|
It's clearly intended to negate all precision damage, which like sneak attack, relies on a clear perception of your target.
That's not mechanically clear at all. Heck, I'm not even sure it's thematically clear, with something like Studied Combat doing extra damage because you know how they fight, not because you know where to hit them.
Could it be that way? Sure. Is it? We don't know, FAQ to find out! :)
|
|
Hey Monty, what's the difference between a First Edition DM, and a Pathfinder GM?
An AD+D GM wasn't afraid of making a ruling right then and there when it was needed. A Pathfinder GM wouldn't let his NPC's tie their sneakers until they got a FAQ response on the method."\
Oh, I've made my ruling already (I don't subject even Sneak Attack to that particular penalty), but that's a House Rule and I'm interested in what the official ones are...and I'm also tired of having internet arguments about this in Swashbuckler threads.
Yeah, since I got a GM who almost always rules against player interest, a clear ruling on this would be highly appreciated. Not that I'd expect the developers to find the time for this before GenCon and then maybe only two years afterwards at their current pace. :-/
|
Deadman, you were saying Precise Strike was one "more" of those "exceptions" that was not subject to the "can't attack into concealment" idea. I showed you that at least for total concealment it was 100% subject to the "can't attack into concealment" thus ending your argument that it was an exception to the rule.
In fact, I think I evidenced that any time someone uses a "flanking feat/precision damage feat" they can't apply precision damage to someone with "total concealment." Now... for partial concealment... there is no clear answer. I agree. But it does follow that if it works for total... and it is a damage type...
|
|
Deadman, you were saying Precise Strike was one "more" of those "exceptions" that was not subject to the "can't attack into concealment" idea. I showed you that at least for total concealment it was 100% subject to the "can't attack into concealment" thus ending your argument that it was an exception to the rule.
We're talking about two entirely different rules.
In fact, I think I evidenced that any time someone uses a "flanking feat/precision damage feat" they can't apply precision damage to someone with "total concealment."
Yes, but it's the flanking requirement that makes the total concealment work to stop it, not the precision damage. And it's precision damage and how it works that we're discussing here, not how flanking functions.
Now... for partial concealment... there is no clear answer. I agree. But it does follow that if it works for total... and it is a damage type...
Again, the evidence you're talking about has nothing to do with the question at hand.
|
|
Deadman, I already pointed out that concealment doesn't mention stopping precision damage. I agreed. 100%. It doesn't mention this. I am pointing out the other rules because THEY stop the precision damage. You claimed that that skill meant you get precision damage on people with concealment. I countered, correctly, that for total concealment, NOPERS. I don't give a darn to argue that which I have already agreed upon. Concealment "itself" doesn't stop precision damage. But Because of concealment, precision damage from that feat is stopped, because you can't flank which you can't attack. So that feat is not a "loophole feat" as you pointed out. Except MAYBE for partial concealment. And that is only if you ignore all these other rules which play a part in making sure nobody gets precision damage into concealment (simply because, as we both agree, the rules don't say it does for partial concealment).
It does so because you can't flank into total concealment, not because of "flanking" - because of the condition of total concealment which doesn't allow flanking, ergo, again, it is a condition of total concealment. I don't really care how you get there in the end, flanking, in the wrong square, roll under 50%, whatever... total concealment is what is blocking the damage.
|
|
Deadman, I already pointed out that concealment doesn't mention stopping precision damage. I agreed. 100%. It doesn't mention this. I am pointing out the other rules because THEY stop the precision damage. You claimed that that skill meant you get precision damage on people with concealment. I countered, correctly, that for total concealment, NOPERS. I don't give a darn to argue that which I have already agreed upon. Concealment "itself" doesn't stop precision damage. But Because of concealment, precision damage from that feat is stopped, because you can't flank which you can't attack. So that feat is not a "loophole feat" as you pointed out. Except MAYBE for partial concealment. And that is only if you ignore all these other rules which play a part in making sure nobody gets precision damage into concealment (simply because, as we both agree, the rules don't say it does for partial concealment).
It's not a 'loophole Feat' but it is one without any language whatsoever in the Feat dealing with concealment. Which was the only thing I was saying about it (you said more had such language than didn't, I was disagreeing and using it as evidence of that not being true).
It does so because you can't flank into total concealment, not because of "flanking" - because of the condition of total concealment which doesn't allow flanking, ergo, again, it is a condition of total concealment. I don't really care how you get there in the end, flanking, in the wrong square, roll under 50%, whatever... total concealment is what is blocking the damage.
