Hello All,
Just wanted to clarify a short and probably easy question.
Assume that rogue throws +1 heartseeker dagger as ranged attack. Does heartseeker property actually work?
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
This is an Ask you GM question.
We have hints from developers and FAQ tangentially associated, but nothing direct.
This comes up frequently, but this is the first I've seen using heart seeker.
I believe the rules say that an attack is either melee or ranged. If you make a ranged attack, nothing that aids melee attacks help. I include things that help "one-handed" weapons. Others disagree, which invites confusing issues like this.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not really an "Ask your GM" question as far as I can tell.
Here's the rules text:
This special ability can only be placed on melee weapons.
A heartseeker weapon is drawn unerringly toward beating hearts. A heartseeker weapon ignores the miss chance for concealment against most living targets, though the attack must still target the proper square. This special ability does not apply against aberrations, oozes, plants, outsiders with the elemental subtype, or any creature specifically noted to lack a heart.
So the property must be placed on melee weapons. Fair enough. The weapon ignores concealment against living targets (except those mentioned later), and of course, must be targeting the square such a creature is located in.
Just because the restriction of the property is "only be placed on melee weapons" doesn't mean that its effects cannot function when the weapon can just as easily be used as a thrown/ranged weapon. This is especially true, since the effect doesn't specify melee attacks only.
Is the intent that this property is intended for melee only? Perhaps, due to the restriction, but there are a multitude of weapons that are cited as melee weapons in the table, which can also be used as ranged weapons; Throwing Shields, Spears, Hammers, Axes...there's probably more in the books that I haven't even mentioned or even know about, so saying that this would be a corner case that Paizo didn't think of is a peculiar statement to make.
To clarify and help answer the OP, here's how it would work (according to what's been presented):
1. The dagger is being thrown at the target. Therefore, it's treated as a ranged attack, using Dexterity to hit and Strength for damage.
2. Because the property specifies it's limited to only being on melee weapons, not melee attacks, the rules would allow you to apply the benefits of the property to your ranged attacks, but you could not apply this property to weapons which are specifically designed to be used at a range (larger than your natural reach, of course). This is primarily for subjects that cannot make or resolve a melee attack, or are listed in the Ranged Weapon category, such as Javelins, Darts, Bows, etc.
3. The property's benefits and limitations still apply to whatever attack is being made. In relation to #1, if the PC can't see which square the target is in, he must specify a square he's throwing the dagger at. This means that, unless he knows (or luckily guesses) which square the target is in, the benefits of the weapon property do not apply.
**EDIT**
Added in context for #2.
If you want to complicate things further, a barbarian with the right line of abilities can throw a melee only weapon.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Not really an "Ask your GM" question as far as I can tell.
How ever you want to explain it, some GM will use their RAW interpretation to prohibit this working. So if you come to their table with a +1 heartseeker dagger, and they tell you it doesn't work RAW you can't say "but but".
Not really an "Ask your GM" question as far as I can tell.How ever you want to explain it, some GM will use their RAW interpretation to prohibit this working. So if you come to their table with a +1 heartseeker dagger, and they tell you it doesn't work RAW you can't say "but but".
The funny thing is, I never said anything close to that. I gave a concise and rules-abiding answer to the OP that leaves little room for interpretation. In fact, I'm confident that interpretation would be applied to every single PFS table, and that's a dubious amount of confidence considering how shaky PFS games are.
Saying that my argument is the equivalent of a child begging for candy is a little silly, especially when the only counter argument that has been presented is "A GM can say otherwise." Which doesn't change anything, and can apply to every rule in the books. Even rules that aren't in the books, such as the unwritten rule regarding the Armor Spikes FAQ, can be treated otherwise by a GM. The GM is the most powerful rule in existence, of course, but saying you can't trust a rules-abiding GM to rule a specific way, especially when there is little to no room for another interpretation, isn't much of an argument, and more of a cry for help because your GM is a rules terrorist.
That being said, since you seem so versed about GMs using "RAW" to prohibit melee-only properties from working on ranged attacks, I'd like to see what they'd have to say besides "I'm the GM, and I say it works like X."
Not only could I use a good laugh, but I'd also like to see if their argument actually has any cohesion in comparison to my interpretation. If it is a good, valid argument, then I shouldn't have to hear the "I'm the GM and I say it works like X" speech.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Flanking says "melee only" and Gang UP FAQ says you can't get flanking or sneak attack from flanking when making a ranged attack. It didn't stop literally thousands of thread posts related to the subject over the years. A PDT post in a thread saying you can't ranged flank because flanking is melee only.
If it comes to a FAQ answer, how do you think they'd answer this question? One that involves a melee only property used on a ranged attack?
The Ranged flanking example is just one such example. There have been other similar "melee used ranged" type things in the past.
Another example thread that has happened many times in the past is impact weapon.
Another example of slashing grace where developer says it doesn't apply with thrown weapons.
None of them seem overpowered. Otherwise there would have been more complaints in the past. Throwing has been one of the worst fighting styles anyways.
