Shield enchantments

[Veknironth]

Well, I was wondering what category do shields fall in for magic enchantments? Are the armor or weapons? It seems like they could qualify as either of those, but not as a regular item since the heading reads "magic rings, bracelets, charms, & medallions". You could really make a fantastic shield with weapon enchants: indestructible, bonus damage, thunder hammer. Now a shield bash does 2d4+3d6. Of course RAW shields are useless, and you'd just put that on a battle axe.

But, assuming you can put any sort of enchantment on it, could you mix and match? Could you put bouyancy from the armor enchants, along with the other weapon enchants?

-Vek
"Or, can shields not be enchanted at all?

[kiralon]

Well in further adventures in the northern wilderness there are shields that are enchanted to glow red and one that is enchanted to do blinding flash, and there is a shield in Island at the edge of the world that returns when thrown, so i assume the enchantments come from the weapon list.

[drewkitty ~..~]

Since they are both....*shrugs*

Looking at this as a GM, I would rule they are one or the other. Not able to have enchantments of both.

[kiralon]

Rune items are a special case as they get non-standard enchantment options.

[Library Ogre]

I allow them to be weapons and armor, if you like, but weapon enchantments are generally better for them.

[Prysus]

Well, I was wondering what category do shields fall in for magic enchantments? Are the armor or weapons?

Greetings and Salutations. This question has come up before, and my stance is this:

1. W.P. Shield is an official skill, and W.P. stands for"Weapon Proficiency."

2. Shields do not possess an A.R. (which stands for "Armor Rating."

So they're listed as Weapons, and they do NOT have the stats of Armor. For me, that's also made it clear to let them use the Weapon Enhancements (also Superior Quality, Blunt, allowing things like an extra +3 to Parry).

I haven't seen any evidence to the contrary that I can recall, but would be willing to reconsider my position if such evidence were presented. Hope some of that helps. Farewell and safe journeys.

[Grazzik]

When it comes to magic enhancements, as a GM I couldn't care less about such mundane restrictions. You want a sword that envelops you in an ectoplasmic bubble that smells like roses when you say " I... have... the flower!!!!" or a helmet that lets you shoot lasers from your ears, go for it. A shield with BOTH weapon and armor enhancements... hmmm.... yeah, okay by me.

As long as there is a physical object and an enchantment, put them together and you get an enchanted object.

[Goblin-Jack]

Well, I was wondering what category do shields fall in for magic enchantments? Are the armor or weapons?

Greetings and Salutations. This question has come up before, and my stance is this:

1. W.P. Shield is an official skill, and W.P. stands for"Weapon Proficiency."

2. Shields do not possess an A.R. (which stands for "Armor Rating."

So they're listed as Weapons, and they do NOT have the stats of Armor. For me, that's also made it clear to let them use the Weapon Enhancements (also Superior Quality, Blunt, allowing things like an extra +3 to Parry).

I haven't seen any evidence to the contrary that I can recall, but would be willing to reconsider my position if such evidence were presented. Hope some of that helps. Farewell and safe journeys.

I agree with Prysus, and treat shields as weapons in my campaigns (if you can use them to strike and/or parry, I treat them as weapons, especially in terms of the magic enchantments available to apply to them).

[Hotrod]

I’m with Prysus on this one. Shields count as weapons for the purposes of game mechanics.

[eliakon]

As has been pointed out before
They are a weapon proficiency
The example shields with magic abilities all used weapon enchantments
They can be used to parry which is not something armor can do
They can be used to strike which is not something armor can do

side note, the single best enchantment for them thus is "indestructible"
Invisible Weapon is also handy for surprise, and to allow you to see from behind your cover

[Stone Gargoyle]

They are a weapon since they have a WP skill listing.

[eliakon]

They are a weapon since they have a WP skill listing.

Just going to point out that there is a W.P. Armor skill in a couple places...

[Stone Gargoyle]

They are a weapon since they have a WP skill listing.

Just going to point out that there is a W.P. Armor skill in a couple places...

For the PFRPG game or for other Palladium games/settings?

[eliakon]

They are a weapon since they have a WP skill listing.

Just going to point out that there is a W.P. Armor skill in a couple places...

For the PFRPG game or for other Palladium games/settings?

