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


Rules Questions

1 to 50 of 84 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

53 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 7 people marked this as a favorite.

Actual FAQ question:
Does the warpriest's Sacred Weapon class feature replace a weapon's base damage before calculating a weapon's effective size increases, such as Impact weapon enchantment, Lead Blades spell, Bashing shield enchantment, or any similar effect?

This question came up recently, and I immediately hopped on it with my own answer. However, there was doubt expressed in the thread itself and I decided to do a little digging about it myself.

What I found was that it's come up many times on these threads in the past.

Sacred Weapon + Bashing Shield

Sacred Weapon + Impact Weapon

Sacred Weapon + Impact Weapon (again)

Sacred Weapon + Lead Blades

Sacred Weapon + Size Increases

And all this was found with a simple search of these forums. In addition, google yielded similar results, where several reddit threads had the same question with varying opinions of the result.

Basically, there's two schools of thought. One side focuses on the text in sacred weapon that says:

Quote:
The damage for Medium warpriests is listed on Table 1–14; see the table below for Small and Large warpriests.

Seems to suggest that sacred weapon damage is entirely dependent of the weapon and any of its properties, simply is an alternate set of dice that you can choose to use. In this case, a weapon first increases its own damage with the effective size increase, then the sacred weapon dice are presented as an alternative that the warpriest can use.

The other school of thought focuses in the text as follows:

Quote:
Whenever the warpriest hits with his sacred weapon, the weapon damage is based on his level and not the weapon type.

This seems to mean that the sacred weapon feature replaces the base weapon damage, and the later clause that allows the warpriest to use the weapon's regular base damage is so that a level 1 warpriest wouldn't be punished for using a longsword. If the base dice are replaced, then an effective size bonus to the weapon would further increase it.

The only similar ability I can think of is the monk's unarmed strikes, which contains the same language:

Quote:
The unarmed damage values listed on Table: Monk are for Medium monks. A Small monk deals less damage than the amount given there with his unarmed attacks, while a Large monk deals more damage; see Table: Small or Large Monk Unarmed Damage.

This seems to have never come up for the monk before, because the monk's unarmed strikes are extensions of himself, but the warpriest's sacred weapon affects weapons that are not part of himself. In addition, any effect I've found that grants effective size increases to unarmed strikes use "as if he were" rather than "as if the weapon were".

So is the warpriest's wording a relic of the monk's unarmed strike progression? Is it supposed to limit the size stacking options? I reiterate the original FAQ question and invite discussion as well as a tap of that FAQ request button. What does everyone think?


The warpriest chart is not based not based on the weapon damage die. You use whichever is better for you. The size increase for damage is based on the base damage you are using. weapon damage increases have to go by the damage die you are using. There is no other way for them to work.

Also a spiked shield is its own weapon. You don't add spikes to the shield after it is made. I think there is errata or an FAQ that takes care of that question.


wraithstrike wrote:

The warpriest chart is not based not based on the weapon damage die. You use whichever is better for you. The size increase for damage is based on the base damage you are using. weapon damage increases have to go by the damage die you are using. There is no other way for them to work.

Also a spiked shield is its own weapon. You don't add spikes to the shield after it is made. I think there is errata or an FAQ that takes care of that question.

Ah, didn't know that. I've removed shield spikes from the list, then.


There is an FAQ on size increases that always goes by the base damage you are starting from. So as an example if you choose 1d8 no matter if it is weapon damage or Warpriest special base damage it goes up to 2d6.

PS: That 2d6 may not be correct. I am going off of memory. The point is that whatever base damage you are using is what is increased.

If I am not answering certain questions let me know.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Should I put "FAQ request" or “Designer response needed” in my post or thread?

No.
Doing so suggests that your post or thread is more “worthy” of staff attention than someone else’s thread which doesn’t include this text.
Also, because having more FAQ clicks doesn’t make a thread more likely to be answered, doing this to encourage more FAQ clicks doesn’t help you.
Finally, most people insisting they need a designer or developer to weigh in with an official answer are in a situation where they’re disagreeing with the GM or another player and one side refuses to budge unless they get an official response from Paizo, and Paizo doesn’t want to encourage that sort of heavy-handedness.

Please refrain from putting "FAQ request" in your title.


Somehow I didn't even notice that part of the title. Good catch.

Liberty's Edge

Ascetic Strike and Brawler Close Weapon Mastery both say that they replace the "base damage" of the weapon. I don't see any reason to believe that the intent for Warpriests and various options based on that mechanic would work differently.