Flanking says "melee only" and Gang UP FAQ says you can't get flanking or sneak attack from flanking when making a ranged attack. It didn't stop literally thousands of thread posts related to the subject over the years. A PDT post in a thread saying you can't ranged flank because flanking is melee only.
If it comes to a FAQ answer, how do you think they'd answer this question? One that involves a melee only property used on a ranged attack?
The Ranged flanking example is just one such example. There have been other similar "melee used ranged" type things in the past.
Another example thread that has happened many times in the past is impact weapon.
Another example of slashing grace where developer says it doesn't apply with thrown weapons.
Because the FAQ was asking if the ability to be counted as flanking with 3 PCs on an enemy circumvents the requirement of melee. It does not. Which is to be expected, since it didn't specify that it circumvents that only melee attacks receive a flanking bonus.
I mean, it even says in the first sentence of flanking:
When making a melee attack, you get a +2 flanking bonus if your opponent is threatened by another enemy character or creature on its opposite border or opposite corner.
And then goes on to say that as long as you threaten and are in the proper position, you can provide a flanking bonus; this means that a ranged combatant can provide a flanking bonus for a melee combatant, but you can't receive a flanking bonus for a ranged combatant if a melee combatant provides the threat and is in the proper position.
Interesting that Mark Seifter would say it doesn't apply to thrown weapon damage rolls, considering that Slashing Grace replaces all weapon damage rolls that weapon makes. It even says in the feat:
When wielding your chosen weapon one-handed, you can treat it as a one-handed piercing melee weapon for all feats and class abilities that require such a weapon (such as a swashbuckler's or a duelist's precise strike), and you can add your Dexterity modifier instead of your Strength modifier to that weapon's damage.
I mean, the argument that could be made is, because it's being thrown, you're not "wielding your chosen weapon one-handed," in which case I'd cite that's a specific issue with the Slashing Grace feat, as such language is not present in the Heartseeker property, which only mentions attacks in general, not how you wield the weapon.
I still wouldn't call that grounds for not allowing Slashing Grace to apply to a thrown weapon attack, considering the text says "you can add your Dexterity modifier...to that weapon's damage." It's especially true considering that a lot of throwable weapons, such as daggers, shurikens, etc. all only require one hand to throw with. Unless throwing your weapon, hitting the target, and rolling for damage does not constitute as being that weapon's damage, then I fail to see how Slashing Grace does not apply.
Agile property says this:
A wielder with the Weapon Finesse feat can choose to apply her Dexterity modifier to damage rolls with an agile weapon in place of her Strength modifier.
The bolded part allows me to apply Dexterity instead of Strength on all damage rolls. There is no language that says "Melee damage rolls" or "Ranged damage rolls," both of which are subsets of the damage roll game term, meaning both subsets are affected by this ability. Of course, this only applies as long as I possess the Weapon Finesse feat.
Fortuitous property says this:
A fortuitous weapon grants the wielder more attacks of opportunity. Once per round, when the wielder of a fortuitous weapon hits with an attack of opportunity, he can make a second attack of opportunity with this weapon against that foe at a –5 penalty.
This is keyed off of Attacks of Opportunity. If an enemy provokes an Attack of Opportunity (because you threaten with your Dagger), you wouldn't be able to throw it at them, because you don't threaten them in that manner. Although not RAW, the RAI of the matter is I shouldn't be able to threaten with a Spiked Gauntlet and carry out that attack with an Unarmed Strike (that's not Improved); in short, this wouldn't work due to Attacks of Opportunity mechanics.
Repositioning property says this:
A repositioning weapon grants the wielder a +2 enhancement bonus on combat maneuver checks to reposition a foe. If the wielder confirms a critical hit with the weapon, he can attempt to reposition his opponent as a free action. These reposition attempts still provoke attacks of opportunity as normal. A weapon cannot have both the anchoring and repositioning special abilities .
Similar to the above argument, this is keyed off of the Reposition Maneuver, which has its own limitations that would supersede the general rule of being able to apply the effect to all attacks.
Defending property says this:
A defending weapon allows the wielder to transfer some or all of the weapon's enhancement bonus to his AC as a bonus that stacks with all others. As a free action, the wielder chooses how to allocate the weapon's enhancement bonus at the start of his turn before using the weapon, and the bonus to AC lasts until his next turn.
...Merely holding a defending weapon is not sufficient. Unless otherwise specified, you have to use a magic item in the manner it is designed (use a weapon to make attacks, wear a shield on your arm so you can defend with it, and so on) to gain its benefits.
Therefore, if you don't make an attack roll with a defending weapon on your turn, you don't gain its defensive benefit.
