Shield Bonus from Torch?

[Alokue]

Is it possible to use a torch as a shield? Get a shield bonus to AC from it? I don't want to spend a feat for something that's kindof flavor-cool. I like the idea of fighting with a torch, but I don't care if it increases my damage any, and I could use a shield...the DM seems opposed to reflavoring regular shields or letting me use it as a +1 shield, and told me to look here. Ideas?

[mattie_p]

Is it possible to use a torch as a shield? Get a shield bonus to AC from it? I don't want to spend a feat for something that's kindof flavor-cool. I like the idea of fighting with a torch, but I don't care if it increases my damage any, and I could use a shield...the DM seems opposed to reflavoring regular shields or letting me use it as a +1 shield, and told me to look here. Ideas?

So you want something that sheds light as a torch, you don't care if it does damage as a torch, and you want a shield bonus?

Have I got the spell for you: Continual flame (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/continualFlame.htm). Target: Your Shield.

EDIT: If you can't cast it yourself, pay an NPC spellcaster (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/goodsAndServices.htm#spell) 110 gp.

[Thorvaldr]

From just a torch? I don't think so... But you could strap your torch to buckler!

[BowStreetRunner]

The only thing I know of regarding fighting with a torch is the Weapon and Torch (http://dndtools.eu/feats/dungeonscape--63/weapon-and-torch--3101/) fighting style feat from Dungeonscape.

[Crasical]

Not really. You could get a mace or club with Continual Flame cast on it as your 'torch' and use it as a melee weapon without any real drawbacks, but there's not a heck of a lot coming to mind for using a torch-like object defensively.

[CaladanMoonblad]

Generally a shield bonus requires a shield.

Otherwise, you can use two feats to pick up TWF and Two Weapon Defense (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/feats.htm#twoWeaponDefense).

It is a classic scene, since Aragorn fights the Nazgul at Weathertop's summit in Fellowship.

The benefit of going for the feat, is that your off hand can be any light weapon (a torch is essentially a club) as your parrying weapon.

Alternatively, there's a feat in Dungeonscape (pg. 47) that allows for a special torch attack (1d6 fire, and 1d4 round dazzle), but there is no AC bonus.

Generally speaking though, you don't get something for nothing. Spend the feat, or find some way to spend the gold. But nothing in a game is ever free.

[HalfQuart]

If you wear a light shield or buckler you can just carry a torch in the same hand. IRL you'd probably light your hair/face on fire if you tried it, but it works fine in D&D. :-)

[Alokue]

Generally speaking though, you don't get something for nothing. Spend the feat, or find some way to spend the gold. But nothing in a game is ever free.

XD you act as if I asked for the moon...My character is capable of using shields but I don't want to use one thematically. I wouldn't really call going from a +2 to a +1 "something for nothing"...it'd be more like "nothing for nothing". I was looking for a way to spend the gold here, but it looks like no one found anything. Thanks anyway everyone.

[Spuddles]

If your DM is like Caladan and wants you to pay for something that sounds pretty cool, you could always get a MW torch, enchant it as a +1 (or more) defending weapon, and use that in your off hand. Proficiency won't matter if you don't attack with it.

[Spuddles]

Two other options involving gp:
Buy a ring of force shield for your torch hand
Install a wand chamber & wand of shield in your torch and just UMD out shield charges.

[Killer Angel]

But nothing in a game is ever free.

...unless you're a wizard and you start breaking economy with your spells.

[CaladanMoonblad]

XD you act as if I asked for the moon...My character is capable of using shields but I don't want to use one thematically. I wouldn't really call going from a +2 to a +1 "something for nothing"...it'd be more like "nothing for nothing". I was looking for a way to spend the gold here, but it looks like no one found anything. Thanks anyway everyone.

If a player came to me with this argument, I'd smile and say "Oh, +1 or +2 is nothing? Okay, then you won't mind a -1 to -2 AC penalty for thematic reasons." If there is any balking, then obviously, the player is a sophist.