Hmm, the warpriest progression is just ~0.3 damage per level: 1d4 usual base damage for a dagger, makes 2.5 in average. Warpriest 20 replaces it by 2d8, 9 in average. Makes a difference of 6.5, to be divided by 20 levels: 0.325. Less for a weapon with higher base damage. On the plus side, you get this bonus almost all the time - being disarmed or getting the weapon sundered are exceptions. Additionally, it works well with crits and Vital Strike.

Let's compare this to paladins, swashbucklers and cavaliers. Their bonus of +1 per level is quite situational, but ~3 times as high. They don't get any further bonus from increased size, though. An enlarged warpriest makes it to 0.5 per level (1d6 becomes 3d8), with also an impact weapon this becomes 0.675 (1d8 increases to 4d8). Quite nice, but hardly gamebreaking at higher levels.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

It's quite clear that effects which improve a weapon's damage dice (such as the Impact property, Bashing property, and so on), will not apply in the case of Sacred Weapon, Monk's Unarmed Strike, and so on. This is evidenced by the factor that Sacred Weapon specifically states that you must select either the Sacred Weapon's damage scaling, or the weapon's damage scaling, and the Monk's Unarmed Strike outright substitutes the unarmed strike damage dice altogether, implying that they are separate entities for the purposes of enhancing.

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. Of course, this results in a weird interaction between spell effects (which target creatures and enhance their own damage), and magic items (which target weapons, and enhance their own damage).

TL;DR If it targets a creature, it's applicable for improving Sacred Weapon, Unarmed Strike, and so on. If it targets a weapon, it's not applicable for improving Sacred Weapon, Unarmed Strike, and so on.

Liberty's Edge

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
TL;DR If it targets a creature, it's applicable for improving Sacred Weapon, Unarmed Strike, and so on. If it targets a weapon, it's not applicable for improving Sacred Weapon, Unarmed Strike, and so on.

So, by this logic, a medium sized Warpriest could purchase a set of small (or tiny/diminutive) greatswords made of adamantine, silver, cold iron, et cetera and do full 'medium creature' Sacred Weapon damage with all of them... gaining a free hand (or allowing TWF) and significant cost and weight savings in exchange for the 'incorrect size' penalty. Correct?

Personally, I think the intent is that the medium sized Warpriest is assumed to be using a medium sized weapon and any variation from that results in the usual 'size change' adjustments to the damage dice.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Quoting the entire Sacred Weapon entry from the PRD:

Sacred Weapons wrote:

At 1st level, weapons wielded by a warpriest are charged with the power of his faith. In addition to the favored weapon of his deity, the warpriest can designate a weapon as a sacred weapon by selecting that weapon with the Weapon Focus feat; if he has multiple Weapon Focus feats, this ability applies to all of them. 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 given on the table above; 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 decision must be declared before the attack roll is made. (If the weapon's base damage exceeds the sacred weapon damage, its damage is unchanged.) This increase in damage does not affect any other aspect of the weapon, and doesn't apply to alchemical items, bombs, or other weapons that deal only energy damage.

At 4th level, the warpriest gains the ability to enhance one of his sacred weapons with divine power as a swift action. This ability grants the weapon a +1 enhancement bonus. For every 4 levels beyond 4th, this bonus increases by 1 (to a maximum of +5 at 20th level). If the warpriest has more than one sacred weapon, he can enhance another on the following round by using another swift action. The warpriest can use this ability a number of rounds per day equal to his warpriest level, but these rounds don't need to be consecutive.

These bonuses stack with any existing bonuses the weapon might have, to a maximum of +5. The warpriest can enhance a weapon to have any of the following special abilities: brilliant energy, defending, disruption, flaming, frost, keen, or shock. In addition, if the warpriest is chaotic, he can also add anarchic or vicious. If he is evil, he can also add mighty cleaving or unholy. If he is good, he can also add ghost touch or holy. If he is lawful, he can also add axiomatic or merciful. If he is neutral (with no other alignment components), he can also add spell storing or thundering. Adding any of these special abilities consumes an amount of enhancement bonus equal to the special ability's base price modifier (see Table 15–9 on page 469 of the Core Rulebook). Duplicate special abilities don't stack. The weapon must have at least a +1 enhancement bonus before any special abilities can be added.

If multiple weapons are enhanced, each one consumes rounds of use individually. The enhancement bonus and special abilities are determined the first time the ability is used each day, and cannot be changed until the next day. These benefits do not apply if another creature is wielding the weapon, but they continue to be in effect if the weapon otherwise leaves the warpriest's possession (such as if the weapon is thrown). This ability can be ended as a free action at the start of the warpriest's turn (that round does not count against the total duration, unless the ability is resumed during the same round). If the warpriest uses this ability on a double weapon, the effects apply to only one end of the weapon.

