Morningstar question


Rules Questions

51 to 100 of 125 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
CBDunkerson wrote:
Avoron wrote:
The problem is that you're attempting to treat [bludgeoning damage] and [piercing damage] as though they're separate quantities, both of which are dealt by a morningstar. But that's not the case - if it were, morningstars would deal twice as much damage as any other weapon, equal parts bludgeoning and piercing.

No, I'm not.

I'm treating the morningstar as dealing damage which is both bludgeoning and piercing... except when DR or other factors block some portion of that damage. A monster which has DR that blocks all piercing damage does not take piercing damage from a morningstar... only bludgeoning. By the logic YOU present, since the piercing damage was reduced to zero by DR the bludgeoning damage would have to be as well ("damage is reduced ... in its entirety"). Yet that clearly is NOT how it works.

Think of the silvered property as one point of damage reduction on piercing damage, only inherent to the weapon itself.

Or compare it to effects which make spell damage both 'holy' (or unholy) and fire... fire immunity does not reduce the damage to zero because it does not protect against the other component. Similarly, the reduction to piercing does not reduce the bludgeoning component.

Even setting aside the rules inconsistencies (i.e. inconsistent with how DR is handled, inconsistent with the damage being BOTH bludgeoning & piercing) with the approach you suggest... it also just doesn't make any 'real world' sense. Silvered piercing weapons do less damage because silver isn't a strong metal that can hold sharp points for penetrating objects. Yet it is just fine for crushing things via bludgeoning damage. Thus, the crushing action of a silvered morningstar would be every bit as effective as a non-silvered morningstar... NOT reduced by one point as you would have it.

There are no inconsistencies, as long as you view it as one pool of damage with multiple properties.

DR/bludgeoning reduces the weapon's damage unless it has the property [bludgeoning]. Damage from a morningstar has the properties [bludgeoning] and [piercing], so it is not reduced.

Alchemical silver weapons deal less damage if they have the property [piercing]. Damage from a morningstar has the properties [bludgeoning] and [piercing], so it is reduced.

Your reference to spells like flame strike is misleading, as such spells specifically state that half of their damage has one property and half has another. You'd be better off comparing it to something like frostbite, where anything that reduces damage with the [nonlethal] property or anything that reduces damage with the [cold] property will reduce the damage in its entirety.

Finally, your "real-world sense," aside from being irrelevant to the mechanics, only follows if you think that the entire quantity of a morningstar's damage could be produced by bludgeoning alone. In other words, if a reduction in piercing damage doesn't reduce the damage of a morningstar, you could take off the spikes and hurt people just as effectively.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
Moot point. There are no rules on bludgeoning silver weapon.

No rules? So bludgeoning silver weapons don't bypass DR/silver in your game?

Fascinating.

CBDunkerson wrote:
What do the rules say to do with bludgeoning weapons treated with silver?: roll damage normally.
Quote:
They say nothing as they SAY nothing about them.

This is not a sentence. Are you trying to argue that bludgeoning silver weapons do NOT roll normal damage? If so... good luck with that.

Quote:
How does this alter the rules for piercing silver weapons? It doesn't, so again, this is a moot point.

You are 'correct'. The fact that bludgeoning damage is rolled normally on silvered weapons does nothing to alter the rules for piercing weapons. However, as that has no bearing on my statement about bludgeoning damage... I think you need to look up the meaning of the word 'moot'. Unless you were trying for irony?

Quote:
Want me to add the 'rule' for bludgeoning? Sure, so I change/add nothing already done.

Exactly. You "change/add nothing" for bludgeoning silvered weapons. So why are you trying to apply a -1? That's a CHANGE.

You keep citing the rules for piercing weapons as if that were the end of the story. Morningstars ARE NOT just piercing weapons. They are piercing AND bludgeoning weapons. They have the properties of both simultaneously. Silvered piercing weapons have -1 damage. Silvered bludgeoning weapons do not. Silvered piercing AND bludgeoning weapons (i.e. the morningstar) have their piercing damage reduced by 1 but their bludgeoning damage unchanged... exactly as if they were striking a creature with DR 1/bludgeoning.

Avoron wrote:
Finally, your "real-world sense," aside from being irrelevant to the mechanics, only follows if you think that the entire quantity of a morningstar's damage could be produced by bludgeoning alone. In other words, if a reduction in piercing damage doesn't reduce the damage of a morningstar, you could take off the spikes and hurt people just as effectively.

Which... is exactly how it works. Completely eliminate the piercing damage (e.g. through DR/B) and the total amount of damage remains unchanged... it is just all bludgeoning damage.


CBDunkerson wrote:
No rules? So bludgeoning silver weapons don't bypass DR/silver in your game?

There are rules for silver weapons. There are no rules about JUST bludgeoning silver weapons... So I'll take this as an epic reading and context failure on your part or a deliberate misreading to be snarky.

CBDunkerson wrote:
This is not a sentence. Are you trying to argue that bludgeoning silver weapons do NOT roll normal damage? If so... good luck with that.

THERE ARE NO SPECIAL RULES ABOUT BLUDGEONING SILVER WEAPONS!!! good enough? If not, read response #1.

You make ONE damage roll. The rules for silver requires you to reduces that damage by one if the weapon is piercing. As THERE ARE NO SPECIAL RULES ABOUT BLUDGEONING SILVER WEAPONS, you end up with a damage roll of -1.

CBDunkerson wrote:
You are 'correct'. The fact that bludgeoning damage is rolled normally on silvered weapons does nothing to alter the rules for piercing weapons. However, as that has no bearing on my statement about bludgeoning damage... I think you need to look up the meaning of the word 'moot'. Unless you were trying for irony?

Nope, moot was exactly what I meant to say. The weapon being bludgeoning brings 0% to the table. The only rule that matters is the one that reduces the damage if the weapon if piercing. It is literally meaningless: moot.

CBDunkerson wrote:
Exactly. You "change/add nothing" for bludgeoning silvered weapons. So why are you trying to apply a -1? That's a CHANGE.

You don't understand math do you? roll damage. Apply piercing modification: -1. Add bludgeoning modifier: 0. Damage total damage -1. The non-bludgeoning 'rule' doesn't negate an already existing actual written rule.

CBDunkerson wrote:
Exactly.You keep citing the rules for piercing weapons as if that were the end of the story.

They are.

CBDunkerson wrote:
Morningstars ARE NOT just piercing weapons.

Moot. The reduction happens if it's a piercing weapons. "end of the story".

CBDunkerson wrote:
They are piercing AND bludgeoning weapons.

Moot

CBDunkerson wrote:
They have the properties of both simultaneously.

correct.

CBDunkerson wrote:
Silvered piercing weapons have -1 damage.

Correct.

CBDunkerson wrote:
Silvered bludgeoning weapons do not.

