FAQ REQUEST: Warpriest sacred weapon and effective size category modifiers to the weapon.


Rules Questions

51 to 84 of 84 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Sovereign Court

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Ascalaphus wrote:


Since the war priest sacred weapon dice depends on the war priest's size, I don't think enlarging the weapon is going to help much in that respect.

Or it says that because it assumes that, like 99.9% of characters, the warpriest is using a weapon in their size catagory.

It's the same table as monk/brawler unarmed strike damage based on size. I don't think it's such a stretch to think they were really thinking of the size of the priest, like they said, instead of the weapon's size. Not every paragraph needs an annotation saying "yes we really meant what we just said".

BigNorseWolf wrote:
On top of that Spells don't actually enlarge the weapon, they just make it hit harder as if it were bigger. By that logic an enhancement bonus can't add to the 2d6 because 2d6+2 isn't 2d6.

The spells wouldn't do much. If a medium L1 war priest casts Lead Blades on his dagger, it doesn't do more sacred weapon damage, because the war priest hasn't changed size. If he casts it on a shortsword, he would no longer do sacred weapon damage because the sword's normal damage is now better than its sacred weapon damage. But if he used Enlarge Person he'd do sacred weapon damage as a large war priest.

Enhancement bonuses on a weapon on the other hand are completely separate from what dice the weapon uses so sacred weapon doesn't make a difference; they apply either way.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The Sacred Weapon gives a flat dice damage value of the weapon based on 2 and ONLY 2 factors, the size category and the level of the warpriest. What the weapon is irrelevant. The warpriest has the choice of either using the sacred weapon value OR the native weapon value. Growing the weapon further will not increase the sacred weapon value.

I would however say that the requirement is that you use a weapon OF your size or larger to get the sacred weapon benefit. No shrinking a greatsword down to the size of a fork.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
The Sacred Weapon gives a flat dice damage value of the weapon based on 2 and ONLY 2 factors, the size category and the level of the warpriest[b]. What the weapon is irrelevant. The warpriest has the choice of either using the sacred weapon value [b]OR the native weapon value.

I agree. But what the %$#@! is the purpose of this? I mean, I guess if you have a Warpriest wielding a kukri or a dagger it can help, but it confuses the heck out of the one guy I know who runs one.

I know the devs didnt design this with the idea of using the wrong sized weapons, so that's a red herring, even if it is legal by RAW (which I doubt). But that's a side argument.

How, exactly was this meant to work?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
DrDeth wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
The Sacred Weapon gives a flat dice damage value of the weapon based on 2 and ONLY 2 factors, the size category and the level of the warpriest[b]. What the weapon is irrelevant. The warpriest has the choice of either using the sacred weapon value [b]OR the native weapon value.

I agree. But what the %$#@! is the purpose of this? I mean, I guess if you have a Warpriest wielding a kukri or a dagger it can help, but it confuses the heck out of the one guy I know who runs one.

I know the devs didnt design this with the idea of using the wrong sized weapons, so that's a red herring, even if it is legal by RAW (which I doubt). But that's a side argument.

How, exactly was this meant to work?

The purpose of sacred weapons was to make WarPriests that were not devoted to Gorum, competitive as melee combatants. So you can have a WarPriest of Pharasma fight with a dagger, her patron's favorite weapon, and not be laughed at, when she's standing next to a warpriest of Iomedae.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ascalaphus wrote:


It's the same table as monk/brawler unarmed strike damage based on size. I don't think it's such a stretch to think they were really thinking of the size of the priest, like they said, instead of the weapon's size. Not every paragraph needs an annotation saying "yes we really meant what we just said".

*headscratch*

Except you can lead blades or strongjaw a monk. By that logic you could leadblades a warpriests weapon.

Quote:
The spells wouldn't do much. If a medium L1 war priest casts Lead Blades on his dagger, it doesn't do more sacred weapon damage, because the war priest hasn't changed size.

This is circular.

Quote:
Enhancement bonuses on a weapon on the other hand are completely separate from what dice the weapon uses so sacred weapon doesn't make a difference; they apply either way.

you're arguing that the only thing that can matter is the size of the warpriest. Obviously that isn't the case, other things can modify it.