They still suffer to-hit penalties due to the weapon being inappropriately sized, but yes; the Warpriest's Sacred Weapon deals damage based on the size of their character, not based on the size or type of weapon they use, as evidenced by the multiple tables referring to the Warpriest's Size. Lead Blades, Gravity Bow, and so on, affect the creature, and takes whatever weapon they wield, and treats its damage (whatever that may be, whether it's the base damage, or the Sacred Weapon damage), and increases it by 1 size category. Effects like Impact, Bashing, and so on, affect the weapon, which, if using Sacred Weapon, is being replaced by that damage dice.

Regardles, they can use the weapon's damage if they want, or if it's better, but otherwise they can use the Sacred Weapon damage, if it's better. Quite frankly, if you can negate the size penalties, being able to dual-wield reach weapons and not absolutely suck in damage or to-hit, it makes for a very interesting combination and allows the Warpriest to fill a niche that not every Divine Melee Spellcaster can accomplish, which is awesome.

Also, if the intent is that they are supposed to be using a weapon appropriately sized for them, that wording would be present. That verbiage does not exist in the above entry. That verbiage does exist for other things, such as using Dervish Dance, attempting to Finesse a weapon not normally Finessable (such as an Elven Curved Blade, Rapier, and so on), so you can't assume that the ability only works with size-appropriate weapons, nor can you assume that is the intent for the Sacred Weapon ability.


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

Hey, another FAQ! Does a Warpriest using a sacred weapon not sized for them get their normal sacred weapon damage anyway, or does it get shifted up/down the damage die progression accordingly?

(Personal take: RAW the former, RAI the latter.)

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Also, if the intent is that they are supposed to be using a weapon appropriately sized for them, that wording would be present. That verbiage does not exist in the above entry. That verbiage does exist for other things, such as using Dervish Dance, attempting to Finesse a weapon not normally Finessable (such as an Elven Curved Blade, Rapier, and so on), so you can't assume that the ability only works with size-appropriate weapons, nor can you assume that is the intent for the Sacred Weapon ability.

Obviously, I disagree.

Rather, characters using weapons sized for them is simply the default assumption, and thus not always stated.

Further, the original 'increased damage' option was for the Monk's unarmed strikes... where the character and the weapon were perforce always the same size. Much of that 'enhanced damage' text was then copied or referenced when the concept expanded to the Warpriest sacred weapon, Brawler close weapon mastery, and various other options based on those three... suggesting that the need to consider differing sized weapon and wielder may simply have been overlooked since it didn't exist in the original version.

In any case, ignoring the size of the weapons would conflict with numerous other options in the game and logical consistency.


Darksol the Painbringer wrote:


TL;DR If it targets a creature, it's applicable for improving Sacred Weapon, Unarmed Strike, and so on. If it targets a weapon, it's not applicable for improving Sacred Weapon, Unarmed Strike, and so on.

It shouldn't matter if the the effect targets the creature or the weapon. Lead Blades says:

prd wrote:
Lead blades increases the momentum and density of your melee weapons just as they strike a foe. All melee weapons you are carrying when the spell is cast deal damage as if one size category larger than they actually are. For instance, a Medium longsword normally deals 1d8 points of damage, but it would instead deal 2d6 points of damage if benefiting from lead blades (see table below). Only you can benefit from this spell. If anyone else uses one of your weapons to make an attack it deals damage as normal for its size.

So a medium short sword would "deal damage as if one size category larger than is actually is" i.e. as a large short sword.

A Human Warpriest 10 wielding a medium short sword would do 1d0 damage; a Human Warpriest 10 wielding a large short sword would do 1d10 damage. The damage doesn't change because the damage is based on the size of the Warpriest, not the size of the weapon.
Strong Jaw, on the other hand, says: "Each natural attack that creature makes deals damage as if the creature were two sizes larger than it actually is." So a Halfling Warpriest (small) would deal damage as if he were a large creature.

It doesn't matter if the effect targets the creature or the weapon, it only matters if the size increase affects the creature or the weapon.

This also means that if a Human Warpriest 10 were to receive an Enlarge Person spell and attack with a Long Bow, even though the arrow would "instantly return to normal size" it would still deal 2d8 damage because the damage is based on the Warpriest's size, not the weapon's size.