And you where doing so good too. What is 0 and -1 added together? That would be -1. It's BOTH damages so you take the modifiers from both.

CBDunkerson wrote:
Silvered piercing AND bludgeoning weapons (i.e. the morningstar) have their piercing damage reduced by 1 but their bludgeoning damage unchanged... exactly as if they were striking a creature with DR 1/bludgeoning.

And here is the crux of the issue. You deal "piercing AND bludgeoning" damage. there is no separate damage total for each type of damage. There is NO way to reduce JUST piercing damage by one. THEY AREN'T different totals!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
CBDunkerson wrote:
Are you trying to argue that bludgeoning silver weapons do NOT roll normal damage?

No, they definitely do deal normal damage. They deal exactly the same amount of damage they would if they did not have the bludgeoning property.

Premises:
1. On a hit with an alchemical silver weapon, damage with the [piercing] property is reduced by one from an ordinary weapon of that type.
2. Adding the [bludgeoning] property to damage from an alchemical silver weapon does not change its quantity.

Conclusion:
On a hit with an alchemical silver weapon, damage with the [piercing] and [bludgeoning] properties is reduced by one from an ordinary weapon of that type.

Liberty's Edge

graystone wrote:
CBDunkerson wrote:
Silvered piercing AND bludgeoning weapons (i.e. the morningstar) have their piercing damage reduced by 1 but their bludgeoning damage unchanged... exactly as if they were striking a creature with DR 1/bludgeoning.
And here is the crux of the issue. You deal "piercing AND bludgeoning" damage. there is no separate damage total for each type of damage. There is NO way to reduce JUST piercing damage by one. THEY AREN'T different totals!

Does DR X/Bludgeoning reduce piercing damage? Yes.

Does DR X/Bludgeoning reduce morningstar damage? No.

Thus, there is a precedent in the rules for leaving the 'bludgeoning portion' of 'piercing & bludgeoning' damage unreduced by an effect which would reduce piercing damage alone.

My argument is that the -1 to piercing damage from silvered weapons should be applied the same way. It is consistent and logical.

Instead, having the -1 to piercing from silvered weapons reduce BLUDGEONING damage is inconsistent and illogical.

You argue that once it is even partially piercing then nothing else matters, but that just isn't what the book says and is directly contradicted by the fact that DR which reduces piercing damage does not similarly reduce 'bludgeoning & piercing' damage. They are different things.

The text you cite is talking about piercing weapons. Morningstars are different. They are piercing & bludgeoning and need to follow the rules for both. 'Bludgeoning & piercing' damage is not reduced by things which reduce ONLY piercing damage.

Liberty's Edge

Avoron wrote:

Premises:

1. On a hit with an alchemical silver weapon, damage with the [piercing] property is reduced by one from an ordinary weapon of that type.
2. Adding the [bludgeoning] property to damage from an alchemical silver weapon does not change its quantity.

Conclusion:
On a hit with an alchemical silver weapon, damage with the [piercing] and [bludgeoning] properties is reduced by one from an ordinary weapon of that type.

I'll just point out that these '[bludgeoning] and [piercing] properties' are things you have invented. They do not exist in the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game rules.

They sound like the sort of thing you would find in the Pathfinder Adventure Card Game or Magic the Gathering... special identifier tags for a relatively simple (compared to modeling the real world) and extremely formalized ruleset.

The Pathfinder RPG rules do not work that way and are not written that way (hence the non-existence of those tags). They are written primarily in conversational English and meant to be interpreted based on real world logic. Even if the rules WERE written the way you suggest... there would then need to be a specific rule or precedent stating application in the order you suggest... when, in fact, the only precedent of this type in the game (damage reduction) specifically states the opposite.


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.
CBDunkerson wrote:
Does DR X/Bludgeoning reduce piercing damage? Yes.

Wrong.

Does DR X/Bludgeoning reduce piercing damage? Sometimes.
It reduces non-bludgeoning damage, and piercing damage is usually non-bludgeoning. But not always.

CBDunkerson wrote:
Thus, there is a precedent in the rules for leaving the 'bludgeoning portion' of 'piercing & bludgeoning' damage unreduced by an effect which would reduce piercing damage alone.

No, there is a precedent for effects that reduce "non-bludgeoning damage." If the damage is not bludgeoning, it is reduced, regardless of whether it is piercing. If the damage is bludgeoning, it is not reduced, regardless of whether it is piercing.

Alchemical silver weapons work differently, because the rules for them say something different: they simply reduce any piercing damage. If the damage is piercing, it is reduced, regardless of whether it is bludgeoning. If the damage is not piercing, it is not reduced, regardless of whether it is bludgeoning.

There is no contradiction; there is no inconsistency.

CBDunkerson wrote:
'Bludgeoning & piercing' damage is not reduced by things which reduce ONLY piercing damage.

Not just factually incorrect, but a logical impossibility.

If an effect reduces all damage with the [piercing] property, then it reduces damage with the [piercing] and [bludgeoning] properties. This is basic logic, further explained in my previous posts. If you don't accept this, I really don't know what to tell you.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
CBDunkerson wrote:
I'll just point out that these '[bludgeoning] and [piercing] properties' are things you have invented. They do not exist in the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game rules... The Pathfinder RPG rules do not work that way and are not written that way (hence the non-existence of those tags).

They absolutely exist in the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game rules; they are the terms "piercing" and "bludgeoning." I added the brackets merely for the sake of clarity and ease of reading comprehension, which I wish more people would take efforts to ensure. By referring to them as "properties," I am simply indicating that they are used as modifiers describing the nature of damage, rather than being nouns or entities in themselves.

CBDunkerson wrote:
Even if the rules WERE written the way you suggest... there would then need to be a specific rule or precedent stating application in the order you suggest

No, they don't. The order of application is completely irrelevent.

Rule A: If the damage is bludgeoning leave it the same as it would otherwise be.
Rule B: If the damage is piercing, reduce it by one point from what it would otherwise be.

You can apply those rules in whatever order you want, but at the end of the day they result in a damage total one lower than it would be if neither was applied.


CBDunkerson: You aren't allowed to retroactively apply damage modifiers after you find out what DR you are against.

There is also no "precedent". DR only cares if the damage is of the correct type. You don't 'drop' part of the damage types because it'd be beneficial to you. The same way you can't do JUST Bludgeoning to avoid a monsters special ability that triggers on a Bludgeoning attack, you can't do just a Bludgeoning weapon attack to avoid the silver reduction.

And the damage modifier never reduces Bludgeoning damage but is sure does Bludgeoning and Piercing. In your words, "It is consistent and logical" that combined damage types take all modifiers for said types.

Liberty's Edge

You are never going to convince me that it makes sense to reduce bludgeoning damage because the weapon also does piercing damage... and apparently I am not going to convince you that 'formulaic reading' of the rules is inherently flawed.

