to fix the feat, not the core rules.

 

[Umbran]

If my interpretation of the DMG makes the shield expert feat "broken", the solution is to fix the feat, not the core rules.

It isn't just the feat. As Caliban notes, it gives you an item with an effective +20 enhancement bonus that takes up only one item slot, for what is chump change compared to the power of the item in question. The problems then arising with the feat aren't a big deal by comparison.

Remember, the question isn't "Fix the feat or fix the core rules?" The question is "Fix the feat or fix one man's interpretation of rules?".

 

[Iku Rex]

It isn't just the feat. As Caliban notes, it gives you an item with an effective +20 enhancement bonus that takes up only one item slot, for what is chump change compared to the power of the item in question.

I would not consider a lousy weapon (compared to "real" weapons with the same bonuses), that can't even be used without making the expensive shield bonuses uselsess, "powerful"...

 

[reapersaurus]

Wow.

What the heck does it really matter about how "powerful" a +10/+10 shield would be because it only uses up one SLOT??!!

I understand the interesting rules-nature of this unique case, but do you really believe that a 300,000 g.p. shield-weapon that basically requires the wielder to be a high-level fighter (for all the feats) is an unbalancing scenario?

Second question:
Caliban, if you say that a shield-as-weapon can't have over +10 bonus, aren;t you ignoring the DMG tables?
They explicitly state and have prices for +1 thru +10 armor enhancments.
Then they have the table for +1 thru +10 weapon enhancements.
Then they have a weapon (a shield) that can have both types of enchantments.

You're opinion is that for no stated reason, a shield-as-weapon would have to STOP at +5 armor and +5 weapon enhancements in the tables?
That the rest of the table wouldn't apply, to this item different from all other items in the game?

Finally, isn;t there a flaw in this thinking, Caliban?
IF you are viewing the weapon and armor enhancements as being a "pool" (meaning both enhancements are counted for rules purposes), than why would you have to pay for the wasted +1 enhancement when you are putting the flaming weapon enhancement on a +1 shield of Bashing?

According to your (esteemed and respected) opinion, both enhancements are counted, so you should be able to plop the flaming enhancement on the +1 Bashing Shield for 1000 gp's, since it's already a magic item with an effective +2 bonus.

 

[Umbran]

Wow.

What the heck does it really matter about how "powerful" a +10/+10 shield would be because it only uses up one SLOT??!!
[/i]

Possibly. When you start to consider some of the options, and how they might work, things get hairy. What if the spikes are Defending? Can you effectively get a shield that give much higher armor bonus than normally possible? If the shield gives resistances to energy, do they necessarily stop because you're using the thing as a weapon rather than as a shield? You're still wearing it the same way, you're just waving it around differently. The possibility for "doubling up" might make the thing pretty darned potent.

Hmm. Spiked Shield of Throwing? Hi there, Captain America!