If your DM is like Caladan and wants you to pay for something that sounds pretty cool, you could always get a MW torch, enchant it as a +1 (or more) defending weapon, and use that in your off hand. Proficiency won't matter if you don't attack with it.

If the character's theme is being a rich snob who only gets the best, then that would be fine to buy mahogany carved torches just to light on fire because the family is richer than Midas. As for the defending weapon idea, great! Just make sure to get continual flame otherwise its just a defending club (magical wood weapons do not catch on fire generally). As for proficiency... I think only Commoner may not be proficient with club (they only get 1 simple weapon proficiency)... even Wizard gets it.


...unless you're a wizard and you start breaking economy with your spells.

Which, still requires a spell expenditure. Summon Monster IV (Archon) is one of the earliest non-cheese spells to my knowledge,but a Fabricating wizard with craft ranks is perfectly acceptable... they just need to buy the raw materials and have a buyer for their wares. But they are still using up a spell slot per day... so no, not something for nothing.

[Roguenewb]

The combat feat from dungeonscape is really fun at really low levels. At level 1 say, you essentially get the flaming property for free, and a saveless debuff (which matters at level 1). Maybe useful in an E6 game or one where you never get particularly high level. Useless once your character has iterative attacks though.

[Psyren]

If you wear a light shield or buckler you can just carry a torch in the same hand. IRL you'd probably light your hair/face on fire if you tried it, but it works fine in D&D. :-)

This is your best bet without resorting to magic I'd say.

[Vaz]

Wall of Salt?

Wall of Iron + Adamantine Dagger?

Wall of Stone?

Spell expenditure is piffy compared to returns. Remember that guy who traded his was from the paperclip for the house? It's like that, without the trades in between.

[Kuulvheysoon]

Weapon and Torch+TWF+Two Weapon Defense feats?

Meh. I'd just let you have it as a +1 shield bonus, to be honest. I mean, you're using the least optimal fighting style anyways, so you deserve to be thrown a bone.

[CaladanMoonblad]

Wall of Salt?

Wall of Iron + Adamantine Dagger?

Wall of Stone?

Spell expenditure is piffy compared to returns. Remember that guy who traded his was from the paperclip for the house? It's like that, without the trades in between.

The cost of wall of stone, is 9 arcane casting levels to cast a 5th level spell, in addition to buying the spell book, and the spell (if the GM even allows you to buy it). Or 12 druid levels. Not to mention opportunity cost.

So if your definition that 9 or 12 levels is "nothing" then... you won't mind losing that many levels to your character sheet for nothing in return right?

[Vaz]

You've broken Wealth By Level for doing something you'd have done anyway as a Wizard.

"Break WBL" might as well be a 1st level class feature for them.

[HalfQuart]

Meh. I'd just let you have it as a +1 shield bonus, to be honest. I mean, you're using the least optimal fighting style anyways, so you deserve to be thrown a bone.
Actually, I would too. It's actually worse than a light shield because you can't use your hand for something else... Just make it functionally equivalent to a light shield as far as ASF and ACP, and then let the 4 lb weight difference balance out against the lack of ability to use the hand for anything else. Essentially you're just refluffing a shield into a torch for RP reasons... that sort of thing should be encouraged, really.

[Slipperychicken]

Do you get a Shield bonus from an improvised club?

[Starbuck_II]

Do you get a Shield bonus from an improvised club?

You do if you take 2 weapon defense. You don't even have to attack with second hand if you don't want to.

[awa]

take leadership at level 6 gain a minion with chicken infested and a spell component pouch pull infinite gold value trade goods literally out of thin air buy psychic reformation to undo the leadership feat.

something for nothing

although that does not matter becuase your entire argument that a character holding a torch with the same mechanical benefit as a shield is the same as a penalty is severely flawed logic.

one puts you at the norm the other puts you behind

[Augmental]

take leadership at level 6 gain a minion with chicken infested and a spell component pouch pull infinite gold value trade goods literally out of thin air buy psychic reformation to undo the leadership feat.

something for nothing

Well, you still need to take leadership in the first place. And you need to pay for the psychic reformation. And the commoner you attract with leadership may or may not stick around if you get rid of the Leadership feat.