At the end of the day, I don't think a 'heavy mace with spikes' (i.e. a morningstar) will suddenly do less bludgeoning damage than a heavy mace if they are both covered in silver. You do. I don't believe the rules are meant to work that way, but w/o a FAQ I don't see anyone changing their positions.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Admittedly I didn't read the whole thread because I get tired of arguments.

Anyways someone may have answered this but here is the one time where a weapon such as a morning star with two damage types that are always active is a disadvantage. It's when you don't want to do one of the two types.

This happened to one of my characters that struck a monster that if it was hit with slashing or piercing weapons then it shot acid at you or something unpleasant.


CBDunkerson wrote:

You are never going to convince me that it makes sense to reduce bludgeoning damage because the weapon also does piercing damage... and apparently I am not going to convince you that 'formulaic reading' of the rules is inherently flawed.

At the end of the day, I don't think a 'heavy mace with spikes' (i.e. a morningstar) will suddenly do less bludgeoning damage than a heavy mace if they are both covered in silver. You do. I don't believe the rules are meant to work that way, but w/o a FAQ I don't see anyone changing their positions.

The difference in our view is I'm using actual rules to back up what I'm saying and you're using 'feelings'. In the rules section, the actual written rules trump everything else. "'formulaic reading'" IS the correct reading.

So there is no need for an FAQ, just your understanding you're talking about a house-rule of what you think fits your logic. And it's ok to house-rule, just don't pretend it trump the actual rules. There is 100% rules certainty that a silver Morningstar rolls 1 less damage at all times vs a non-silver one. That's just the way it is.

Liberty's Edge

graystone wrote:

The difference in our view is I'm using actual rules to back up what I'm saying and you're using 'feelings'. In the rules section, the actual written rules trump everything else. "'formulaic reading'" IS the correct reading.

So there is no need for an FAQ, just your understanding you're talking about a house-rule of what you think fits your logic. And it's ok to house-rule, just don't pretend it trump the actual rules. There is 100% rules certainty that a silver Morningstar rolls 1 less damage at all times vs a non-silver one. That's just the way it is.

This is nonsense, and your inability to see that is why it isn't worth discussing with you.

Scarab Sages

Wow...my topic still going.

So, as I see it, the DR bit is clear in the rules that the most advantageous type is applied.

I still remain unclear regarding rules which specifically apply to weapons a certain type differently. In particular, underwater combat, certain special materials, and magical/non-magical weapon enhancements.


CBDunkerson wrote:
graystone wrote:

The difference in our view is I'm using actual rules to back up what I'm saying and you're using 'feelings'. In the rules section, the actual written rules trump everything else. "'formulaic reading'" IS the correct reading.

So there is no need for an FAQ, just your understanding you're talking about a house-rule of what you think fits your logic. And it's ok to house-rule, just don't pretend it trump the actual rules. There is 100% rules certainty that a silver Morningstar rolls 1 less damage at all times vs a non-silver one. That's just the way it is.

This is nonsense, and your inability to see that is why it isn't worth discussing with you.

If this was a difference of opinions based on questionable wording, I'd be more than willing to agree to disagree. This isn't questionable worded though. It's super, super clear. To get your opinion to work, you have to add a damage modifier not in the damage roll stage but in the DR reduction stage where the damage has already been finalized. You're trying to go back in time and retroactively affect the damage roll. it's just not how the game works.

The fact that the weapon is piercing reduces the damage roll before DR comes into the picture. It just does, so the DR has no effect on the actual roll. A defense may reduce the damage dealt but it doesn't reduce the actual rolled damage.

So I can't agree to disagree when you are incorrect on a fundamental level. It's like you're saying the earth is flat; It's shape isn't questionable in the least, so a diverging point of view seems unreasonable.


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 3 people marked this as a favorite.

...

...

...

Let's try something different.

Quote boxes for separation of points, not because anything actually said this anywhere.

DR 5/magic wrote:


Q: If I have a +1 morningstar, does it overcome this DR?
A: Yes.
Q2: Why?
A2: Because the "magic" applies equally to the entire weapon.

Easy.

DR 5/good wrote:


Q: If I have a +1 holy morningstar, does it overcome this DR?
A: Yes.
Q2: Why?
A2: Because the "holy" applies equally to the entire weapon.

Alright, next.

DR 5/cold iron wrote:


Q: If I have a cold iron morningstar, does it overcome this DR?
A: Yes.
Q2: Why?
A2: Because the "cold iron" applies equally to the entire weapon.

Simple... but now, "trickier"...

DR 5/bludgeoning wrote:

Q: If I have a +1 morningstar, does it overcome this DR?
A: Yes.
Q2: Why?
A2: Because the "bludgeoning" applies equally to the entire weapon.

Alright? Similarly:

DR 5/piercing wrote:

Q: If I have a +1 morningstar, does it overcome this DR?
A: Yes.
Q2: Why?
A2: Because the "piercing" applies equally to the entire weapon.

And, of course, the obvious.

DR 5/slashing. wrote:

Q: If I have a +1 morningstar, does it overcome this DR?
A: No.
Q2: Why?
A2: Because the "slashing" applies equally to the entire weapon (and since it doesn't apply to any part, it's ignored).

Aaaaaaaaaaand bonus one...

DR 5/bludgeoning and magic. wrote:

Q: If I have a cold iron morningstar, does it overcome this DR?
A: No.
Q2: Why?
A2: Because the "magic" would apply equally to the entire weapon (and since it doesn't apply to any part, it's ignored).

... and two.

DR 5/bludgeoning and magic. wrote:

Q: If I have a +1 morningstar, does it overcome this DR?
A: Yes.
Q2: Why?
A2: Because the "magic" and "bludgeoning" both apply equally to the entire weapon.

In this context, the damage type dealt by the weapon when checking against damage reduction is consistent.

With this in mind, we have a clear precedent for most all purposes - if any one part counts as "X" for purpose of rule, treat the whole thing as "X" unless otherwise specified.

Alchemical silver.

Quote:
On a successful attack with a silvered slashing or piercing weapon, the wielder takes a –1 penalty on the damage roll (with a minimum of 1 point of damage). The alchemical silvering process can't be applied to nonmetal items, and it doesn't work on rare metals such as adamantine, cold iron, and mithral.

Notice that the rules only talk about how to interact with two kinds of weapons: slashing and piercing.

Thus, the rules check once: "does the weapon deal piercing?"

As the morningstar does, in fact, deal piercing, it suffers a grand total of -1 on the damage roll.

What part of that damage is bludgeoning, and what part is piercing? It's entirely irrelevant.

Just like it doesn't matter what part of the +1 weapon is the magic damage (for the record, it's the '+1' part), it doesn't matter what part of the weapon is bludgeoning or piercing. In the rules, the piercing part takes the penalty.

Now, the question may be asked... why does it work this way?