So, the Defending property (and its FAQ) only mentions that you are attacking with the weapon in the manner it was designed in order to gain its benefits. It does not care how or why, as long as its design intent is followed. This means that if I were to, for example, throw a non-increment-listed weapon (such as a Masterwork Greatsword), I'm not using it in the manner it was intended, meaning the Defending property would not apply. Since a Dagger is listed as having as thrown range increment, it's safe to say it was designed to be thrown, and therefore should be grounds to allow the Defending property to work. Then again, since you're not considered wielding it at the end of your turn (because the weapon is no longer on your person, unless you pull some Returning or Called property shenanigans), I don't think its AC benefits would apply. The same argument goes for a Guardian Dagger being thrown.
Of course, consider that among those 4 properties, it says "wielder." By the supposed logic from Mark Seifter regarding the Slashing Grace feat, if you throw the weapon, you're not considered a "wielder" of that weapon, meaning its effects do not apply. If we want to be more pedantic about that sort of issue, +X enhanced thrown weapons don't work the way you think they do, because they give the wielder of that weapon a +X Enhancement bonus to attack and damage rolls made with the weapon; too bad they aren't wielding it by the time it's attacking and dealing damage, meaning no enhancement bonuses apply. Of course, that's if you want to be ridiculous and stupid about things; I for one, do not, and I'd prefer to think that "wielder" refers to the character making the attacks with the weapon, not the person who actually has the weapon wielded in their hand, if only to avoid such stupid, obviously unintended RAW shenanigans like this.
**EDIT** Applied a band-aid to my wall-of-text syndrome.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Interesting that Mark Seifter would say it doesn't apply to thrown weapon damage rolls
I fail to see how Slashing Grace does not apply.
I think the key is you don't consider restrictions in one area as applicable in others.
I believe the developers do see them as applicable and I've seen posts and FAQ answers (some you agree with) that back that up.
So when it says "melee only" on the property, it shouldn't apply when making a ranged attack. Just like Slashing Grace says "wield one-handed" which generally refers to using a "one-handed melee" weapon. When you thrown a one-handed weapon, you are throwing it. You are not using it as a melee weapon. The difficult of the throw is dictated by whether it was a one handed or two handed melee weapon.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
These type of threads come up every couple of days. Where some rules interaction is combined to apply melee properties to thrown weapons. I'd like to see a FAQ to settle it, but there are as many examples as there are forum posts about them almost. So I think it's a poor choice for FAQ.
Interesting that Mark Seifter would say it doesn't apply to thrown weapon damage rolls
I fail to see how Slashing Grace does not apply.
I think the key is you don't consider restrictions in one area as applicable in others.
I believe the developers do see them as applicable and I've seen posts and FAQ answers (some you agree with) that back that up.
So when it says "melee only" on the property, it shouldn't apply when making a ranged attack. Just like Slashing Grace says "wield one-handed" which generally refers to using a "one-handed melee" weapon. When you thrown a one-handed weapon, you are throwing it. You are not using it as a melee weapon. The difficult of the throw is dictated by whether it was a one handed or two handed melee weapon.
So I was correct on the counter argument: Because you're not considered "wielding your chosen weapon" when you throw it, you don't receive the benefits.
Of course, that argument does not apply to the Heartseeker property, because that language is missing from the entry, meaning it's effects still apply on a thrown attack.
There is still a rules problem, though, if we went with that interpretation; if "wielder" requires that the weapon is in your hand, then doesn't that make every property that has "wielder" on it ineffective, even when the property is equally applicable to a thrown weapon (such as the Speed property)?
Thanks you very much for your answers!
I think a better way to look at it is that you may wield one-handed but also wield when thrown.
Slashing Grace requires wielding one-handed, while you may wielding it you are not doing that one-handed.
This line of thinking (which I believe are the devs view) isn't popular.
You can't "wield" a thrown weapon, especially if the argument presented by Mark Seifter is you're not considered "wielding" a weapon no longer in your possession, and therefore Slashing Grace does not apply.
This isn't some Schrodinger's crap, where I can be both wielding and not wielding the weapon at the same time. You're either wielding the weapon for all intents and purposes, or you're not wielding the weapon.
Also, consider whether wielding a chosen weapon "one-handed" implies that it must be used as a one-handed weapon, or that it requires a single hand, and only a single hand to use. Because if it must be wielded one-handed, as a one-handed weapon, then this feat could not feasibly apply to light weapons (which is perhaps one reason why it originally didn't), because they are wielded as light weapons, not as one-handed weapons.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Also, consider whether wielding a chosen weapon "one-handed" implies that it must be used as a one-handed weapon, or that it requires a single hand, and only a single hand to use. Because if it must be wielded one-handed, as a one-handed weapon, then this feat could not feasibly apply to light weapons (which is perhaps one reason why it originally didn't), because they are wielded as light weapons, not as one-handed weapons.
If we make note that they errata it to make it say light or one handed, I think it's pretty clear it didn't work on light weapons before the errata. This indicates that you needed to wield the weapon as a one-handed [melee weapon] and if you were using a light or throwing a one handed weapon you were not wielding it one-handed.
Using that, you conform to all the developer posts from the past. When it says "one-handed" it refers to using a "one-handed melee" and a thrown one-handed melee isn't a one-handed weapon at the time, but rather thrown weapon using one hand.