[awa]

the feat costs nothing becuase you get it back. the psychic reformation effectively cost nothing becuase you payed for it with chickens.
the commoner leaves but you already have all the gold in the world.

[CaladanMoonblad]

take leadership at level 6 gain a minion with chicken infested and a spell component pouch pull infinite gold value trade goods literally out of thin air buy psychic reformation to undo the leadership feat.

something for nothing

although that does not matter becuase your entire argument that a character holding a torch with the same mechanical benefit as a shield is the same as a penalty is severely flawed logic.

one puts you at the norm the other puts you behind

Please explain how number theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_theory) is severely illogical.

[awa]

becuase it's irelevant

if ac 15 is average for the level a -2 that drops you to 13 affects the game differently then a +2 that brings it up to 15 or a +2 that brings it to 17.
saying they are the same suggest you don't understand how the game functions

The numbers only have meaning in context trying to pretend that all numbers mean the same thing regardless of context is flawed logic.

[Killer Angel]

Which, still requires a spell expenditure.

Frankly, to use one spell slot in exchange for good money, is a very negligible "cost". And out of adventure time (when you effectively break economy), that cost is basically zero.
No one else got a so advantageous ratio.

[Alokue]

If a player came to me with this argument, I'd smile and say "Oh, +1 or +2 is nothing? Okay, then you won't mind a -1 to -2 AC penalty for thematic reasons." If there is any balking, then obviously, the player is a sophist.

So uhmm. People have addressed that this is ridiculous, but not really why. I could just use a shield. Like, I could go in the PHB, pick out a shield, and use it. My character is a factotum, martial weapons and shields nbd. That would give me a +2 bonus. I'm trying to get at least a +1 bonus from the torch, and I don't even have to have a hand open. (Like people have said, refluffing would be my best bet.) So basically I'm asking for a -1 to Shield for flavor. So yea, if you want to give me random +1s for flavor that's fine (which is the logic you asked me to use.) But don't act like I'm asking for bonuses when I'm just trying to make something work thematically in a role playing game.


Just make sure to get continual flame otherwise its just a defending club (magical wood weapons do not catch on fire generally). As for proficiency... I think only Commoner may not be proficient with club (they only get 1 simple weapon proficiency)... even Wizard gets it.

Actually I'm pretty sure torches count for clubs...but obviously if you don't want it to burn out you have to get the spell cast on it or get the mundane everburning torch or whatever.

And everyone pretty much explained to you how Wizards with off-time get something for nothing over, and over, and over. You said that wouldn't be nothing, but, in that case, I'm perfectly fine spending some inspiration points on an off day getting this ability. Of course I had to train to be able to use a torch as a shield. If you didn't notice, flavor is what I'm going for here in the first place. -.-


No one else got a so advantageous ratio.

Well, except for artificers. But we won't talk about them.

Anyways, thanks to the people telling me that I can hold a torch and a light shield/buckler. That will probably do a world of good as far as my DM goes, though I'm very surprised that he wasn't just with those of you who said to refluff it (I even offered to spend two skillpoints for a skill trick! With like Knowledge(dungeoneering) or something!)

[Tengu_temp]

Actually, I would too. It's actually worse than a light shield because you can't use your hand for something else... Just make it functionally equivalent to a light shield as far as ASF and ACP, and then let the 4 lb weight difference balance out against the lack of ability to use the hand for anything else. Essentially you're just refluffing a shield into a torch for RP reasons... that sort of thing should be encouraged, really.

This. Creativity and reasonable refluffing should be encouraged, not stomped on while yelling "NEIN! DAS IST NICHT RULES AS VRITTEN!".

[Grayson01]

Fight With it in your off hand and take Two Weapon Fighting and Two Weapon Deff.

[Psyren]

This. Creativity and reasonable refluffing should be encouraged, not stomped on while yelling "NEIN! DAS IST NICHT RULES AS VRITTEN!".