It's a fair question.

Some people lie down on beds of nails, but how? Logically, I know that a nail hurts and pierces me. Why would a bunch of them not pierce me everywhere?

In this specific case, it's a question of the distributive property of energy. It's the same reason a ceiling is held in place by pillars. There are so many points of contact that the piercing pressure is mitigated across them.

While, obviously, slamming something with a mace would still hurt (and it does), it doesn't hurt as much because the (ever-so-slightly dulled) points of a piercing help (weirdly) cushion the entire effect. Instead of having a single, heavy impact point (bludgeoning), and instead of having sharp points (piercing) it has multiple dull points.

Does this work perfectly?

Well... no, at least I don't think so - at least, not perfectly. If it worked like that, it seems like the mace would have been in trouble in the first place (given the b/p dichotomy). But, um, it kind of can work as an explanation.

Otherwise, the rules apply pretty cleanly and consistently across the board.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
CBDunkerson wrote:

You are never going to convince me that it makes sense to reduce bludgeoning damage because the weapon also does piercing damage... and apparently I am not going to convince you that 'formulaic reading' of the rules is inherently flawed.

At the end of the day, I don't think a 'heavy mace with spikes' (i.e. a morningstar) will suddenly do less bludgeoning damage than a heavy mace if they are both covered in silver. You do. I don't believe the rules are meant to work that way, but w/o a FAQ I don't see anyone changing their positions.

I don't think they are meant to work that way, no. But they're pretty clear - the rule on silver weapons doesn't say anything about a bludgeoning weapon, only a piercing weapon. A silver morningstar is a piercing weapon so it (likely inadvertently) takes the explicit penalty. If it said something like "a silvered bludgeoning weapon does normal damage" then I'd agree with you.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Personally, I think you two are dwelling on the wrong aspect of this.

Quote:
On a successful attack with a silvered slashing or piercing weapon, the wielder takes a –1 penalty on the damage roll (with a minimum of 1 point of damage). The alchemical silvering process can't be applied to nonmetal items, and it doesn't work on rare metals such as adamantine, cold iron, and mithral.

As I read it, the alchemic silver bit only applies when attacking with a piercing or slashing "weapon."

The penalty to the damage roll is based not on the type of damage dealt, but by the type of weapon used to attack with.

As I read it, attacking with a longsword and using a feat/special ability to make the longsword deal bludgeoning damage, would still incure the -1 penalty because the longsword itself is a slashing or piercing weapon.

And this is an untyped damage penalty, as written, so it should apply to whatever type of damage the weapon actually deals,


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Murdock Mudeater: There has been a LOT of debate about this.
Does the type of damage does determine the type or does the type determine the damage? If you can alter the damage does it alter the type? This hasn't come to any conclusion that I know of. As such I try to avoid the whole thing is possible.

I agree with the thought though. The Morningstar is always a piercing weapon so it always takes the -1 from silver without some way to alter it's type. Bringing in something that changes damage type, like weapon versatility, opens up a can of worms though.

Liberty's Edge

Most in this thread seem to interpret the rules in a 'formulaic' or 'programmatic' way. I don't believe that is how RPG rules should be read. Rather, I'm of the school which holds that the rules are attempting to model the real world and thus real world logic should apply;

WHY do piercing and slashing silver weapons do less damage?

The response of most in this thread would seem to be, 'because the book says so'. My response would be, 'because silver is a soft metal and thus does not hold a point or edge as well'.

From those two different viewpoints if we then proceed to questions about what happens in specific circumstances we get different answers. For example;

So what happens if you hit someone with the flat of a silvered longsword (e.g. via a feat or using as an improvised weapon) to do bludgeoning damage?
A: The book says longswords are slashing weapons. The book says silvered slashing weapons do -1 damage. Ergo, -1 damage.
B: There is no point or edge involved in the attack, so the -1 penalty does not apply and the attack does full damage.

The silver morningstar question has an additional issue in that 'the book says' that it is supposed to be treated as both B & P equally, while many here are insisting that piercing effectively takes precedence. So far as I can tell, this is based on the fact that the book does not explicitly say what happens with a silvered bludgeoning weapon... so the programmatic analysis treats this as an undeclared variable, the value could be anything, and only the declared 'int piercing = -1;' variable is processed.

Meanwhile, the intent is clearly that bludgeoning silver weapons do normal damage, and thus so far as I am concerned the text could just as easily have been, 'Bludgeoning silver weapons do normal damage, but other weapon damage types take a -1 penalty'. Programmatic analysis would render this 'bludgeoning does normal damage', 'morningstars are bludgeoning', ergo 'silver morningstars do normal damage'. So what we are seeing here is programmatic analysis PLUS a rigid adherence to the >wording< of the text (only mentions P) rather than the >intent< of the text (clearly intends B to be full damage).

I don't think EITHER of those approaches is a good idea OR how the game was meant to be played.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
CBDunkerson wrote:
Most in this thread seem to interpret the rules in a 'formulaic' or 'programmatic' way. I don't believe that is how RPG rules should be read. Rather, I'm of the school which holds that the rules are attempting to model the real world and thus real world logic should apply;

This "programmatic" thinking is just an application of the basic rules of logic. And logic is context independent, its rules work exactly the same way in an RPG as in the real world.

CBDunkerson wrote:
So what happens if you hit someone with the flat of a silvered longsword (e.g. via a feat or using as an improvised weapon) to do bludgeoning damage?

If you're using it to deal bludgeoning damage, it's no longer a slashing weapon. If you're using it as an improvised weapon, it's no longer a longsword. So it does full damage.

CBDunkerson wrote:
The silver morningstar question has an additional issue in that 'the book says' that it is supposed to be treated as both B & P equally, while many here are insisting that piercing effectively takes precedence. So far as I can tell, this is based on the fact that the book does not explicitly say what happens with a silvered bludgeoning weapon... so the programmatic analysis treats this as an undeclared variable, the value could be anything, and only the declared 'int piercing = -1;' variable is processed.

What on earth are you talking about? It is simply treated as both piercing and bludgeoning. It is piercing, so anything that affects piercing weapons will affect it. It is bludgeoning, so anything that affects bludgeoning weapons will affect it. Nothing uncertain, nothing undeclared.

CBDunkerson wrote:
Meanwhile, the intent is clearly that bludgeoning silver weapons do normal damage, and thus so far as I am concerned the text could just as easily have been, 'Bludgeoning silver weapons do normal damage, but other weapon damage types take a -1 penalty'.

That would be a perfectly fine rule, it's just not the rule that actually exists. The two would be the same if and only if every attack had exactly one damage type, if they were all mutually exclusive. But that's not the case, so "piercing or slashing" and "not bludgeoning" mean different things. Just like how "dog owner" and "not a cat owner" are different things - many people have one or the other, but some have both.

