Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Vraille Darkfang" data-source="post: 1599482" data-attributes="member: 16989">In a recent Dragon Magazine (I think it was Sage Advice), it gives an &quot;official&quot; (for what that's worth) answer to the Bashing Spiked Shield. Basically the &quot;offical&quot; answer is the Bashing Property is USELESS on a Spiked Shield.&nbsp; It gives an example:If you have a +1Bashing Shield with non-magical Spikes you may choose to EITHER use the +1 Bashing enhancement to do Bludgeoning Damage that will overcome DR/Magic or you may use the Spikes to do normal Piercing damage.&nbsp; If you enchant the Spikes You may then do either Magical Bashing Damage (from the Bashing enchantment) or Magical Piercing Damage (from the Spikes).&nbsp; Niether effect in any way overlaps.I find it bizarre that you have, essentially 2 weapons when you bash &amp; you choose which you'd like.Since I find it a silly rule (by silly I mean one where Game-Balance, Rules Interpretations overule common sense), I ignore it.&nbsp; In my games I say that the Bashing Enhancement works this way with shield spikes:You get the +2 Size categories from the Bashing Property.&nbsp; However, this doesn't stack with the +1 size category from the Spikes.&nbsp; However, the benefit comes in that I allow the +1 Enhancement Bonus (from the Bashing Property) to &quot;merge&quot; onto the Spikes, thus making them +1 spikes. Thus all magical bashing Spiked shields have MW Spikes to begin with.So, a +1 (+1 Bashing) Spiked Shield counts as a +2 Shield (+1 enhancment, +1 bashing property) &amp; a +1 Weapon (the Spikes being +1 weapons).&nbsp; If the PC then wants to enchant the spikes further, he already starts out at +1.In effect, I give a price discount for the Bashing Property on spiked shields.Vraille DarkfangP.S. The whole &quot;Silly&quot; remark is not to insult the Sage.&nbsp; I like his &quot;Rules Over All&quot; stance.&nbsp; It makes it easier to see why he rules the way he does, and whether his ruling fits into my own game.&nbsp; I mean no disrespect to the Sage, (I agree with about 75% of his rulings).</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Vraille Darkfang, post: 1599482, member: 16989"] In a recent Dragon Magazine (I think it was Sage Advice), it gives an "official" (for what that's worth) answer to the Bashing Spiked Shield. Basically the "offical" answer is the Bashing Property is USELESS on a Spiked Shield. It gives an example: If you have a +1Bashing Shield with non-magical Spikes you may choose to EITHER use the +1 Bashing enhancement to do Bludgeoning Damage that will overcome DR/Magic or you may use the Spikes to do normal Piercing damage. If you enchant the Spikes You may then do either Magical Bashing Damage (from the Bashing enchantment) or Magical Piercing Damage (from the Spikes). Niether effect in any way overlaps. I find it bizarre that you have, essentially 2 weapons when you bash & you choose which you'd like. Since I find it a silly rule (by silly I mean one where Game-Balance, Rules Interpretations overule common sense), I ignore it. In my games I say that the Bashing Enhancement works this way with shield spikes: You get the +2 Size categories from the Bashing Property. However, this doesn't stack with the +1 size category from the Spikes. However, the benefit comes in that I allow the +1 Enhancement Bonus (from the Bashing Property) to "merge" onto the Spikes, thus making them +1 spikes. Thus all magical bashing Spiked shields have MW Spikes to begin with. So, a +1 (+1 Bashing) Spiked Shield counts as a +2 Shield (+1 enhancment, +1 bashing property) & a +1 Weapon (the Spikes being +1 weapons). If the PC then wants to enchant the spikes further, he already starts out at +1. In effect, I give a price discount for the Bashing Property on spiked shields. Vraille Darkfang P.S. The whole "Silly" remark is not to insult the Sage. I like his "Rules Over All" stance. It makes it easier to see why he rules the way he does, and whether his ruling fits into my own game. I mean no disrespect to the Sage, (I agree with about 75% of his rulings). [/QUOTE]

Verification