The warpriest ability changes the weapon's base damage from my reading of it into whatever is on the warpriest chart. I think the chart assumes that you are using an properly sized weapon, but it doesnt limit you to those weapons in order to get the same bonuses.

In additional since the weapon base damage is based on the class if you choose to go with the warpriest charge things such as impact should boost that damage to the next size category even if you are using the warpriest chart.

I can also already see that this has the possibility to become an ongoing issue so I pressed the FAQ button. :)


wraithstrike wrote:
I can also already see that this has the possibility to become an ongoing issue so I pressed the FAQ button. :)

Yup. I was immediately on one side, and then I noticed that it's a topic for debate.

So far, this thread is pretty much playing out exactly like all of the threads I've linked.

turing85 wrote:
Pathfinder Design Team wrote:

Should I put "FAQ request" or “Designer response needed” in my post or thread?

No.
Doing so suggests that your post or thread is more “worthy” of staff attention than someone else’s thread which doesn’t include this text.
Also, because having more FAQ clicks doesn’t make a thread more likely to be answered, doing this to encourage more FAQ clicks doesn’t help you.
Finally, most people insisting they need a designer or developer to weigh in with an official answer are in a situation where they’re disagreeing with the GM or another player and one side refuses to budge unless they get an official response from Paizo, and Paizo doesn’t want to encourage that sort of heavy-handedness.

Please refrain from putting "FAQ request" in your title.

Ah, dangit. I completely forgot about that, and I do apologize. I can no longer edit the main post, but if a mod wanted to remove that part of the thread title I wouldn't be upset.


I clicked the FAQ.

In any case, I think damage should be consistent:

A Human wielding a large short sword looted from a hill giant should deal the same damage as a medium Impact short sword should deal the same damage as a medium short sword wielded under the effect of Lead Blades.


Sacred Weapon (Su): At 1st level, weapons wielded by
a warpriest are charged with the power of his faith. In addition to the favored weapon of his deity,
the warpriest
can designate a weapon as a sacred weapon by selecting
that weapon with the Weapon Focus feat; if he has multiple
Weapon Focus feats, this ability applies to all of them.
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. (If the weapon’s base damage exceeds
the sacred weapon damage, its damage is unchanged.) This
increase in damage does not affect any other aspect of the
weapon, and doesn’t apply to alchemical items, bombs, or
other weapons that only deal energy damage.

The sacred weapon dice is based off the size of the warpriest, not the size of the weapon. Impact, bashing and other such enchants will have no effect. Spells like lead blades will have no effect because they make the damage of the WEAPON go up as though it was 1 size larger. Spells like Strong Jaw would work though because they make the weapons deal damage as though the CREATURE were larger.

If you have a medium sized Bashing Heavy Shield you turn a D4 weapon in to a D8 weapon if I read the FAQ correctly on the size modifiers because it checks the initial size of the weapon, not the initial then the modified. A level 1 Warpriest with weapon focus Heavy Shield can do either 1D6 as per his sacred weapon dice, or 1D8 as per the Bashing Heavy Shield's damage dice.

I'm not the greatest at explaining things but hopefully this helps.


Sometimes these questions are more about how something should work. Just like the recent Improved familiar FAQ, the text says one thing but the intent could easily be for something else.


Melkiador wrote:
Sometimes these questions are more about how something should work. Just like the recent Improved familiar FAQ, the text says one thing but the intent could easily be for something else.

Improved Familiar is probably a bad example because the FAQ reconciles how they work with feats and abilities that came out after the Improved Familiar feat was written.

In this case the Warpriest Sacred Weapon is interacting with spells and abilities that were written long before it.


CBDunkerson wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Also, if the intent is that they are supposed to be using a weapon appropriately sized for them, that wording would be present. That verbiage does not exist in the above entry. That verbiage does exist for other things, such as using Dervish Dance, attempting to Finesse a weapon not normally Finessable (such as an Elven Curved Blade, Rapier, and so on), so you can't assume that the ability only works with size-appropriate weapons, nor can you assume that is the intent for the Sacred Weapon ability.

Obviously, I disagree.

Rather, characters using weapons sized for them is simply the default assumption, and thus not always stated.

Further, the original 'increased damage' option was for the Monk's unarmed strikes... where the character and the weapon were perforce always the same size. Much of that 'enhanced damage' text was then copied or referenced when the concept expanded to the Warpriest sacred weapon, Brawler close weapon mastery, and various other options based on those three... suggesting that the need to consider differing sized weapon and wielder may simply have been overlooked since it didn't exist in the original version.