The only thing that would stop that is IF the warpriests weapon was considered a virtual size increase.


So people should click FAQ on post 12 because this question is clearly divisive and it's not 100% implicit in the opening post.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I'd click on FAQ if the rule didn't seem perfectly clear to me. It really IS spelled out rather plainly in chart form.

The only reason people are clicking FAQ is that they don't like the answer.

And that answer is the sacred weapon value IS the flat result. The Sacred Weapon value is the same whether the weapon is a dagger or a greatsword, so obviously the size of the weapon itself is irrelevant.

IF a human priest of phrasma casts lead blade on her dagger, it's damage dice would get the normal one bump increase from 1d4 to 1d6.

She would then have the choice of using either that 1d6 value of damage or her Sacred Weapon dice damage which is the raw value from the chart.


Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:

I'd click on FAQ if the rule didn't seem perfectly clear to me. It really IS spelled out rather plainly in chart form.

The only reason people are clicking FAQ is that they don't like the answer.

And that answer is the sacred weapon value IS the flat result. The Sacred Weapon value is the same whether the weapon is a dagger or a greatsword, so obviously the size of the weapon itself is irrelevant.

IF a human priest of phrasma casts sacred weapon on her dagger, it's damage dice would get the normal one bump increase from 1d4 to 1d6.

She would then have the choice of using either that 1d6 value of damage or her Sacred Weapon dice damage which is the raw value from the chart.

Right. The whole idea of breaking the rules by applying this to weird corner cases such as lead or outsized weapons doesnt need a FAQ, just common sense.


I put the wrong text in my last post above. It has since been edited.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:


The only reason people are clicking FAQ is that they don't like the answer.

I find that to be a pretty unfair accusation. I made the topic because I felt that there was room for confusion or doubt.

Yes, the table very clearly says "medium warpriests" or "large warpriests".

However, every other size increase in the game deals with the weapon. Even enlarge person specifically calls out that the weapon is also made larger, and thus why it deals more damage. Every single ability in the game that deals size-category related weapon damage is because the weapon itself is either bigger (even monks, whose table may say "monk size" but logically have their fists grow with them), or it is treated as bigger.

So why, then, should the warpriest be different, especially if it the size increase otherwise follows all patterns?

So yeah, it doesn't stack like that as written, but then again, "as written" follows this odd pattern of both conformity and non-conformity with existing rules and examples.

... thus why I think it's worthy of a FAQ.

Sczarni

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Ascalaphus wrote:


It's the same table as monk/brawler unarmed strike damage based on size.
Except you can lead blades or strongjaw a monk.

I don't think you can.

EDIT: well, you *can*, but it wouldn't do anything effective. 1d3 Unarmed Strike (as per the Core Rulebook) only increases to 1d4 or 1d6 (respectively) under those effects.


Johnny_Devo wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:


The only reason people are clicking FAQ is that they don't like the answer.

I find that to be a pretty unfair accusation. I made the topic because I felt that there was room for confusion or doubt.

Yes, the table very clearly says "medium warpriests" or "large warpriests".

However, every other size increase in the game deals with the weapon. Even enlarge person specifically calls out that the weapon is also made larger, and thus why it deals more damage. Every single ability in the game that deals size-category related weapon damage is because the weapon itself is either bigger (even monks, whose table may say "monk size" but logically have their fists grow with them), or it is treated as bigger.

So why, then, should the warpriest be different, especially if it the size increase otherwise follows all patterns?

So yeah, it doesn't stack like that as written, but then again, "as written" follows this odd pattern of both conformity and non-conformity with existing rules and examples.

... thus why I think it's worthy of a FAQ.

Because Sacred Weapon has absolutely nothing to do with size of the weapon. IF for some reason a 1st level WarPriest of Gorum were to insist on using the Sacred Weapon damage for their greatsword, the damage dice would be 1d6, the same as the Pharasman WarPriest next to him using sacred weapon on his dagger.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Ascalaphus wrote:


It's the same table as monk/brawler unarmed strike damage based on size. I don't think it's such a stretch to think they were really thinking of the size of the priest, like they said, instead of the weapon's size. Not every paragraph needs an annotation saying "yes we really meant what we just said".