I'm all for refluffing/homebrew but this sort of thing just opens up a can of worms. What if you're fighting a monster that is light sensitive? How about one that's blind? One that's fire resistant/immune? One that hates/fears fire? How about ranged attackers? Logically you'd need to come up with a different AC effect for each of these - it makes no sense that a torch would be as effective at fending off a minor devil as it is a drow. You would also need to consider what happens to his AC if the player attacks with the hand holding the torch.

There are some cases where straying off the RAW path creates unforeseen headaches and this could easily be one of them. I stand by the "buckler/light shield + torch" suggestion because it's easy to know what happens in that situation.

[awa]

mechanically you can hold a torch and wear a small shield at the same time with no penalty so just follow the rules for that except the shield is invisible. Anything more complicated then that is unnecessary. this can has no worms unless you add them.

there are spells that give you extra defense vie bright light, being scared of light or immune to being blinded don't affect the spell at all (by raw even if you have no eyes it still penalizes you i believe). D&d does not usually care about that kinda minutia.
If they are vulnerable to the light of a torch then that penalty stacks just like it would if you held a torch and shield.

[Ernir]

Everyone knows it's impossible to make defensive use of a piece of wood in your off-hand unless it's large and shield-shaped. Shields are a specific phenomenon, the skill of knowing how to defend yourself with a shield would not in any way translate to knowing how to defend yourself with an elongated implement. Any DM that allowed an off-hand weapon to benefit a character defensively clearly doesn't understand two-weapon combat, or how artfully it was implemented in 3.5.

[Cirrylius]

Ernir-Everyone knows it's impossible to make defensive use of a piece of wood in your off-hand unless it's large and shield-shaped. Shields are a specific phenomenon, the skill of knowing how to defend yourself with a shield would not in any way translate to knowing how to defend yourself with an elongated implement. Any DM that allowed an off-hand weapon to benefit a character defensively clearly doesn't understand two-weapon combat, or how artfully it was implemented in 3.5.

Fixed.:smallsmile:

[mattie_p]

So you want something that sheds light as a torch, you don't care if it does damage as a torch, and you want a shield bonus?

Have I got the spell for you: Continual flame (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/continualFlame.htm). Target: Your Shield.

EDIT: If you can't cast it yourself, pay an NPC spellcaster (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/goodsAndServices.htm#spell) 110 gp.

So I already posted this, but it was seemingly ignored by the OP. If you want the shield to do fire damage equal to a torch, add a Least Weapon Augment Crystal of Energy Assault (Fire) (From MIC p 64) for 600 to your shield. You now have a shield that does 1d3 damage +1 fire damage for a light shield, counts as a light weapon for TWF purposes, and sheds light as a torch. This is exactly equal to the damage a torch gives (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/goodsAndServices.htm#torch), can be further enchanted as a magical weapon to do additional damage later in the game, and costs a mere:

3gp (light wood shield) + 110 gp (continual flame spellcasting) + 600 gp (crystal) = 713 gp.

In fact, this option is far superior to actually fighting with a torch, as not only can the shield be enhanced as a weapon in its own right to be masterwork, magic enhancement bonus, or other enchantments, but it counts as a light weapon for TWF purposes, not a one-handed weapon as a torch does.

[Kuulvheysoon]

If you're going to full-on sword and board, you might as well use a Heavy Shield ad take Agile Shield Fighter.

[Psyren]

Ernir-Everyone knows it's impossible to make defensive use of a piece of wood in your off-hand unless it's large and shield-shaped. Shields are a specific phenomenon, the skill of knowing how to defend yourself with a shield would not in any way translate to knowing how to defend yourself with an elongated implement. Any DM that allowed an off-hand weapon to benefit a character defensively clearly doesn't understand two-weapon combat, or how artfully it was implemented in 3.5.

Fixed.:smallsmile:

Isn't "large and shield-shaped" the entire point of a shield? :smalltongue:

No matter how long a torch is, unless you are skinny enough to hide behind it, it's not much good vs. arrows - and that's before we get into the exposed fleshy target wrapped around its shaft rather than safely behind it.