In any case, ignoring the size of the weapons would conflict with numerous other options in the game and logical consistency.

You can disagree all you want. All I'm pointing out is that the intent you're claiming is there is not at all supported by any text in the ability, and only supported by a conceived ideal that may or may not exist (we see people using Large Bastard Swords and Small Reach Weapons regularly, and that's certainly a possibility in regards to this ability here); that is, your disagreement is the only proof you're bringing to support your claim that Sacred Weapon only functions when using a size-appropriate weapon, which I can already tell you is bull, when we already have certain options and features that state they only function when using X that is appropriately sized.

I've brought my proof, which is the feature itself; the ability text does not care about what weapon you're using, whether it's a Small Reach weapon or a Large Bastard Sword. (Though if you are using a Large Bastard Sword, why have Sacred Weapon as a feature?) All that matters is the Warpriest's size, as everyone else has pointed out. If an effect improves his size (or his size effectiveness), then the Sacred Weapon damage dice goes up, and if it's greater than the weapon's original damage dice, whether it's enhanced or not, then it's overridden (if the Warpriest so chooses, which, 9/10, he will), full stop. Case closed.

**EDIT** I FAQ'd the OP, if only just to hear the Devs essentially reinforce my statement.

Sczarni

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Quantum Steve wrote:

In any case, I think damage should be consistent:

A Human wielding a large short sword looted from a hill giant should deal the same damage as a medium Impact short sword should deal the same damage as a medium short sword wielded under the effect of Lead Blades.

They do all deal the same damage.

Large Shortsword: 1d8
Impact Shortsword: 1d8
Lead Blades Shortsword: 1d8


Nefreet wrote:
Quantum Steve wrote:

In any case, I think damage should be consistent:

A Human wielding a large short sword looted from a hill giant should deal the same damage as a medium Impact short sword should deal the same damage as a medium short sword wielded under the effect of Lead Blades.

They do all deal the same damage.

Large Shortsword: 1d8
Impact Shortsword: 1d8
Lead Blades Shortsword: 1d8

If I'm not mistaken, a large shortsword should do 1d10 and not just 1d8, shouldn't it?


The medium Shortsword deals 1d6, so the large version deals 1d8.


Indeed, I missed the part about "1d6 or smaller" only increases by one step.
EDITED


To me, the line "The warpriest can decide to use the weapon's base damage instead of the sacred weapon damage" in the ability suggests that the scaled damage the Warpriest gets is different from the base damage of the weapon. Therefore, it would be reasonable to rule that other effects that modify the weapon damage dice would work from the actual base damage of the weapon, not the modified damage granted by the Warpriest ability.


Scythia wrote:
To me, the line "The warpriest can decide to use the weapon's base damage instead of the sacred weapon damage" in the ability suggests that the scaled damage the Warpriest gets is different from the base damage of the weapon. Therefore, it would be reasonable to rule that other effects that modify the weapon damage dice would work from the actual base damage of the weapon, not the modified damage granted by the Warpriest ability.

It can be argued the other way; it's possible that the line is only there so that a level 1 warpriest won't be punished for picking up a longsword.

I'm actually pretty unsure about this myself. RAW has some parsing oddities for both sides, and RAI is unclear, at best. 'tis why I made the topic in the first place.


Johnny_Devo wrote:
Scythia wrote:
To me, the line "The warpriest can decide to use the weapon's base damage instead of the sacred weapon damage" in the ability suggests that the scaled damage the Warpriest gets is different from the base damage of the weapon. Therefore, it would be reasonable to rule that other effects that modify the weapon damage dice would work from the actual base damage of the weapon, not the modified damage granted by the Warpriest ability.

It can be argued the other way; it's possible that the line is only there so that a level 1 warpriest won't be punished for picking up a longsword.

I'm actually pretty unsure about this myself. RAW has some parsing oddities for both sides, and RAI is unclear, at best. 'tis why I made the topic in the first place.

Fair enough.

Honestly, in my home game I'd just let them stack and go wild with it. I'm not much for raw.


Nefreet wrote:
Quantum Steve wrote:

In any case, I think damage should be consistent:

A Human wielding a large short sword looted from a hill giant should deal the same damage as a medium Impact short sword should deal the same damage as a medium short sword wielded under the effect of Lead Blades.

They do all deal the same damage.

Large Shortsword: 1d8
Impact Shortsword: 1d8
Lead Blades Shortsword: 1d8

Obviously I was referring to short swords being used by a Warpreist.