CBDunkerson wrote:
Programmatic analysis would render this 'bludgeoning does normal damage', 'morningstars are bludgeoning', ergo 'silver morningstars do normal damage'.

Exactly! That is precisely what the rules would indicate if they were different, and that is precisely why those sentences are not be the same. At this point, it is clear that you understand the underlying logic, you just don't like the way it's being applied.

CBDunkerson wrote:
I don't think EITHER of those approaches is a good idea OR how the game was meant to be played.

"Those approaches" being "rigid adherance to the wording of the text" and "programmatic analysis." I hate to break it to you, but reading words is generally the most effective way to figure out what they are saying. And logical analysis is generally the most effective way to figure out what that means.

Liberty's Edge

Avoron wrote:
What on earth are you talking about? It is simply treated as both piercing and bludgeoning. It is piercing, so anything that affects piercing weapons will affect it. It is bludgeoning, so anything that affects bludgeoning weapons will affect it. Nothing uncertain, nothing undeclared.

That's just framing. Turn the framing around and you get the opposite answer;

'Silver doesn't affect bludgeoning damage. Anything which doesn't affect bludgeoning won't affect a morningstar. Ergo, no damage reduction.'

So no, it is NOT treated as both piercing and bludgeoning if the -1 is applied to all damage... because that is NOT how silver interacts with bludgeoning. That would clearly be treating the morningstar DIFFERENTLY than any other bludgeoning weapon.

Quote:
Exactly! That is precisely what the rules would indicate if they were different, and that is precisely why those sentences are not be the same. At this point, it is clear that you understand the underlying logic, you just don't like the way it's being applied.

Yes. That was rather my point in explaining the logic that I don't agree with... to show that I see how it works. Now, try to understand why I am saying it is the wrong approach.

The fact that the book specifically lists the damage impact on P & S damage types and leaves B as unmodified only by implication is IRRELEVANT. The words on that page are NOT going to be fed through a computer which doesn't know the status of a variable unless it is declared. They are going to be read by a human being who is expected to conclude that B is not impacted. The text in the book and the alternate wording I suggested are functionally identical for purposes of human communication of the underlying concepts. A human who is familiar with the three weapon damage types reading either text would conclude that P & S take a -1 penalty and B does not. Only a computer would treat them as different scenarios, because it is incapable of processing an undeclared variable.

You are a human. Not a computer. Therefore, why are you applying the limitations of computer analysis to your own reasoning?

Quote:
"Those approaches" being "rigid adherance to the wording of the text" and "programmatic analysis." I hate to break it to you, but reading words is generally the most effective way to figure out what they are saying. And logical analysis is generally the most effective way to figure out what that means.

Yet, setting aside people fairly deep in the autism spectrum, that is not how human communication works. I choose to believe (and think the evidence overwhelmingly supports) that the Pathfinder rule books were written per normal human communication standards... not as computer code.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.
CBDunkerson wrote:

Most in this thread seem to interpret the rules in a 'formulaic' or 'programmatic' way. I don't believe that is how RPG rules should be read. Rather, I'm of the school which holds that the rules are attempting to model the real world and thus real world logic should apply;

WHY do piercing and slashing silver weapons do less damage?

Technically, it's Piercing OR Slashing weapons.

If you had a Piercing AND Slashing weapon, we'd still be in a grey area...

Sovereign Court

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber

From a games design perspective, when you have a strict "and" like the morningstar you usually have all the benefits of both, as well as all the drawbacks of both. In this case, I think a silvered morningstar has a penalty to damage.

Real life reasoning:

Real world physics shouldn't have too much impact on the rules. It's more of a quick "reality check" to make sure things might make sense.

For the silver morning star, I think the soft metal of the points deforming could take enough energy from the blow to reduce the damage from the bludgeon as well as the piercing.

I get what you are saying CBDunkerson, I don't take to overly rigid rulings based on semantic arguments. But, I think there are other ways it makes sense to apply the damage penalty to a morningstar.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
CBDunkerson wrote:
Most in this thread seem to interpret the rules in a 'formulaic' or 'programmatic' way. I don't believe that is how RPG rules should be read. Rather, I'm of the school which holds that the rules are attempting to model the real world and thus real world logic should apply;

Pathfinder games are not a model of the real world. They're a very, very rough abstraction. I've played quite a few games which do rather a good job of modelling the real world. They're radically different. If you want Pathfinder to model the real world, you have to change a TON of rules.

Because of that, I'm adamantly, 100%, completely against the idea of "attempting to model the real world and thus real world logic should apply".

Either way, this particular conversation is a rules-forum conversation. The rules are there and don't seem particularly unclear to me. They seem in conflict with the real world a bit that's no different from a hundred other rules - hit points, armor class, firearms, falling damage, environmental rules, energy damage, insanity, confusion, disease, movement rates, drowning, lots and lots of things which would attract my attention on a "real world logic" basis long before a point of damage on a silvered weapon.

Liberty's Edge

MeanMutton wrote:
Because of that, I'm adamantly, 100%, completely against the idea of "attempting to model the real world and thus real world logic should apply".

...and thus the difference here is one of philosophy. NOT rules.

Quote:
Either way, this particular conversation is a rules-forum conversation. The rules are there and don't seem particularly unclear to me. They seem in conflict with the real world a bit that's no different from a hundred other rules - hit points, armor class, firearms, falling damage, environmental rules, energy damage, insanity, confusion, disease, movement rates, drowning, lots and lots of things which would attract my attention on a "real world logic" basis long before a point of damage on a silvered weapon.

Obviously, -1 damage from silvered weapons is a minor issue however it is resolved... but from my view the rules are every bit as clear that bludgeoning damage from a morningstar should NOT be reduced by silver.


CBDunkerson wrote:

Obviously, -1 damage from silvered weapons is a minor issue however it is resolved... but from my view the rules are every bit as clear that bludgeoning damage from a morningstar should NOT be reduced by silver.

"bludgeoning damage" isn't reduced. Now bludgeoning and piercing damage is. It's SUPER, SUPER clear that this is the case. So if you used a Morningstar as an improvised weapon to have it only deal bludgeoning damage, then and only then would it not have the damage reduced but at that point you aren't using/treating it as a morningstar anymore.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.
MeanMutton wrote:
Because of that, I'm adamantly, 100%, completely against the idea of "attempting to model the real world and thus real world logic should apply".

Pathfinder goes back and forth. I think the rules are intended to quantify, simplify, and the reflect back the real world in a manageable game format. Obviously, certain aspects of the setting alter real world options (like any science fiction setting), but pathfinder does a pretty good job.

While the game rules are certainly a formulaic discussion, I have noticed that in-game, GMs often rule on the side of what makes sense in regard to the real world. This is especially true with regard to grey area rules debating.

So while I don't like real world arguments regarding the rules, I do think they have some validity in the debate, since they do, sometimes, impact the game.