[Abaddona]

Ekhm - one thing about wizards, there is a spell that will let you add +5 to your craft checks for 24 hours, also gray elf wizard may start with 20 inteligence, then you can charm local blacksmith so he will let you use his tools (and maybe also assist you) and take 10 on craft check - you get 24 on craft checks on first level without even taking ranks in skills.
In other words - with little effort and enough downtime you can start making masterwork weapons.
10 levels later you can summon materials from thin air and make said weapons with enormous speed.
You may say that this wizard invested 10 caster levels to get this, but this is sophistry - cause he didn't get those levels to make masterwork weapons, for him it's merely little side-effect, little addition to other powers he obtained so he has something nice to do when he is bored.
And it's really simple - in Players Handook we have katana - authors simply told us to refluff other weapon and take mechanics from this weapon. And for me - if even authors of the system are encouraging us to refluff their mechanics so it will be more fitting to our character concepts then it clearly shows that DMs should be very wary of limiting this.
For me - you should simply pay for the cost of shield with continual flame cast on it - your torch is simply made from harder materials than normal torch and you were trained in a specific combat style which lets you use those torch as a shield (you are not proficient with using normal shields but can block blows with torches).

[awa]

a buckler is smaller then a person yet it still grants an ac bonus so that argument is flawed

[CaladanMoonblad]

So uhmm. People have addressed that this is ridiculous, but not really why. I could just use a shield. Like, I could go in the PHB, pick out a shield, and use it. My character is a factotum, martial weapons and shields nbd. That would give me a +2 bonus. I'm trying to get at least a +1 bonus from the torch, and I don't even have to have a hand open. (Like people have said, refluffing would be my best bet.) So basically I'm asking for a -1 to Shield for flavor. So yea, if you want to give me random +1s for flavor that's fine (which is the logic you asked me to use.) But don't act like I'm asking for bonuses when I'm just trying to make something work thematically in a role playing game.

Negatory, some people have suggested that a spell slot = nothing, and ignore the huge startup cost to a wizard construction company utilizing various wall spells.

You seem to be mistaking opportunity cost of a shield with the benefits of a torch. See, this is one of the earliest tradeoffs in DnD, going back to the 1970s, and never, has the official rules allowed a torch to give an AC bonus without some cost (such as TWF and TWFDefense). Not once, in all of its revisions. Based on the OP, the GM in question shut the player down and suggested that the Playground may find a solution using in game rules for the retention of +1 AC with a torch.

The logic I asked you to employ, is basic number theory, which states that every whole integer is equidistant from the next two closest integers (with a value of 1). You were arguing that +1 approximates zero. This is demonstrably not true, but let's take your claim as valid for the moment. If the claim is valid, then equally, you should have no problem whatsoever taking a -1 to AC for the torch (perhaps due to glare from a bright light source). If you were unwilling to accept the penalty, why would a GM accept the bonus based upon the preposition that 1~0?

Apparently, the GM in question was not willing to give an extra +5% to the character's chance of eluding attacks while also gaining the benefit of an illumination source coupled with setting things on fire with a simple move action for the price of 1 cp (the Tindertwig lets you do so for 1 gp and a standard action). Alternatively, were I your GM, and you wanted the +1 AC from a torch, I would ask for something equivalent... like a -1 penalty to attack (you know, due to the bright light and heat). Something for Something- that's how negotiations work. Something for nothing is panhandling.




Actually I'm pretty sure torches count for clubs...but obviously if you don't want it to burn out you have to get the spell cast on it or get the mundane everburning torch or whatever.


I've never said otherwise. If you don't use a shield, then the 8110 gp cost for a +1 defending continual flame torch is your best bet. If you can stomach a shield, then go buckler or light shield. It's certainly more cost effective. But this will also not allow you to set things alight. See? There's give to just about every choice- the truism still remains.



And everyone pretty much explained to you how Wizards with off-time get something for nothing over, and over, and over.


So a bandwagon fallacy and a repetition fallacy is persuasive to you. Interesting. So... the phrase "startup cost" means nothing to you?