N&SS and Splicers (so far)
But given that all of those settings also have Shield as a W.P. it shows that "just because it has a WP doesn't make it a weapon per se". This is also shown with the N&SS skill "W.P. Improvised" which under this logic would let me put weapon enchantments on beer mugs and ladders.
Does W.P. Lasso mean I can enchant ropes?

Basically I am saying that "just because there is a skill to use something as a weapon doesn't mean the thing is, in and of itself, a weapon per se".
Note that I think shields are weapons for the other reasons provided.

[Stone Gargoyle]

It is a matter of semantics then. As far as enhancement spells, it seems logical they would not as a rule be limited by whether or not something is a weapon or armor. If something can be enchanted, it s a matter of semantics as to what kinds of spells can be used. That is how I would rule it as a GM in a game. Others would limt it more, understandably, because of wanting the rules to be restrictive rather than flexible.

[eliakon]

It is a matter of semantics then. As far as enhancement spells, it seems logical they would not as a rule be limited by whether or not something is a weapon or armor. If something can be enchanted, it s a matter of semantics as to what kinds of spells can be used. That is how I would rule it as a GM in a game. Others would limt it more, understandably, because of wanting the rules to be restrictive rather than flexible.

I would disagree with you on every point here.
Its not "wanting the rules to be restrictive rather than flexible" which makes the people who disagree with you sound petty or inflexible but instead its looking at what the rules have said and saying "this is what the rules say breaking the rules needs a better justification than 'I wanna' to be considered solid"

More to the point though we have examples of canonical shields in the game with actual enchantments. And they invariably have weapon enchantments not armor enchantments. Now I am not saying you can't let people put armor enchantments on a shield if you want... but the authors have always put weapon enchantments on them, but that doesn't make you "more flexible" than other people who "want to be restrictive" it just means that you have chosen to set aside the published material for what you feel works better at your table... Rule 0 is fine but people who don't use it the same way as you do are not making some error nor being inflexible.

I would also point out that magic is ALL ABOUT semantics. We see over and over again spells that explicitly state that they only work for certain uses and not others. Invisibility that fails if you are hostile being the classic example of this. Which would make the separation of the two kinds of enchantments make sense... given that we *are told flat out* that there are two kinds of enchantments and not just given a list it seems that this is yet another case of magic "knowing" what is a weapon or an armor and restricting what can be used based on that "knowledge"

[kiralon]

I tend to go by what's on the weapons pages in the book for what is and isn't a weapon, and if its not on those pages its generally an improvised weapon or a weapon that I have brought into the game.
Shields layout in the first ed book is similar to the weapon layout, except they are in the skill pages which makes me think shields were a bit of an afterthought or it was done for printing layout purposes. Second ed is the same but its just a blurb in the skills section under wp shield and seems that the weapons pages copy/paste missed the shields again.
Shields should be where the miscellaneous stuff is on the weapons page.


p.s. Losing invisibility with hostile actions is a d&d thing, palladiums invisibility specifically states you stay invisible in combat. (not that i do it the palladium way myself)

[ShadowLogan]

They are a weapon since they have a WP skill listing.

Just going to point out that there is a W.P. Armor skill in a couple places...

For the PFRPG game or for other Palladium games/settings?

Well technically Power Armor, which is a type of armor suit, has a pair of skills associated with it (I would not qualify it as WP, but one of them fills the same role essentially) but I don't think that is what is what was intended. There is an implication that M@A classes have a flat Skill Proficiency in Armor (M@A classes PF2E pg270 under Armor Restrictions) that only those classes have taken (and can take).

The only example of WP: Armor skill I know of is from TMNT & Other Strangeness (Revised, pg105-6), scratch that it's "W.P. Suit (Special - see below)". Now in terms of bonuses none are listed as far as I could see, but "The Shredder's Armor" is described later (AR, SDC, and an assortment of built-in blades). Though I have to admit, traditionally (In my Experience) the weapons on Shredder's Armor would be covered by his normal WPs, so I'm not sure the point of WP Suit.

Does W.P. Lasso mean I can enchant ropes?

You can enchant Ropes. While not from the Weapon listing, PF2E does have Cherubot Rope (pg257) and Thread of Iron (pg258 okay not technically a rope).

It is a matter of semantics then. As far as enhancement spells, it seems logical they would not as a rule be limited by whether or not something is a weapon or armor. If something can be enchanted, it s a matter of semantics as to what kinds of spells can be used. That is how I would rule it as a GM in a game. Others would limit it more, understandably, because of wanting the rules to be restrictive rather than flexible.