Dude. If we're talking about the rules on the Courageous weapon property and how it works, you can't just randomly bring up that Androids aren't effected by it and act like that's a big deal and evidence of how it works in general. The fact you cite is true, but it's due to an intervening factor (Androids immunity to morale effects) and not relevant to the rules question being discussed. It's a separate rule entirely that has very little to do with the discussion. Ditto this one. Yes, creatures with total concealment are immune to the Precise Strike Feat...but that'd be true if it did fire damage or normal damage, too, since it's based on the Feat needing Flanking to work, not anything remotely to do with precision damage.
There's a lot of begging the question going on here. The arguments seem to revolve around the idea that anything in a class behaves identically. Except that's not what is meant by "similar things behave similarly"; that's taking the philosophy to an extreme. Things within a class can still have specific qualities not shared by other things in that class; otherwise, they aren't really different things at all, and you might as well collapse the class into one thing. Whether that's a good idea is another discussion, but sneak attack has qualities that differentiate it from other precision damage, and one of those qualities is that it is negated by, among other things, concealment.
Speaking of begging the question ...
The whole discussion here is whether the negated by concealment thing is uniform to all of precision damage or not. So ...
And aside from that, I'm not sure which questions you think I'm begging.
Shadow Strike is not the appropriate place to infer such a far-reaching rule consequence, in any event. It's a single frat that isn't even in the Core Rulebook. The supposed inference is debatable and too weak to draw any general conclusions from it.
And yet the thing that gives rise to this question is a rules entry that is also not in the Core Rulebook. At least the Advanced Players Guide has been on the shelves for a while. Saying a feat from an already existent book isn't valid evidence is a little suspect. It's not like it's 3PP. It's not some splat book or old 3.5 holdover. It's from the frickin' Advanced Players Guide. The second major rules book published by Paizo.
And let's also back up and review the claims I actually made.
My position: Concealment negates all precision damage
Support 1: Like things are generally treated the same. Note that this isn't referencing a particular ability which grants precision damage. I'm speaking specifically to the damage type itself. The question is whether there is a uniform concept of precision damage at all. That a particular damage type should be de facto be treated uniformly isn't some grandiose assumption. It doesn't necessarily have to be true, but it is a perfectly valid position to argue from.
Support 2: Shadow Strike, a feat from a major published Paizo rulebook, explicitly allows one to use precision damage against foes with concealment. It does not restrict its application to Sneak Attack or any other specific instance of precision damage. It references all precision damage.
By the way, the inference I'm drawing from the existence of Shadow Strike is not "supposed". It is absolutely and unequivocally valid. It may not ultimately be correct if a FAQ or errata comes down and the PDT decides otherwise, and that is certainly fine. It may not be determinative or absolutely persuasive to everybody. That is also equally fine. But it is undoubtedly a legitimate and valid conclusion to draw from the rules on the page. It is not an assumption I am making. It is not me theorycrafting and pulling conclusions from thin air. The conclusion I have drawn from the existence of the Shadow Strike feat is perfectly reasonable and logical. That you may not find it persuasive is a different question. There is a distinct difference between not having evidence and deciding that the evidence is insufficient for your purposes.
If you are not convinced by the existence of Shadow Strike, that's certainly fine. But you don't get to ignore it. My first post wasn't "Concealment absolutely, positively negates all precision damage and there is no question about this." My first post was "The existence of the Shadow Strike feat tends to demonstrate that concealment negates precision damage". <-- That is a 100% factually accurate and logical conclusion. I've simply been arguing against the push back that, essentially, there is no logical way to derive this conclusion from "an ambiguous line" from one "non-corebook feat".
So, unless and until further clarification is released, my opinion is that it is best to treat concealment as negating precision damage (and all of it) because there is at least some evidence to support that position. The only other position we have that has been espoused is that concealment only negates some kind of precision damage because we can't be sure because nothing specific is ever stated in the rules. That's hardly evidence.
Absent a contrary statement from the Developers, the far more sensible position (in my opinion) is to follow the inference drawn from the existence of valid rules in legitimate rulebooks. YMMV, expect table variation.
I am looking for a description of Precision Damage, and not just a form of Precision Damage.
I am currently finding no such description.
Yep. That would be a rather useful FAQ/Errata request, I think. You should get on that, bbt!
|
Yep. That would be a rather useful FAQ/Errata request, I think. You should get on that, bbt!I am looking for a description of Precision Damage, and not just a form of Precision Damage.
I am currently finding no such description.
My point, was that there seems to be a general reference to precision damage, and how it works, in just about every description of an ability that does precision damage, as if there was a core description of how precision damage generally works.
So, this is odd, that so often something would be referenced, if it does not truly exist.