Scarab Sages

graystone wrote:
CBDunkerson wrote:

Obviously, -1 damage from silvered weapons is a minor issue however it is resolved... but from my view the rules are every bit as clear that bludgeoning damage from a morningstar should NOT be reduced by silver.

"bludgeoning damage" isn't reduced. Now bludgeoning and piercing damage is. It's SUPER, SUPER clear that this is the case. So if you used a Morningstar as an improvised weapon to have it only deal bludgeoning damage, then and only then would it not have the damage reduced but at that point you aren't using/treating it as a morningstar anymore.

But you are also not using an alchemic silver weapon, as your are hitting the enemy with the handle...

Liberty's Edge

graystone wrote:
"bludgeoning damage" isn't reduced. Now bludgeoning and piercing damage is. It's SUPER, SUPER clear that this is the case.

That is "SUPER, SUPER clear" from your philosophy of how the rules should be read. From my philosophy of how the rules should be read the opposite is equally clear. Neither philosophy is actually stated anywhere in the rules. Ergo, your insistence that, 'my way is right' is just myopia.

Quote:
So if you used a Morningstar as an improvised weapon to have it only deal bludgeoning damage, then and only then would it not have the damage reduced but at that point you aren't using/treating it as a morningstar anymore.

Nope, not "then and only then".

If you hit a creature with DR 20/B with a morningstar for 5 points of damage all the piercing damage is eliminated. It would "only deal bludgeoning damage"... it would "not have the damage reduced", but in fact you still ARE "using/treating it as a morningstar".

Hence my view that bludgeoning damage is not reduced by things that reduce piercing damage.

Scarab Sages

Still, my big question is regarding underwater combat. Since it modifies the attack roll too.

Even IF we agree that the damage always the most advantageous dealt, the selection of "best" damage doesn't really apply on the attack roll (least I don't think it does).

Liberty's Edge

Murdock Mudeater wrote:

Still, my big question is regarding underwater combat. Since it modifies the attack roll too.

Even IF we agree that the damage always the most advantageous dealt, the selection of "best" damage doesn't really apply on the attack roll (least I don't think it does).

I go back to real world logic...

WHY do bludgeoning weapons take a penalty underwater?

Because water is denser than air and thus the friction across the cross-sectional area of the object being moved is greatly increased. Most piercing weapons (e.g. a rapier) have a vastly smaller cross-sectional area and thus are not as significantly impacted.

So... what does that tell us about the morningstar?

It is going to be every bit as difficult to swing a morningstar underwater as it would be to swing a mace or other bludgeoning weapon. Ergo, the penalty should apply.

Or you could toss real world reasoning out the window and adjudicate it based on formulaic analysis of whathever phrasing the writer(s) happened to use to express rules which were never meant to apply to this particular situation.

Scarab Sages

5 people marked this as a favorite.

Of course by RAW, a heavy pick has no penalty to attack underwater, but even though it does piercing damage, it is not a thrusting weapon.


Murdock Mudeater wrote:
graystone wrote:
CBDunkerson wrote:

Obviously, -1 damage from silvered weapons is a minor issue however it is resolved... but from my view the rules are every bit as clear that bludgeoning damage from a morningstar should NOT be reduced by silver.

"bludgeoning damage" isn't reduced. Now bludgeoning and piercing damage is. It's SUPER, SUPER clear that this is the case. So if you used a Morningstar as an improvised weapon to have it only deal bludgeoning damage, then and only then would it not have the damage reduced but at that point you aren't using/treating it as a morningstar anymore.
But you are also not using an alchemic silver weapon, as your are hitting the enemy with the handle...

I was more thinking of a morning star with a blunt end, kind of like a bat with nails in it. So a blunt 'poke' covered with silver.

CBDunkerson wrote:
That is "SUPER, SUPER clear" from your philosophy of how the rules should be read.

No not really. The rules are clear, you are reading into them and adding to them to get the outcome you want. As such, it's not a difference in philosophy or reading, it's a difference in using a rule or using a house-rule. There is NO rule that a bludgeoning weapon gets to ignore the piercing or slashing weapon -1 damage. You are pointing to a lack of a rule as a rule which is by definition not the rules.

CBDunkerson wrote:
If you hit a creature with DR 20/B with a morningstar for 5 points of damage all the piercing damage is eliminated.

LOL There IS no piercing damage with a Morningstar!!! This is the fatal flaw in your logic. There is ONLY bludgeoning AND piercing damage. In your example, the creature DID take piercing damage, 5 of it, and anything that happens if it takes piercing damage activates, like Black Blood.

CBDunkerson wrote:
I go back to real world logic...

LOL "real world logic" doesn't live here, RAW does, and the rules aren't required to actually follow your idea of it.

Liberty's Edge

graystone wrote:
No not really. The rules are clear, you are reading into them and adding to them to get the outcome you want.

I have no preferred outcome. I am reading the rules the way which makes sense to me. That is no more, or just as much, "reading into them and adding to them", as what you are doing.

Quote:
As such, it's not a difference in philosophy or reading, it's a difference in using a rule or using a house-rule. There is NO rule that a bludgeoning weapon gets to ignore the piercing or slashing weapon -1 damage.

There is NO rule that a bludgeoning weapon should have the piercing or slashing weapon -1 damage imposed on it.

Quote:
You are pointing to a lack of a rule as a rule which is by definition not the rules.

Pot, meet kettle.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
CBDunkerson wrote:

That's just framing. Turn the framing around and you get the opposite answer;

'Silver doesn't affect bludgeoning damage. Anything which doesn't affect bludgeoning won't affect a morningstar. Ergo, no damage reduction.'

This is the core problem with your entire argument. Such a rule simply does not exist.

Whether or not the damage is bludgeoning really doesn't matter. You're attempting to rephrase the issue in a way that is unjustified: damage can be both piercing and bludgeoning, so "piercing" is in no way the same as "not bludgeoning."

The reduction in damage depends entirely on whether or not it is piercing or slashing. Not whether it is bludgeoning, not whether it is nonlethal, not whether it is dealt on a Thursday. There is only one question you should be considering: is the damage piercing or slashing?

If the damage is piercing or slashing, it is reduced, regardless of whether or not it is bludgeoning.
If the damage is not piercing or slashing, it is not reduced, regardless of whether or not it is bludgeoning.

Liberty's Edge

Avoron wrote:
If the damage is piercing or slashing, it is reduced, regardless of whether not it is bludgeoning.

Where is that written?

Nowhere.

As you say, "Such a rule simply does not exist."

It is your interpretation. My interpretation is different.

Scarab Sages

2 people marked this as a favorite.
CBDunkerson wrote:
Avoron wrote:
If the damage is piercing or slashing, it is reduced, regardless of whether not it is bludgeoning.

Where is that written?

Nowhere.