The reality is likely that you can put any type of enchantment from either list (PF2E pg249-50 and there are overlaps, perhaps even a 3rd list on pg253 for x# per day options) on any item, the real question is if it would make any sense? An Example would be would adding extra (magical) SDC or AR make any sense to weapon or Eternally Sharp to a blunt weapon (or armor). Or are there be unintended consequences? An example might be placing weight modification (precedent Weightless Spell) for armor on to a weapon (if the spell is any indication damage is reduced by 75%). And of course there is "balance"? Example putting the Weapon List's Indestructible on a suit of armor (while it might make sense it would be imbalance).

Now there are ways to get around some of this. You could have individual sections of armor enchanted, each with different functions if Dragon Bone Weapons (D&G231) options are anything to go by since you have two different helms, then you have the Gryphon Claws in the main book (technically a "fabric") and a Dragon Bone version, though I want to say I've seen an "armored version" of them somewhere (the only thing that comes up in a quick search would be the Rune Cat's Gauntlet (Rifts WB6 pg120).

p.s. Losing invisibility with hostile actions is a d&d thing, palladiums invisibility specifically states you stay invisible in combat. (not that i do it the palladium way myself)

Actually it would be more accurate to say Palladium's Invisibility varies by method:
-Invisibility: Simple. Yeah it outright states you can engage in combat (pg193 PF2E)
-Invisibility: Superior. No it outright states you CAN NOT engage in combat (pg291 PF2E)
-Invisible Haze (psionic). Nothing outright says they become invisible, but if you make a saving throw you will continue to see them (pg175 PF2E)
-Psionic Invisibility (Rifts). Similar to Invisible Haze, but again it states it can be broken by engaging in nothing more than violent thoughts (RUE pg181).

Now the Psionics are not true Invisibility, they are just telepathic suggestions that result in victims "editing" out the psychic, but the other two are magical and at odds with each other and your statement. Now I did not look up invisibility for creatures (and I know invisible enchanted items remain invisible), though I suspect there probably are going to be examples of both though I would not be surprised either if I found the few exceptions that exist.

And if we are invoking D&D, the old cartoon from the 80s had an enchanted hat, cloak, and shield all considered to be magic weapons (along with traditional weapons of javelin, bow, and club).

[kiralon]

To me a hat, book and even warded doors (or a magic book where i had players use to hurt a creature that could only be hurt by magic) are improvised weapons so wouldn't be able to get the weapon enchantments unless a character did a quest to find out for that one specific thing with some very rare components being needed.
The Lasso is a tricky case however, but as there are examples of rope without weapon enchantments that is probably the way i would go as it would get around the thread of iron costs.

p.s. Losing invisibility with hostile actions is a d&d thing, palladiums invisibility specifically states you stay invisible in combat. (not that i do it the palladium way myself)

Actually it would be more accurate to say Palladium's Invisibility varies by method:
-Invisibility: Simple. Yeah it outright states you can engage in combat (pg193 PF2E)
-Invisibility: Superior. No it outright states you CAN NOT engage in combat (pg291 PF2E)
-Invisible Haze (psionic). Nothing outright says they become invisible, but if you make a saving throw you will continue to see them (pg175 PF2E)
-Psionic Invisibility (Rifts). Similar to Invisible Haze, but again it states it can be broken by engaging in nothing more than violent thoughts (RUE pg181).

You are very correct, i missed superior but i would add to the list that ignore combat are first ed's wizard invisibility, sphere of of invisibility, warlock invisibility, psionic invisibility, and second ed's circle of invisibility and the ward of invisibility, vanishing cream and the cloak of invisibility. As the potion list is from first ed it doesn't mention whether the invisibility is lesser or greater but i would assume its the lesser version. Monsters tends to say say turn invisible as well so i'm guessing it's lesser but could be either, but bug bears specifically state there is no limitations on their invisibility so they can be invisible fighting or stay invisible all day, but as superior gives other bonuses they don't seem to get im guessing its lesser.

[The Dark Elf]

Weapon.

BUT, that shouldn't be the limitation of the enchantments. Allocate whatever you feel is relevant and there is definitely loads of armour features that I would allow in my games, as well as other enchamtents from rings etc.