*headscratch*

Except you can lead blades or strongjaw a monk. By that logic you could leadblades a warpriests weapon.

Lead Blades doesn't do anything for a Monk for the same reason it doesn't do anything for a Warpriest: their damage table is based on size and level.

You can Strong Jaw Both a Monk and a Warpriest, though, because Strong Jaw gives the character (not the weapon) a virtual size increase and the damage tables only care about the character's size.


Quantum Steve wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Ascalaphus wrote:


It's the same table as monk/brawler unarmed strike damage based on size. I don't think it's such a stretch to think they were really thinking of the size of the priest, like they said, instead of the weapon's size. Not every paragraph needs an annotation saying "yes we really meant what we just said".

*headscratch*

Except you can lead blades or strongjaw a monk. By that logic you could leadblades a warpriests weapon.

Lead Blades doesn't do anything for a Monk for the same reason it doesn't do anything for a Warpriest: their damage table is based on size and level.

You can Strong Jaw Both a Monk and a Warpriest, though, because Strong Jaw gives the character (not the weapon) a virtual size increase and the damage tables only care about the character's size.

from strong jaw:

Quote:
This spell does not actually change the creature's size; all of its statistics except the amount of damage dealt by its natural attacks remain unchanged.

So by your definition, the natural attacks would be increased from their regular dice, then the warpriest or monk size-dependent tables will kick in.

I'm beginning to think we've stumbled upon the bigger issue of size rules not having any conforming base rules. It's already forced them to make two FAQs on it, and I'm thinking this might be something that leads into the third.


Nefreet wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Ascalaphus wrote:


It's the same table as monk/brawler unarmed strike damage based on size.
Except you can lead blades or strongjaw a monk.

I don't think you can.

EDIT: well, you *can*, but it wouldn't do anything effective. 1d3 Unarmed Strike (as per the Core Rulebook) only increases to 1d4 or 1d6 (respectively) under those effects.

No. The monk is not a size increase. It's a change to the damage their fists does. Their full damage gets increased.


Johnny_Devo wrote:
Quantum Steve wrote:


Lead Blades doesn't do anything for a Monk for the same reason it doesn't do anything for a Warpriest: their damage table is based on size and level.

You can Strong Jaw Both a Monk and a Warpriest, though, because Strong Jaw gives the character (not the weapon) a virtual size increase and the damage tables only care about the character's size.

from strong jaw:

Quote:
This spell does not actually change the creature's size; all of its statistics except the amount of damage dealt by its natural attacks remain unchanged.

So by your definition, the natural attacks would be increased from their regular dice, then the warpriest or monk size-dependent tables will kick in.

I'm beginning to think we've stumbled upon the bigger issue of size rules not having any conforming base rules. It's already forced them to make two FAQs on it, and I'm thinking this might be something that leads into the third.

Strong Jaw does not actually change a creature's size, but it does give them a virtual size increase, much like Lead Blades gives a virtual size increase to a weapon.

Stronj Jaw states:

Quote:
Each natural attack that creature makes deals damage as if the creature were two sizes larger than it actually is.

"As if the creature were two sizes larger" is what makes the Monk look on the Huge damage table for his unarmed strike damage, the Monk counts as huge. Similarly Warpriest would lokk to the Huge table for any natural attacks they had when used with Sacred Weapon.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I have to agree with Drahliana, the table seems pretty straight forward on how it works.

To be honest I'm really hoping this DOESN'T get FAQ'd, because it seems like there have been far too many FAQs lately that just amount to PDT saying 'yes, the rules do in fact do what they say they do in the book'. Which is a huge waste of resources given how PDT limits FAQs.

Better, I think, to just stop assuming the books are lying to us.

Sczarni

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Nefreet wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Ascalaphus wrote:


It's the same table as monk/brawler unarmed strike damage based on size.
Except you can lead blades or strongjaw a monk.

I don't think you can.

EDIT: well, you *can*, but it wouldn't do anything effective. 1d3 Unarmed Strike (as per the Core Rulebook) only increases to 1d4 or 1d6 (respectively) under those effects.

No. The monk is not a size increase. It's a change to the damage their fists does. Their full damage gets increased.

I'm not talking about size increases. Virtual or otherwise.