As you say, "Such a rule simply does not exist."

It is your interpretation. My interpretation is different.

It is written in the description of alchemical silver.

Quote:
On a successful attack with a silvered slashing or piercing weapon, the wielder takes a –1 penalty on the damage roll (with a minimum of 1 point of damage).

The term bludgeoning does not appear at all. If the weapon does slashing or piercing, it is reduced. Period.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Imbicatus wrote:
CBDunkerson wrote:
Avoron wrote:
If the damage is piercing or slashing, it is reduced, regardless of whether not it is bludgeoning.

Where is that written?

Nowhere.

As you say, "Such a rule simply does not exist."

It is your interpretation. My interpretation is different.

It is written in the description of alchemical silver.

Quote:
On a successful attack with a silvered slashing or piercing weapon, the wielder takes a –1 penalty on the damage roll (with a minimum of 1 point of damage).
The term bludgeoning does not appear at all. If the weapon does slashing or piercing, it is reduced. Period.

I agree.

We have a conditional statement, IF (slashing or piercing) THEN (-1 penalty).

The statement, IF (bludgeoning) THEN (0 penalty), doesn't appear anywhere.

So there is no conflict. The morningstar takes the penalty.


Without adding an argument, ie. I agree that as written a silvered morning star does 1 less dmg and underwater the weapon does half damage. I state that using common sense, that while underwater it is appropriate for the morning star to do less dmg (swinging underwater would be difficult) that it being silvered would not reduce the dmg of the weapon unless the target is resistant to bludgeoning dmg. It would be [u]nice[/u] if this was answered by the rule's arbitrator.

As a (non-pfs) GM I'd probably rule that the RAW doesn't allow it but it makes more sense to give them the 1 dmg to the attacks.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Avoron wrote:
If the damage is piercing or slashing, it is reduced, regardless of whether not it is bludgeoning.
CBDunkerson wrote:
Where is that written?
Alchemical Silver wrote:
On a successful attack with a silvered slashing or piercing weapon, the wielder takes a –1 penalty on the damage roll (with a minimum of 1 point of damage).

Liberty's Edge

Avoron wrote:
Avoron wrote:
If the damage is piercing or slashing, it is reduced, regardless of whether not it is bludgeoning.
CBDunkerson wrote:
Where is that written?
Alchemical Silver wrote:
On a successful attack with a silvered slashing or piercing weapon, the wielder takes a –1 penalty on the damage roll (with a minimum of 1 point of damage).

I don't see the "...regardless of whether not it is bludgeoning" part.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
CBDunkerson wrote:
Avoron wrote:
Avoron wrote:
If the damage is piercing or slashing, it is reduced, regardless of whether not it is bludgeoning.
CBDunkerson wrote:
Where is that written?
Alchemical Silver wrote:
On a successful attack with a silvered slashing or piercing weapon, the wielder takes a –1 penalty on the damage roll (with a minimum of 1 point of damage).
I don't see the "...regardless of whether not it is bludgeoning" part.

Exactly! The rules only care if it is piercing or slashing. Whether it is also bludgeoning is irrelevant.

Liberty's Edge

Gisher wrote:
Exactly! The rules only care if it is piercing or slashing. Whether it is also bludgeoning is irrelevant.

Do you believe that when that section was being written and reviewed the developers said, 'Hey if we say nothing about bludgeoning then that will mean that the SINGLE exception of a 'B and P' weapon will also take the -1 penalty'?

I do not. Nor do I think it is then reasonable to read more into the text than it says. The text tells us what happens with P weapons. The text also allows us to infer what happens with B weapons. It tells us nothing about what happens with 'B AND P' weapons... because there is only one and the developers weren't thinking about that wacky exception when they wrote this text.

You are ASSUMING that "the rules only care if it is piercing or slashing". That is not established anywhere. No text says that penalties applying to any part of an 'and' damage type weapon apply to all parts. Indeed, with DR it works exactly the opposite... only penalties that apply to ALL parts (P AND B) apply.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
CBDunkerson wrote:
The text tells us what happens with P weapons.

Yes, it does. So that happens with piercing weapons. All piercing weapons.

It doesn't give any special rules for bludgeoning damage. Or for nonlethal damage, or for damage dealt on Thursdays. It doesn't need to give any rules about that, because the rule is already clear: if it's piercing or slashing, the damage is reduced by one.

CBDunkerson wrote:
You are ASSUMING that "the rules only care if it is piercing or slashing". That is not established anywhere. No text says that penalties applying to any part of an 'and' damage type weapon apply to all parts.

The penalty applies to what it says it applies to. Yes, I'm assuming that the penalty to attacks with piercing weapons don't have a special exception for morningstars. Just like I'm assuming that penalties for Power Attack don't have a special exception for morningstars. If the rules have an exception, they have to say so, and barring a stated exception, the penalties apply to all piercing weapons.

CBDunkerson wrote:
Indeed, with DR it works exactly the opposite... only penalties that apply to ALL parts (P AND B) apply.

That is because the rules for DR say the exact opposite thing. Silver weapons deal less damage if they are piercing or slashing. DR/bludgeoning protects against weapons unless they are bludgeoning. I know you are aware the distinction between these two statements, because you referenced it just a few posts ago.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
CBDunkerson wrote:
Gisher wrote:
Exactly! The rules only care if it is piercing or slashing. Whether it is also bludgeoning is irrelevant.

Do you believe that when that section was being written and reviewed the developers said, 'Hey if we say nothing about bludgeoning then that will mean that the SINGLE exception of a 'B and P' weapon will also take the -1 penalty'?

I do not. Nor do I think it is then reasonable to read more into the text than it says. The text tells us what happens with P weapons. The text also allows us to infer what happens with B weapons. It tells us nothing about what happens with 'B AND P' weapons... because there is only one and the developers weren't thinking about that wacky exception when they wrote this text.

You are ASSUMING that "the rules only care if it is piercing or slashing". That is not established anywhere. No text says that penalties applying to any part of an 'and' damage type weapon apply to all parts. Indeed, with DR it works exactly the opposite... only penalties that apply to ALL parts (P AND B) apply.

I am finding your argument hard to follow. My position, and that of most others that I see here, is the following.

----------------------------

(1) There is a rule saying that piercing or slashing weapons take a -1 penalty.

Quote:
On a successful attack with a silvered slashing OR piercing weapon, the wielder takes a –1 penalty on the damage roll (with a minimum of 1 point of damage).

So we have a simple conditional statement that IF (weapon == piercing or slashing) THEN (-1 penalty).

(2) There is a rule that says all damage from a morningstar counts as piercing AND bludgeoning.

Quote:
Some weapons deal damage of multiple types. If a weapon causes two types of damage, the type it deals is not half one type and half another; rather, all damage caused is considered to be of both types. Therefore, a creature would have to be immune to both types of damage to ignore any of the damage caused by such a weapon.