I was a bit surprised.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In my opinion, it should be written differently. Unless there's a clear rule as to what precision damage as a base is, the wording as it is would cause more confusion than it would resolve.
Or hell, they could have just included a "Normal" line to clean it up. That would work even without an actual entry for precision damage.
Normal: Concealment negates precision damage.
Or
Normal: Concealment negates some types of precision damage.
|
|
"Shadow Strike (Combat)
You accurately strike even those you cannot clearly see.
Prerequisite: Base attack bonus +1.
Benefit: You can deal precision damage, such as sneak attack damage, against targets with concealment (but not total concealment)."
The general things we can draw from this is:
1) precision damage is a type, with items SUCH AS sneak attack damage, as well as other kinds of precision damage.
2) Normally, precision damage could not be used against targets with concealment (that is, partial concealment).
3) Precision damage still can't be used against total concealment. (verified in previous posts, as you can't attack a target with total concealment, only their square, so this is universally true of all precision damage * sans BF+IBF+GBF+SS knocking all concealment down to partial)
Just because they didn't write the "Normal: Concealment negates precision damage" doesn't mean we can't logically infer that a feat that allows the opposite upholds the general rule also, without this footnote. (and remember: feats are made to break the laws of physics/reality/regular rules of life in Pathfinder).
I think it would be quite logical and acceptable to presume that concealment does block "precision damage" - regardless of feat as its source - unless you have Shadow Strike. Particularly, none of those other feats state the same thing as Shadow Strike (while they do exclude any mention of concealment, they don't say you CAN deal the damage into it).
I'd like to get precision damage better defined too. I had a swashbuckler in a game this weekend in pfs, and this exact issue came up. Based on my data i had ruled that precision was blocked from concealment just like sa was. I still think that was the right call but getting this clarified would be nice.
|
|
@maouse:
#2 and #3 do not follow logically (especially #3...there's nothing saying targeting a square negates any damage, concealment does but it's not because it makes you target a square).
And logical inference based on a specific Feat when other segments of the rules can be used to logically infer the opposite (see above for my argument regarding studied Combat and Studied Strike, for example) is a shaky basis for a rules call.
You're right that the Feat seems to imply that that's the way precision damage works...but it was put out before there was basically any precision damage except Sneak Attack, which might've skewed things quite a bit, and several more recent things imply the opposite.
|
I'd like to get precision damage better defined too. I had a swashbuckler in a game this weekend in pfs, and this exact issue came up. Based on my data i had ruled that precision was blocked from concealment just like sa was. I still think that was the right call but getting this clarified would be nice.
()*)#$)#*$$ uncritable )#($*#$)(*#$ chinchilias #$)(#(*$8i
|
|
I'd like to get precision damage better defined too. I had a swashbuckler in a game this weekend in pfs, and this exact issue came up. Based on my data i had ruled that precision was blocked from concealment just like sa was. I still think that was the right call but getting this clarified would be nice.()*)#$)#*$$ uncritable )#($*#$)(*#$ chinchilias #$)(#(*$8i
I...have no idea what was just said there. Let's hope getting this FAQ'd helps avoid such frustration in future.
FAQ for an official answer, folks!
|
|
Bump once more. I'm gonna keep doing this once or twice a day most days until we get an official answer.
So FAQ this for that official answer folks!
If only to shut me up...;)
Please don't poke the devs. they're busy with con season.
I was the swashbuckler above. Just venting humerously about the dungeon where everything was immune to damage one way or another. Swashbucklers are kind of marginal on damage as it is, having everything under the sun ignore half of it is just painful.
Which says more about the ability of the devs to respond to FAQ's than this particular topic.
|
|
Oh, I'm not unwilling to wait. I'm perfectly content to wait months. Heck, I'd be vaguely surprised if this gets FAQ'd much before the ACG comes out.
But...I think this is a rather essential topic to have a FAQ on, and at the moment this is the only thread asking for such, so I'd like to have a pretty significant number of FAQ Requests on it by the time they do get around to looking at it...and that necessitates people seeing it to do so. Hence bumping.
Please don't poke the devs. they're busy with con season.
The intent is not to do this. The intent is for when they stop being busy this thread to have 100 or so FAQ requests, or something like that, and to thus be a priority.
I was the swashbuckler above. Just venting humerously about the dungeon where everything was immune to damage one way or another. Swashbucklers are kind of marginal on damage as it is, having everything under the sun ignore half of it is just painful.
Yeah...I got that it was something like that.
Please don't bump threads.
It makes Chris Lambertz very upset.