It's just like the Warpriest. You can choose between your Strongjawed Fist (1d6) or your Monk Chart Fist (at least 1d6).


Johnny_Devo wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:


The only reason people are clicking FAQ is that they don't like the answer.

I find that to be a pretty unfair accusation. I made the topic because I felt that there was room for confusion or doubt.

Yes, the table very clearly says "medium warpriests" or "large warpriests".

However, every other size increase in the game deals with the weapon. Even enlarge person specifically calls out that the weapon is also made larger, and thus why it deals more damage. Every single ability in the game that deals size-category related weapon damage is because the weapon itself is either bigger (even monks, whose table may say "monk size" but logically have their fists grow with them), or it is treated as bigger.

So why, then, should the warpriest be different, especially if it the size increase otherwise follows all patterns?

So yeah, it doesn't stack like that as written, but then again, "as written" follows this odd pattern of both conformity and non-conformity with existing rules and examples.

... thus why I think it's worthy of a FAQ.

It's not a matter of stacking Sacred Weapon does not grow the weapon nor does it give a pseudo size increase the way lead blades does, what it does is make size, irrelevant it overrides the effect of a weapon's size, if the warpriest chooses to have it do so. IF not, than sacred weapon has no effect at all.


Nefreet wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Nefreet wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Ascalaphus wrote:


It's the same table as monk/brawler unarmed strike damage based on size.
Except you can lead blades or strongjaw a monk.

I don't think you can.

EDIT: well, you *can*, but it wouldn't do anything effective. 1d3 Unarmed Strike (as per the Core Rulebook) only increases to 1d4 or 1d6 (respectively) under those effects.

No. The monk is not a size increase. It's a change to the damage their fists does. Their full damage gets increased.

I'm not talking about size increases. Virtual or otherwise.

It's just like the Warpriest. You can choose between your Strongjawed Fist (1d6) or your Monk Chart Fist (at least 1d6).

But, if a Monk were to recieve an actual size increase, say from Enlarge Person they would go off the large Monk chart (1d8 at 1st level). Shouldn't a virtual increase to the Monk's size have the same result as an actual increase to the Monk's size?

Sczarni

Pause and look at what you're asking.

Those spells don't do what you think they do.

The virtual size increase isn't being applied to the Monk. It's being applied to their weapons.

Weapons that only deal 1d3 damage by themselves.


Nefreet wrote:

Pause and look at what you're asking.

Those spells don't do what you think they do.

The virtual size increase isn't being applied to the Monk. It's being applied to their weapons.

Weapons that only deal 1d3 damage by themselves.

That is one way to interpret Strong Jaw, I guess. In that case Strong Jaw would stack with Enlarge Peron or Animal Growth much like Lead Blades would.

Which would give it parity with Lead Blades and Gravity Bow.


Nefreet wrote:


It's just like the Warpriest. You can choose between your Strongjawed Fist (1d6) or your Monk Chart Fist (at least 1d6).

a monks fist does not start at 1d3. A monks fist starts at the chart.

There was a reference for that from the PFS forums, looking for it

Sczarni

Quantum Steve wrote:
Nefreet wrote:

Pause and look at what you're asking.

Those spells don't do what you think they do.

The virtual size increase isn't being applied to the Monk. It's being applied to their weapons.

Weapons that only deal 1d3 damage by themselves.

That is one way to interpret Strong Jaw, I guess. In that case Strong Jaw would stack with Enlarge Peron or Animal Growth much like Lead Blades would.

Which would give it parity with Lead Blades and Gravity Bow.

Just like Enlarge working with a Warpriest.

Scarab Sages

A Warpriest explicitly has the option to deal regular weapon damage or sacred weapon damage. I'm not entirely sure that a Monk has the option of making a 1d3 unarmed strike anymore. The Monk Unarmed Strike ability says "A monk also deals more damage with his unarmed strikes than a normal person would..." This goes back to the question about whether or not feats and abilities that don't say "may" can be turned off. A Monk's unarmed strike is 1d6 (or whatever), not "1d3 or 1d6". Strong jaw should work fine for a Monk.

That doesn't necessarily mean Impact or something along those lines works with Sacred Weapon, as the language there is different (paraphrasing: May deal the weapon's normal damage or the sacred weapon damage).