You said that wouldn't be nothing, but, in that case, I'm perfectly fine spending some inspiration points on an off day getting this ability. Of course I had to train to be able to use a torch as a shield. If you didn't notice, flavor is what I'm going for here in the first place. -.-


Now that I know what your class is (ie, more context), and you're willing to spend the Inspiration points, you might as well just use the Shield (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/shield.htm) spell for the +4 AC bonus. But this option doesn't give you 1 hr of burn time like a torch, but rather 10 min per level. See? Something for something. Trade-offs- it's how games work.


mechanically you can hold a torch and wear a small shield at the same time with no penalty so just follow the rules for that except the shield is invisible. Anything more complicated then that is unnecessary. this can has no worms unless you add them.

there are spells that give you extra defense vie bright light, being scared of light or immune to being blinded don't affect the spell at all (by raw even if you have no eyes it still penalizes you i believe). D&d does not usually care about that kinda minutia.
If they are vulnerable to the light of a torch then that penalty stacks just like it would if you held a torch and shield.

Well, having a lit torch gives a character the ability to dazzle orcs, goblins, kobolds, and anything else that has light sensitivity.

As for having no eyes but still being penalized for bright light spells... check out the 0 level cantrip "Flare (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/flare.htm)" sometime. Or Daylight (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/daylight.htm).

Your previous "suggestion" (page 1) that I don't know the game was insulting to say the least.

Anthropomorphizing the game (as you did) is patently absurd. D&D has no cares. It's an agreed upon set of rules of conduct for negotiating a story between a storyteller and players. The designers of the SRD apparently did care enough to cite in RAW that bright light effects require a visual sensor for potential victims.


a buckler is smaller then a person yet it still grants an ac bonus so that argument is flawed
Except the buckler has historical precedence as a defensive (and offensive) object. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/52/38-svaghi%2C_lotta%2CTaccuino_Sanitatis%2C_Casanatens e_4182..jpg/543px-38-svaghi%2C_lotta%2CTaccuino_Sanitatis%2C_Casanatens e_4182..jpg Parrying with a torch is already taken care of in the TWFDefensive feat.

[Abaddona]

Also dastana - it's essentialy a bracer but also grants bonus. Or fencing - when you block your opponents attack using your own weapon.

Wait a moment - you're now kinda assuming that Alokue wants to use torch to block attacks and set things on fire at the same time, when he only said that he wants torch-shield for flavor reasons. So it's simple tradeoff - his shield looks like torch, gives light as any object with continual flame cast upon it, weights as much as shield and essentialy behaves mechanicaly in almost any way as a shield (well, you can possibly use it to block line of effect for your gnome wizard friend, and probably cannot use this as a oar in the middle of sea, so actually it's mechanically inferior now) but looks like a torch. So what exactly is so much gamebreaking with it so you absolutely won't let him do this?

Oh - and one more thing - if I take ranks in knowledge (engineering) and craft (shields and armor) will I be able to invent a shield with handle to put torch in it (much like armor spikes... actually logically you should be capable of putting both torch and spikes) so i will be able to both parry blocks and set things on fire at the same time? I now wonder how high DC would that be :-)

[Psyren]

a buckler is smaller then a person yet it still grants an ac bonus so that argument is flawed

But even a buckler is not smaller than the appendage holding it, and it covers other things besides that appendage. In short it is a net gain in terms of coverage. A shaft of wood is not.

[Abaddona]

Except that torch can be reinforced with iron and then it can be used to block vertical or horizontal blows - much like this buckler because i'm pretty sure that mechanicaly this +1 to AC is rather represented by trying to intercept blow with it than hoping that this blow will hit inaminate wooden* object you're holding in front of you.