Citation? I admit I don't bump things very often, so I haven't seen this come up. If it's that bothersome to bump once a day or so I'll cut it out.
And this question is no more important than the myriad other FAQs that are pending.
I'd say it is. It's rather fundamental to the main offensive feature of an entire Class (the Swashbuckler). Most pending FAQs can't say that.
I'm going to have to echo the sentiment that concealment does not necessarily negate all forms of precision damage.
There's multiple things that cause precision damage, and they vary on whether they say concealment negates them. I'm inclined to just look at the ability and see what it says it does or does not do, instead of making assumptions based on how other, vaguely similar abilities work. Does it say it's negated by concealment? Then it is. Does it not say that? Then it isn't.
Because there's no actual definition for precision damage, we have to look at each appearance of precision damage separately until such a time that it is fully defined.
And, as for the Shadow Strike discussion, it wouldn't be the first time that a feat was printed in the rulebook line that didn't actually do anything. ;P
|
|
And, as for the Shadow Strike discussion, it wouldn't be the first time that a feat was printed in the rulebook line that didn't actually do anything. ;P
That's the thing, though. Even with the 'precision damage isn't inherently stopped by concealment' interpretation, it actually does do something. Something quite useful for Rogues, and now applicable for Investigators.
|
|
Oh, I'm not unwilling to wait. I'm perfectly content to wait months. Heck, I'd be vaguely surprised if this gets FAQ'd much before the ACG comes out.Get willing to wait years, because there are debated often things from 2009 still unanswered with 50-100 FAQ clicks.
Ah, but there's a new Paizo employee who seems inclined to make FAQs a priority.
And besides, I'm an optimist. :)
Still expecting a wait, but hopefully not that long of one. Especially since this seems a really quick thing to answer (there are only two interpretations, both are pretty clear-cut...we're not talking a "How does Simulacrum work?" kinda question here).
Please don't bump threads.
It makes Chris Lambertz very upset.
Why is that?
Why is that?Please don't bump threads.
It makes Chris Lambertz very upset.
Because if everybody bumped their own FAQ threads 2-3 times a day like was suggested, the first page would constantly be full of old, dead threads that have no purpose other than wishful hoping for more FAQ clicks. Same thing would happen, even if it's just once a day. That leaves little to no room for new questions that people need help with or that might stir up more conversation. They'd quickly get buried by a mountain "*bump* Click FAQ, please!" in otherwise dead threads.
If there's no new conversation happening, there's really no need to bump the thread. The FAQ question is already in the queue. I think it's a good idea to bump a question maybe once every couple of months or so, or if the question starts recurring again. But more than that really is unnecessary.
|
|
Why is that?Please don't bump threads.
It makes Chris Lambertz very upset.
Because if everybody bumped their own FAQ threads 2-3 times a day like was suggested, the first page would constantly be full of old, dead threads that have no purpose other than wishful hoping for more FAQ clicks. Same thing would happen, even if it's just once a day. That leaves little to no room for new questions that people need help with or that might stir up more conversation. They'd quickly get buried by a mountain "*bump* Click FAQ, please!" in otherwise dead threads.
If there's no new conversation happening, there's really no need to bump the thread. The FAQ question is already in the queue. I think it's a good idea to bump a question maybe once every couple of months or so, or if the question starts recurring again. But more than that really is unnecessary.
This is plausible. Where does a Paizo staffer mention it? I'm serious, I'll totally not do that if someone's said not to.
I'm one of the posters who originally pointed out that (in my opinion) Precision Damage doesn't work on targets with concealment unless you have Shadow Strike. I won't go into the reasons why I think so since the thread seems to have been debating it for some time already, so I'll just add my own FAQ note.
I can think of at least two new classes who rely heavily on Precision damage and odds are they'll be very frequently played in PFS for the first months after the ACG is released. If the FAQ team could have this settled before the release date of the Advanced Class Guide in August they would save the Society community a giant headache.
IE this is a FAQ that would really benefit from "skipping the FAQ queue", if that's possible.
|
|
That's your own personal bias speaking, though.
Everyone thinks their FAQ is more important than the next, and can rationalize why it ought to be answered before another. You can come up with any reason, or 6, or 42, but it won't matter to the next person (like yourself) that thinks their question is of higher priority, and has their own 42 reasons as to why.
The best practice is to have a discussion and click the FAQ button.
There are several FAQs pending, and many of them with more hits than this. One has over 300, and is only a few months old. Some FAQs get answered after only 10 hits. Some after years. Let the Design Team do their job, sort through them all, and use these discussions as a guide to see which questions are truly more important.
|
|
That's your own personal bias speaking, though.