EDIT: Another indicator that Strong Jaw is affecting the creature and not the "weapon" is that it targets the creature and not the individual natural attack, etc.


Quantum Steve wrote:
Nefreet wrote:

Pause and look at what you're asking.

Those spells don't do what you think they do.

The virtual size increase isn't being applied to the Monk. It's being applied to their weapons.

Weapons that only deal 1d3 damage by themselves.

That is one way to interpret Strong Jaw, I guess. In that case Strong Jaw would stack with Enlarge Peron or Animal Growth much like Lead Blades would.

Which would give it parity with Lead Blades and Gravity Bow.

Actually, that's the only way to interpret it, because it's an effective size increase, not an actual size increase, as evidenced by the FAQ, here.


Nefreet wrote:


I'm not talking about size increases. Virtual or otherwise.

It's just like the Warpriest. You can choose between your Strongjawed Fist (1d6) or your Monk Chart Fist (at least 1d6).

You're doing something weird if you think a monk doesn't have a 1d6 or higher unarmed strike that can be augmented.


I think that the whole point of the ability of Sacred Weapon is falling apart and noone seeing for it.

There are many threads where you can find the progression by size increment or impact enchant or lead bleades that is the same.

Let's see the ability how it works:

Sacred Weapon (Su):
Whenever the warpriest hits with his sacred weapon, the weapon damage is based on his level and not the weapon type. The damage for Medium warpriests is listed on Table 1–14; see the table below for Small and Large warpriests. The warpriest can decide to use the weapon's base damage instead of the sacred weapon damage—this must be declared before the attack roll is made.

That mean that a lvl 10 medium Warpriest could use a dagger to do 1d10+Str mod to damage.

Now, if the same Warpriest use Fervor to cast a Righteous Might to become enlarge, his sacred dagger would do 2d8+Str Mod on damage.

Furthermore, if he has his dagger with the impact special ability, that would become: 3d8+Str Mod on damage.

The Sacred Waeapon change the BASE dice, it means that if he grows it would be increased, and for that exist the table for large warpriest.

Weapon can get one increase for size, and another one for the enchantment like impact or leadblades, but no more than those could stack.

So, a Warpriest of Sarenrae that has all the 3 abilities up, could make 3d8+STR and other bonuses, 18-20/x2 if not keen.

Be free to check earlier threads about the increasing size damage.

Cheers.


A monk also deals more damage with his unarmed strikes than a normal person would<---- this says flat out that the monks unarmed damage is higher. Its not some virtual increase, their fists hurt more.

A monk's unarmed strike is treated as both a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon for the purpose of spells and effects that enhance or improve either manufactured weapons or natural weapons.<---- and you can strongjaw that 1d8 fist to 3d6.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think you sort of have to go into WHY the sacred weapon damage thing exists int he first place. I'm pretty certain this was to allow flavor to be made without sacrificing mechanical advantage. They really wanted the warpriest to be an exaltation of a given deity's method of combat, complete with using the deity's favored weapon. This, however, means a warpriest of Shelyn (glaive) would have much more mechanical advantage than a warpriest of Pharasma (dagger). By setting a minimum damage by level, this evens out the gods a bit, and lets players choose the god they want, without having to sacrifice damage in the long run.

In this way, I read it as a change to the weapon itself. Otherwise, weapon buffing spells would be more advantageous to the glaive wielding warpriest than the dagger wielding one. That goes against the purpose of the ability. A dagger held by an 8th level warpriest of Pharasma is a 1d8/19-20 weapon. Any spells that target that weapon would modify it from there. The warpriest (pharasma)/ranger casts Lead Blades? Their dagger would do 2d6 damage. The alternative ruling of it affecting the original weapon die would mean the spell would ahve no effect, since a lead bladed dagger would only do 1d6, less than their damage without the spell.


Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
However, this results in effects which improve the wielder's damage dice (a la Lead Blades, Gravity Bow, and Strong Jaw), being applicable to those effects, because it alters the character's damage with whatever weapon and damage dice progression they choose, and not just the original weapon's damage dice.

Mostly, I agree with you, but I don't think Lead Blades or Gravity Bow work with this.

Lead Blades wrote:
All melee weapons you are carrying when the spell is cast deal damage as if one size category larger than they actually are.