So we know that the statement (morningstar == piercing OR slashing) is TRUE.

(3) Since the hypothesis is true, then the conclusion that it takes a -1 penalty follows logically.

----------------------------

As far as I can tell, we are reading the rules as literally as possible. It seems to me that you are the one adding unwritten pieces to the rules. If I understand your arguments correctly, you are assuming one or both of the following:

(a) You believe the conditional statement reads IF (weapon == (piercing OR slashing) AND NOT bludgeoning) THEN (-1 penalty).

(b) You believe that there is a second conditional statement that says IF (weapon == bludgeoning) THEN (0 penalty). (This would be similar to the underwater situation where there are affirmative statements for both piercing and bludgeoning weapons and the two rules contradict each other.)

But neither is supported by any rules statements. There is no mention of bludgeoning anywhere in the section on silvered weapons, so adding bludgeoning to the conditionals is unwarranted.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

It is piercing and bludgeoning so everything that applies to either applies to it. The rules don't have an exception written in so you don't get an exception.

Let me say it again, EVERYTHING APPLIES. The -1 for being a silvered piercing weapon applies, all rules for being a bludgeoning silvered weapon also apply, there aren't any though so we don't need to worry about that. The total then is damage -1 based on all the relevant rules.

CBDunkerson, you asked why it deals less bludgeoning damage because the damage is also piercing, so I'll respond with another question:
Why do you think it does extra bludgeoning damage to make up for the penalty applied to the piercing damage? Also, how are you treating them as two different things that there can be this extra bludgeoning damage?

Liberty's Edge

Lilith Knight wrote:
It is piercing and bludgeoning so everything that applies to either applies to it. The rules don't have an exception written in so you don't get an exception.

I agree.

Silver piercing weapons do -1 damage.
Silver bludgeoning weapons do normal damage.
Silver morningstars are both bludgeoning and piercing weapons so both of the above apply to them. There is no exception where JUST the piercing damage rule would apply.

Quote:
Let me say it again, EVERYTHING APPLIES.

Yep.

Quote:
The -1 for being a silvered piercing weapon applies,

Yep.

Quote:
all rules for being a bludgeoning silvered weapon also apply,

Yep.

Quote:
there aren't any though so we don't need to worry about that.

Nope. Unless you want to claim that a silver mace does no damage at all or we just have no idea how it would work then there absolutely ARE rules for silver bludgeoning weapons... specifically, they do normal damage.

Quote:
The total then is damage -1 based on all the relevant rules.

Nope. Piercing damage is -1. Bludgeoning damage is not.

Quote:

CBDunkerson, you asked why it deals less bludgeoning damage because the damage is also piercing, so I'll respond with another question:

Why do you think it does extra bludgeoning damage to make up for the penalty applied to the piercing damage? Also, how are you treating them as two different things that there can be this extra bludgeoning damage?

It doesn't do 'extra' bludgeoning damage. It does bludgeoning damage exactly the same as any other bludgeoning weapon would. Bludgeoning damage is not reduced by things which reduce piercing damage.

As to how are they 'treated as two different things'? Exactly as they are with damage reduction. A morningstar hits a target with DR 10/B. The piercing damage is reduced by 10. The bludgeoning damage is not. Just so with the -1 from silver... piercing damage is reduced by 1, bludgeoning damage is not. As I have said before, silvered weapons effectively impose a DR 1/B from the weapon itself, regardless of the target.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
CBDunkerson wrote:
Nope. Unless you want to claim that a silver mace does no damage at all or we just have no idea how it would work then there absolutely ARE rules for silver bludgeoning weapons... specifically, they do normal damage.

They deal the same damage they would deal if they were not bludgeoning - in other words, the bludgeoning property does not influence their damage at all. If they are bludgeoning and not piercing nor slashing, they subtract nothing. If they are both bludgeoning and piercing or slashing, they subtract one. The rules for silver weapons are the same regardless of whether damage is bludgeoning.

CBDunkerson wrote:
Nope. Piercing damage is -1. Bludgeoning damage is not.

You're still talking about the damage as if it occurs in two separate pools, when there's nothing to suggest that anywhere in the rules. Damage dealt my a morningstar is both piercing and bludgeoning. Piercing damage is -1. The rules make no special changes or exceptions for bludgeoning weapons. Therefore, damage that is both piercing and bludgeoning, like that of a morningstar, is -1.

CBDunkerson wrote:
A morningstar hits a target with DR 10/B. The piercing damage is reduced by 10. The bludgeoning damage is not.

No. That is not how it works.

A morningstar hits a target with DR 10/bludgeoning. That type of DR reduces all damage that is not bludgeoning. The morningstar's damage is both piercing and bludgeoning. Therefore, it is not reduced.

CBDunkerson wrote:
As I have said before, silvered weapons effectively impose a DR 1/B from the weapon itself, regardless of the target.

And as I have said before, no. That is not how it works.

Silver weapons reduce damage that is piercing or slashing. DR/bludgeoning reduces damage that is not bludgeoning. These are not the same thing, as you know perfectly well.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
CBDunkerson wrote:
A morningstar hits a target with DR 10/B. The piercing damage is reduced by 10. The bludgeoning damage is not.

A target with DR 10/B that takes 10 damage from a morning star takes 10 bludgeoning AND piercing. Where if the rule that it only does 10 bludgeoning damage?

CBDunkerson wrote:
As I have said before, silvered weapons effectively impose a DR 1/B from the weapon itself, regardless of the target.

That not how the rules read though. At all. In any way. Not even close.

These are simple/easy if-then statements:
If silver damage is piercing or slashing damage, damage is -1. Adding bludgeoning damage doesn't alter this statement so it holds true.

If silver damage is bludgeoning damage, modifying it by the stated modifier, none, for +0.

If Damage is DR/B, bludgeoning damage bypasses it. Adding piercing damage doesn't alter this statement so it holds true.

If damage has multiple types at once, a defense must include ALL types to "ignore any of the damage".

PRD, Core equipment section wrote:
If a weapon causes two types of damage, the type it deals is not half one type and half another; all damage caused is of both types. Therefore, a creature would have to be immune to both types of damage to ignore any of the damage caused by such a weapon.

"ignore any of the damage": Take note of this. If a defense doesn't include both types, it doesn't ignore "ANY OF THE DAMAGE"!!!! DR/B and Morningstar = FULL BLUDGEONING AND PIERCING DAMAGE DEALT!!!!! No "The piercing damage is reduced by 10. The bludgeoning damage is not."

The rules are silent on silver bludgeoning damage, so it adds nothing to the equation. So bludgeoning (normal damage) [+0] and piercing or slashing [-1] equals -1. Simple math. You're adding +0 and -1 and somehow ending up with 0 and that's not how math works.

51 to 100 of 125 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Morningstar question All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.