Everyone thinks their FAQ is more important than the next, and can rationalize why it ought to be answered before another. You can come up with any reason, or 6, or 42, but it won't matter to the next person (like yourself) that thinks their question is of higher priority, and has their own 42 reasons as to why.
The best practice is to have a discussion and click the FAQ button.
There are several FAQs pending, and many of them with more hits than this. One has over 300, and is only a few months old. Some FAQs get answered after only 10 hits. Some after years. Let the Design Team do their job, sort through them all, and use these discussions as a guide to see which questions are truly more important.
Well, I'm obviously not objective in the sense that no one is...but I think that something that effects the basic functionality of two entire classes should be a higher priority than most other FAQ topics. Probably not all of them, but most. That seems like an objectively correct position on the basis that it will simply effect more people than most other topics.
And it's not like I'm going and posting bunches about that in every thread there is or sending PMs to the devs or anything...I'm pretty much just posting here and suggesting people FAQ this topic. So I'm a little unclear on why you're upset or what you're demanding I do differently. And starting to get a bit annoyed with your tone.
|
|
can someone give me a TL:DR synopsis of this thread, please?
Honestly? Read the first post. The rest is that 'inevitable discussion' I mention in it.
TL;DR: Concealment negates Precision Damage, like a Swashbuckler's everything, or a Rogue's Sneak Attack, based on the wording of the Shadow Strike feat.
Others disagree, since there is no "Normal" line in the Shadow Strike feat that states that is normally the case.
Yeah, because that's a totally unbiased summary of the thread. *eyeroll*
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
TL;DR: Concealment negates Precision Damage, like a Swashbuckler's everything, or a Rogue's Sneak Attack, based on the wording of the Shadow Strike feat.
Others disagree, since there is no "Normal" line in the Shadow Strike feat that states that is normally the case.
+1
@ Deadmanwalking
There are FAQ with more clicks, that have been open longer, without answers. Don't presume because this is important to you that it is important to most. As far as I can tell, the PDT only seem to answer the FAQ that seem to have broad appeal to players. They leave all the corner cases especially ones involving a few niche classes alone.
|
|
Yeah, because that's a totally unbiased summary of the thread. *eyeroll*TL;DR: Concealment negates Precision Damage, like a Swashbuckler's everything, or a Rogue's Sneak Attack, based on the wording of the Shadow Strike feat.
Others disagree, since there is no "Normal" line in the Shadow Strike feat that states that is normally the case.
Exactly what position can you infer me taking with this comment?
I stated the two overarching arguments, in as "TL;DR" as possible, as the poster above me requested.
|
|
There are FAQ with more clicks, that have been open longer, without answers. Don't presume because this is important to you that it is important to most.
You want to know the funny thing? On a practical level, this couldn't be less important to me. I'm not playing a Swashbuckler or Investigator, and not likely to for quite a while...and even if I did, I'm the group's rules guy and could almost certainly get the GM to go with my interpretation.
This is important because it's one fifth of a new book's classes that are effected. And being new, I'd expect those classes to be pretty common (maybe as much as a third of characters in PFS or something like it)...and that means that this issue is likely to effect something like 5-6% of players on a regular, possibly per session, basis. That's...quite a lot of people, there.
As far as I can tell, the PDT only seem to answer the FAQ that seem to have broad appeal to players. They leave all the corner cases especially ones involving a few niche classes alone.
Core classes =/= niche classes. And one in twenty people dealing with this every other session is a hell of lot broader appeal than most FAQs that get answered.
Also...a lot of this advice (not all, but a lot) is how it won't happen. What use is that? 'Oh you'll never achieve anything.' is basically never actually useful advice.
|
|
Sorry, perhaps I should have added one more word to my post earlier.
Everyone objectively thinks their FAQ is more important than the next
Yeah...but the thing about objective reality is that some of them are right. The fact that everyone thinks they're right does not, in fact, mean that all of them are equally delusional...some of them are, in fact, right.
Yeah, because that's a totally unbiased summary of the thread. *eyeroll*TL;DR: Concealment negates Precision Damage, like a Swashbuckler's everything, or a Rogue's Sneak Attack, based on the wording of the Shadow Strike feat.
Others disagree, since there is no "Normal" line in the Shadow Strike feat that states that is normally the case.
Exactly what position can you infer me taking with this comment?
I stated the two overarching arguments, in as "TL;DR" as possible, as the poster above me requested.
You state your position as right and then note that 'some disagree' without stating their position, just one of their arguments against yours...and this in a thread with about equal numbers debating both sides. That's one of the most biased summaries I've ever seen in my life.