Lead Blades actually is a virtual size increase to the weapons, changing the weapons' base damages. Sacred Weapon replaces the Weapons's base damage.

You could argue it another way, I suppose. You could argue that the target of the Lead Blades Spell is the Person, not the weapon, so the effect will affect Sacred Weapon Damage. But I wouldn't recommend a character build based on that without an FAQ.

The same 2 arguments can be made about Gravity Bow.

Gravity Bow wrote:
Any arrow fired from a bow or crossbow you are carrying when the spell is cast deals damage as if one size larger than it actually is.

Strong Jaw, on the other hand, is a go. Strong Jaw enhances the natural attacks of the Warpriest as if the Warpriest were 2 sizes bigger.

Strong Jaw wrote:
Each natural attack that creature makes deals damage as if the creature were two sizes larger than it actually is.

Also, real size increases, such as from Righteous Might, would enhance the Sacred Weapon Damage. So totally make a Tengu Warpriest with Claws, a level in White Haired Witch, and a Helm of the Mammoth Lord, and also take a level in Ranger or Druid and get a Wand of Strong Jaw.


Quantum Steve wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Since different sized warpriests deal different weapon damages i don't see any argument against size increases or virtual size increases.

Because PCs can't wield a Colossal Greatsword (8d6 base damage) but a Warpriest can get their Base damage that high simply by using a huge light weapon.

To which they can then can add 1 size increase (Giant Form II) and 1 virtual increase (Bashing).

I don't think the argument that Sacred Weapon allows a Medium-Sized creature to wield a Colossal Weapon is really an argument that's on the table. I don't see the relevance.


Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
The Sacred Weapon gives a flat dice damage value of the weapon based on 2 and ONLY 2 factors, the size category and the level of the warpriest[b]. What the weapon is irrelevant. The warpriest has the choice of either using the sacred weapon value [b]OR the native weapon value.

I agree. But what the %$#@! is the purpose of this? I mean, I guess if you have a Warpriest wielding a kukri or a dagger it can help, but it confuses the heck out of the one guy I know who runs one.

I know the devs didnt design this with the idea of using the wrong sized weapons, so that's a red herring, even if it is legal by RAW (which I doubt). But that's a side argument.

How, exactly was this meant to work?

The purpose of sacred weapons was to make WarPriests that were not devoted to Gorum, competitive as melee combatants. So you can have a WarPriest of Pharasma fight with a dagger, her patron's favorite weapon, and not be laughed at, when she's standing next to a warpriest of Iomedae.

A Warpriest with twin kukris is totally a thing. Replacing the 1d4 with Sacred Weapon Damage, and then later getting Improved Crit, Crit Focus, and other nasty Crit Builds seems very the way to get a Crit-Fisher Build.


Quantum Steve wrote:
Lead Blades doesn't do anything for a Monk for the same reason it doesn't do anything for a Warpriest: their damage table is based on size and level.

I think the reason why Lead Blades doesn't do anything for Monk Unarmed Strike Damage is completely different.

Lead Blades wrote:
All melee weapons you are carrying

And a Monk isn't actually carrying his unarmed strikes, is he?

Monks and Warpriests do not have analogous abilities

Warpriest Sacred Weapon wrote:
weapons wielded by a warpriest are charged with the power of his faith.... Whenever the warpriest hits with his sacred weapon, the weapon damage is based on his level and not the weapon type.

Warpriests have this thing going on where any weapon gets charged with divine glow, replacing the regular damage with special magic god damage, and that's why it doesn't stack with quite everything that would increase its base damage.

The Monk Unarmed Strike Class Ability has none of that language.

Monk Unarmed Strike wrote:
A monk also deals more damage with his unarmed strikes than a normal person would,

Monk Unarmed Strikes represent a deeper change than Warpriest Sacred Weapon Damage. It's more like a MUS is a different weapon altogether from a mundane Unarmed Strike.

Even if you don't agree with my interpretation, it seems like dragging MUS into the argument is distracting from the thread, which is about Warpriest Sacred Weapon Damage.

51 to 84 of 84 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / FAQ REQUEST: Warpriest sacred weapon and effective size category modifiers to the weapon. All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.