* touche, shields also can be made of wood and AFAIR only mechanical difference is that wooden shields are easier to sunder and you must use different spells to interact with them :-)

[awa]

salt is a trade good by raw it is money. wall of salt makes a wall of money no construction company just a wizard wiggling his fingers and casting create money right there in the shop. A wizard has caster levels already he has them becuase he is a wizard. he is getting something for nothing

just becuase flare works that way does not mean all spells do so that argument is invalid.

a character can hold a torch an a shield at the same time in one hand with no penalties asking to for fluff reasons say the shield and torch are a single object that looks like a torch is not a mechanical advantage it is a net sum modification of 0.

the fact that you keep obsessing over number theory in a situation it does not apply to does not change that.

id have more to say but i am sufficiently annoyed that i suspect it would impact any further statements i made combined with the fact that i would just be repeating what i and other people have already said for the most part and which you did not bother to read the first time would likely not change anything.

[CaladanMoonblad]

salt is a trade good by raw it is money. wall of salt makes a wall of money no construction company just a wizard wiggling his fingers and casting create money right there in the shop. A wizard has caster levels already he has them becuase he is a wizard. he is getting something for nothing

just becuase flare works that way does not mean all spells do so that argument is invalid.

a character can hold a torch an a shield at the same time in one hand with no penalties asking to for fluff reasons say the shield and torch are a single object that looks like a torch is not a mechanical advantage it is a net sum modification of 0.

the fact that you keep obsessing over number theory in a situation it does not apply to does not change that.

id have more to say but i am sufficiently annoyed that i suspect it would impact any further statements i made combined with the fact that i would just be repeating what i and other people have already said for the most part and which you did not bother to read the first time would likely not change anything.

I'm pretty much done with this thread, but I'll meet your last points.

Regarding Wall of Salt and Wizard. One of these comes from the SRD, one of these comes from Sandstorm. Claiming that a class is one way, because of additional material outside of Core, is not valid. Every supplement with additional spells has the potential to change any class (usually by increasing its capacity), provided a GM allows the supplementary material. I've known about Wall of Salt for a while, so it doesn't exist in my games, nor should it exist in any GM's game who cares about get quick rich schemes. However, even in this instance, the Cleric/Druid/Sorcerer/Wizard (who has invested at least 7 levels into such spellcasting classes- ie, startup costs) still has to use a material component of a rock crystal. A GM is well within their rights to give the dimensions for that crystal if they were foolish enough to allow it in the first place. Or even to rule the salt is not commercial grade, and requires refining.... because that's what happens with commercial salt production (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salt_mining).

The reason salt is so expensive in a DnD world, is because it was hard and dangerous work to mine salt. If a GM allows Wall of Salt in their world, suddenly the price of salt is next to nothing... because other casters are using this method of salt production and salt mining becomes a thing of the past. So no... not something for nothing. There are logical consequences to supplementary material. Wise GMs have no problem dealing schemes such as this. See, the price of salt is SRD, and not in Sandstorm.

Number theory obsession? It's one of the core building blocks of mathematics, something that people learn with their number system. This is so basic I'm surprised you're still arguing against the truism of ("1" not equaling "0"). It's fundamental logic... Now, you and the OP may not value a torch's benefits (illumination, starting things on fire), but many GMs do think of these things as valuable (including the game's designers), which makes the torch vs shield the original tradeoff in DnD.

[Lateral]

Honestly, Alokue? Instead of worrying about this, at this point I'd say you should probably just ask RFLS about it.

[Abaddona]

Except that - as other people many times noted - if you are using light shield you can also carry other items in that hand and I dare to assume that torch can be described as "other item". Of course you cannot carry weapons in shield hand, but you can use shield as a weapon. You can also use carried torch to light objects on fire - but doing so will probably result in losing your shield bonus to AC till the start of next round (as if using shield to attack). So what exactly player will gain if you let him reflavor his torch that way? Is that 1 point of fire damage so terribly game breaking so he must pay 8k gold for magical items to do what he want (or two feats)?

[Knaight]

So... the phrase "startup cost" means nothing to you?
"Startup cost" would describe an initial investment for the purpose of achieving the relevant goal. What it would not describe is the existence of a necessary process that was going to happen anyways because of the absurd amount of other things it does, which as a minor side benefit also happens to provide the benefit being discussed.