How much damage would these swords do in the hands of a 10th level Human Warpriest? 1d10? 2d8? Would a large short sword get a damage increase? Should a large short sword deal more damage than a medium greatsword? Should a huge dagger do 3d8?


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
turing85 wrote:
Pathfinder Design Team wrote:

Should I put "FAQ request" or “Designer response needed” in my post or thread?

No.
Doing so suggests that your post or thread is more “worthy” of staff attention than someone else’s thread which doesn’t include this text.
Also, because having more FAQ clicks doesn’t make a thread more likely to be answered, doing this to encourage more FAQ clicks doesn’t help you.
Finally, most people insisting they need a designer or developer to weigh in with an official answer are in a situation where they’re disagreeing with the GM or another player and one side refuses to budge unless they get an official response from Paizo, and Paizo doesn’t want to encourage that sort of heavy-handedness.

Please refrain from putting "FAQ request" in your title.

hmmm, I feel like this is something that, for the most part is, ludicrous. Almost all FAQ request threads have been made with the express intent of putting a nice bow on an issue and making it clear and concise on what rules affect the issue and then requesting a FAQ on it.

likewise, i'm not going to FAQ a post unless the poster intends for it to be used as FAQ content.

I feel that the "don't post FAQ request threads" is entirely out of touch on why they're really made. If a thread generates a item that is a potential FAQ candidate I believe the responsible thing to do is to make a seperate thread expressly to generate buzz on getting it FAQed.

Likewise, if they don't care about the quantity of FAQs then there's no real reason to have the FAQ system in the first place.

it feels like a lame reason to discourage FAQing.

I also feel I need to post this. regardless on whether it is on topic or not.

Silver Crusade

Bandw2 wrote:
turing85 wrote:
Pathfinder Design Team wrote:

Should I put "FAQ request" or “Designer response needed” in my post or thread?

No.
Doing so suggests that your post or thread is more “worthy” of staff attention than someone else’s thread which doesn’t include this text.
Also, because having more FAQ clicks doesn’t make a thread more likely to be answered, doing this to encourage more FAQ clicks doesn’t help you.
Finally, most people insisting they need a designer or developer to weigh in with an official answer are in a situation where they’re disagreeing with the GM or another player and one side refuses to budge unless they get an official response from Paizo, and Paizo doesn’t want to encourage that sort of heavy-handedness.

Please refrain from putting "FAQ request" in your title.

hmmm, I feel like this is something that, for the most part is, ludicrous. Almost all FAQ request threads have been made with the express intent of putting a nice bow on an issue and making it clear and concise on what rules affect the issue and then requesting a FAQ on it.

likewise, i'm not going to FAQ a post unless the poster intends for it to be used as FAQ content.

I feel that the "don't post FAQ request threads" is entirely out of touch on why they're really made. If a thread generates a item that is a potential FAQ candidate I believe the responsible thing to do is to make a seperate thread expressly to generate buzz on getting it FAQed.

Likewise, if they don't care about the quantity of FAQs then there's no real reason to have the FAQ system in the first place.

it feels like a lame reason to discourage FAQing.

I also feel I need to post this. regardless on whether it is on topic or not.

Back when that statement was made it probably had credence as not everything had FAQ REQUEST in it's title so the ones that did stood out more, but as you noted it's a moot point now as pretty much every thread has FAQ REQUEST in the title.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Your point is well taken, Bandw2, but here's my counter:

A thread titled "Warpriest damage and size, let's deal with it", or even "warpriests and size, first post contains FAQ" would not fall afoul of that rule (though the second one is close, and because it's so close the subtlety of the difference might be lost on some people, so there's actually no point to the rule).

It's important to note that while the number of FAQ clicks does not in and of itself make a FAQ more likely to be answered (the complexity of the answer is probably the biggest factor), the "FAQ Queue" does seem (from the information we've learned about it) to commonly display to the design team in "most clicks" order, if only to show them how important we think the question is.

Ultimately, though, that rule is there to prevent every Tom, Dick, and Harry posting with "my GM will only accept an official rules response" to basic questions, and to prevent more experienced users trying to get designer input on RQFAotW (Rules Questions Forum Argument of the Week) for the obscure interactions between one magic item and an ability even Jason Bulmahn forgot is part of the magic rules.

So yes, it's a rule, but if you've been around the block a few times you'll recognise that it's more of a guideline than a rule, and I don't think the design team mind terribly much if it crops up on a genuine thread, which this one is.

Edit: Oh, and clicked. This is complex and needs answering. Not even sure how I'd run it at the moment. Fortunately no warpriests in my current game.

Sczarni

Quantum Steve wrote:
Nefreet wrote:
Quantum Steve wrote:

In any case, I think damage should be consistent:

A Human wielding a large short sword looted from a hill giant should deal the same damage as a medium Impact short sword should deal the same damage as a medium short sword wielded under the effect of Lead Blades.

They do all deal the same damage.

Large Shortsword: 1d8
Impact Shortsword: 1d8
Lead Blades Shortsword: 1d8

Obviously I was referring to short swords being used by a Warpreist.

How much damage would these swords do in the hands of a 10th level Human Warpriest? 1d10? 2d8? Would a large short sword get a damage increase? Should a large short sword deal more damage than a medium greatsword? Should a huge dagger do 3d8?

They all deal the same damage. Always.

Shadow Lodge

I wish this would be looked at, simply because the way the ability is written is done very poorly, as it tries to cover too many things at once.

It also seems rediculous to me that a high level warpriest could poke someone with a favored weapon rapier the size of a toothpick and deal 30 damage, because its based off of the warpriest and not the weapon. While one with a large warhammer does the same damage as one with a medium warhammer at higher levels.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bandw2 wrote:
turing85 wrote:
Pathfinder Design Team wrote:

Should I put "FAQ request" or “Designer response needed” in my post or thread?

No.
Doing so suggests that your post or thread is more “worthy” of staff attention than someone else’s thread which doesn’t include this text.
Also, because having more FAQ clicks doesn’t make a thread more likely to be answered, doing this to encourage more FAQ clicks doesn’t help you.
Finally, most people insisting they need a designer or developer to weigh in with an official answer are in a situation where they’re disagreeing with the GM or another player and one side refuses to budge unless they get an official response from Paizo, and Paizo doesn’t want to encourage that sort of heavy-handedness.

Please refrain from putting "FAQ request" in your title.

hmmm, I feel like this is something that, for the most part is, ludicrous. Almost all FAQ request threads have been made with the express intent of putting a nice bow on an issue and making it clear and concise on what rules affect the issue and then requesting a FAQ on it.

likewise, i'm not going to FAQ a post unless the poster intends for it to be used as FAQ content.

I feel that the "don't post FAQ request threads" is entirely out of touch on why they're really made. If a thread generates a item that is a potential FAQ candidate I believe the responsible thing to do is to make a seperate thread expressly to generate buzz on getting it FAQed.

Likewise, if they don't care about the quantity of FAQs then there's no real reason to have the FAQ system in the first place.

it feels like a lame reason to discourage FAQing.

I also feel I need to post this. regardless on whether it is on topic or not.

They're not saying "don't post FAQ request threads". They're saying "don't put 'FAQ REQUEST' in the title of your rules discussion threads".


Chemlak wrote:
Edit: Oh, and clicked. This is complex and needs answering. Not even sure how I'd run it at the moment. Fortunately no warpriests in my current game.

Clicked as well. We have a warpriestess in the party, and she's nearing the level where sacred weapon damage would become more than base weapon damage (and she uses Righteous Might).


Personally, I'd rule they stack in my games, but the devs have shown an almost unreasonable fear of letting die increases stack, so I'm pretty sure they will say that the two things don't stack, if they ever get around to answering this FAQ.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I'm playing a warpriest/hunter in Iron Gods that uses a chainsword (chainsaw), uses lead blades, and vital strikes...
Right now, we assume it all stacks.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Chainsword is a Large Longsword (AKA Greatsword). Lead Blades applies an effective size bonus to the damage of the weapons you wield. Vital Strike multiplies the number of weapon damage dice you implement. They all stack because they affect different things in relation to the weapon.

But the Warpriest's Sacred Weapon overrides whatever the weapon damage is, and Vital Strike would then deal damage based off of the Sacred Weapon damage dice instead (if it's better, anyway).


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Well, that is how we're currently playing it...the sacred weapon bit doesn't yet increase the base damage dice, so it's not used.
However, he does have a composite longbow he also has weapon focus with...
then again, he can't vital strike with that. He does cast gravity bow when using it, though, and modifies the sacred weapon damage.


The more I think about it, the firmer I become in my opinion.

If Sacred Weapon keys off off weapon size, a 5th level Warpriest wielding a huge light weapon deals 3d6 damage, that's the same as a Titan Mauler with a large Greastsword. And the Warpriest can use any weapon he wants with trip, disarm, extend threat range, or what ever else he can find; the Titan Mauler has to trade damage for those. AND the Warpriest's damage justs keeps going up.
And all that is before adding Enlarge Person and Lead Blades. A 10th level Warpriest could be doing as much as 6d8 base damage with an 15-20/x2 (Improved) crit. And then add Vital Strike to that, because why not?

Sacred Weapon has to key off the size of the Warpriest to avoid all that. Spells like Enalarge Person and Righteous Might would increase his size, and therefore his Sacred Weapon damage, but spells like Lead Blades or Gravity Bow or just using a larger weapon would not.


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


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).


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Quantum Steve wrote:

The more I think about it, the firmer I become in my opinion.

If Sacred Weapon keys off off weapon size, a 5th level Warpriest wielding a huge light weapon deals 3d6 damage, that's the same as a Titan Mauler with a large Greastsword.

The warpriest wielding a huge light weapon also takes a hefty -4 attack penalty on all swings with that thing, the same as a titan mauler wielding a large greatsword at 6th level.

As the warpriest levels up, the damage goes up. But as the titan mauler levels up, the to-hit penalty goes down. This is in addition to the full-BaB progression that the titan mauler benefits from.

However, I believe that is unrelated. The balance of another class or archetype should have no bearing on the legality of an unrelated rules interaction. If that was always a concern, then anything you could do with a wizard spell shouldn't be allowed.


Johnny_Devo wrote:
Quantum Steve wrote:

The more I think about it, the firmer I become in my opinion.

If Sacred Weapon keys off off weapon size, a 5th level Warpriest wielding a huge light weapon deals 3d6 damage, that's the same as a Titan Mauler with a large Greastsword.

The warpriest wielding a huge light weapon also takes a hefty -4 attack penalty on all swings with that thing, the same as a titan mauler wielding a large greatsword at 6th level.

As the warpriest levels up, the damage goes up. But as the titan mauler levels up, the to-hit penalty goes down. This is in addition to the full-BaB progression that the titan mauler benefits from.

However, I believe that is unrelated. The balance of another class or archetype should have no bearing on the legality of an unrelated rules interaction. If that was always a concern, then anything you could do with a wizard spell shouldn't be allowed.

A Warpriest takes a MASSIVE -4 to his attack, in exchange for a MERE 3d8 damage (which is better than TH PA, btw) at 10th level.

Also RAW, Sacred Weapon damage is based on the size of the Warpriest. Period. There's no two ways about it. There's no other valid interpretation of the RAW. The only question is whether Warpriest should be able to benefit from size increases to his weapon from a balance standpoint.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Quantum Steve wrote:


Also RAW, Sacred Weapon damage is based on the size of the Warpriest. Period. There's no two ways about it. There's no other valid interpretation of the RAW.

Horsefeathers.

There is nothing incompatible between the idea that a weapon does x amount of damage and that x can be increased (either via a formula or addition)

A bigger warpriest would have a bigger sword.

A bigger sword would do more damage.


a bigger warpriest using a smaller sword does the same damage as a bigger warpriest using a larger sword. Sacred weapon damage doesn't care about the weapon at all. If you had sacred weapon on a mug it'd be doing just as much damage as the greatsword. Sacred weapon damage is set and is based off of the size of the warpriest.

if blowgun is doing 1d6 and greatsword is doing 1d6 than I don't see how making the greatsword Larger is going to suddenly make the damage more. Also having an impact greatsword treated larger is the same as the large greatsword, damage is just 1d6, based on size of the warpriest.

Sovereign Court

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Quantum Steve wrote:


Also RAW, Sacred Weapon damage is based on the size of the Warpriest. Period. There's no two ways about it. There's no other valid interpretation of the RAW.

Horsefeathers.

There is nothing incompatible between the idea that a weapon does x amount of damage and that x can be increased (either via a formula or addition)

A bigger warpriest would have a bigger sword.

A bigger sword would do more damage.

A big war priest could pick up a big sword that does a lot of damage. But his Sacred Weapon damage is entirely separate from that; it only looks at the size of the war priest, not at the size of the weapon. That's why it says:

Sacred Weapon wrote:
The damage for Medium warpriests is given on the table above; see the table below for Small and Large warpriests.

A large war priest could wield a tiny toothpick for 1d8 damage (L1). Or he could wield an appropriately-sized longsword for 2d6 damage (at level 1, sacred weapon lags behind ordinary longsword damage for everyone).

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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
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.

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.


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.

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.

Large Bastard Swords with their 2D8 dice that a lot of people build with say hi.

Small Reach Weapons which still provide their 10 foot reach (and 5 foot vulnerability zone) while freeing up a hand to use something else also tip their cap.

1 to 50 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.