Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game

Starfinder


Pathfinder Society


Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Effective size increases FAQ clarification


Rules Questions

1 to 50 of 68 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.
lkhsdf
Quote:
Size increases and effective size increases: How does damage work if I have various effects that change my actual size, my effective size, and my damage dice?
As per the rules on size changes, size changes do not stack, so if you have multiple size changing effects (for instance an effect that increases your size by one step and another that increases your size by two steps), only the largest applies. The same is true of effective size increases (which includes “deal damage as if they were one size category larger than they actually are,” “your damage die type increases by one step,” and similar language). They don’t stack with each other, just take the biggest one. However, you can have one of each and they do work together (for example, enlarge person increasing your actual size to Large and a bashing shield increasing your shield’s effective size by two steps, for a total of 2d6 damage).

There are THREE separate things being referred to in the question which this FAQ answers. Am I to understand that players may stack one and only of each of the following:

1. an actual size change
2. an "effective size" change
3. a damage die alteration that doesn't refer to size.

...or is anything that budges the "Damage Dice Progression Chart" now considered an "effective size" change?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The only way to bypass it would be if a specific rule said to ignore what was stated in the FAQ.
As of no rule exist so there is not budging.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It specifically says "effective size increases" include "your damage die type increases by one step" even if it doesn't mention size.

Something like a monk's unarmed damage dice improving as they go up levels wouldn't count, since that doesn't use the damage dice progression steps.

Sczarni

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Slim Jim, I've noticed from this and few of your other recent posts that your reading style leans toward the hyper analytical, like using a technical manual.

While that style of interpretation certainly has its merits in specific circumstances, it is not how the Developers of this game have stated they intend their material to be read.

Pathfinder is written in a conversational style that is meant to be read casually and with a modicum of common sense. Hyper analyzing one word in a paragraph isn't generally beneficial.

I say this because you've now created two threads that claim ambiguity when there is none. I understand this may be your way of trying to understand a new rules system, but really just take a step back and imagine how the average player, or a young teenager, or 60-year-old veteran, or someone learning English would read the same passage.

It will really help you to actually understand what you're reading.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

1. an actual size change
2. an "effective size" change

You get one of each of these two.

All damage die alterations fall into one of those two classification.

Hyper analyzing isn’t the way to understand a rules system that depends on significant amounts of common sense and GM adjudication.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Nefreet wrote:

Slim Jim, I've noticed from this and few of your other recent posts that your reading style leans toward the hyper analytical, like using a technical manual.

While that style of interpretation certainly has its merits in specific circumstances, it is not how the Developers of this game have stated they intend their material to be read.

Pathfinder is written in a conversational style that is meant to be read casually and with a modicum of common sense. Hyper analyzing one word in a paragraph isn't generally beneficial.

I say this because you've now created two threads that claim ambiguity when there is none. I understand this may be your way of trying to understand a new rules system, but really just take a step back and imagine how the average player, or a young teenager, or 60-year-old veteran, or someone learning English would read the same passage.

It will really help you to actually understand what you're reading.

This would hold more weight if the Developers didn't sometimes use a "reading style leans toward the hyper analytical" to come to some of their FAQ/rulings... For instance, the "average player" would think that grappling is an attack with your hands or that ammo would bypass DR because of the weapon's enchantment but a "hyper analytical" FAQ proved them wrong. More and more often, that 'average player" reading leads you to a different conclusion than the Developers tell us the game has always been meant to be run...


James Risner wrote:

1. an actual size change

2. an "effective size" change

You get one of each of these two.

All damage die alterations fall into one of those two classification.

Hyper analyzing isn’t the way to understand a rules system that depends on significant amounts of common sense and GM adjudication.

You mean "all damage die alterations" mentioned in the FAQ "fall into one of those two classifications," right?

You're not disagreeing with

Matthew Downie who wrote:
Something like a monk's unarmed damage dice improving as they go up levels wouldn't count,

are you? Are you saying that the increased damage from Monk Unarmed Strikes as they gain levels is due to some kind of virtual size increase?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

The monk unarmed strike damage progression can be perfectly expressed as follows:

A monk's unarmed damage starts at 1d6. At 4th level and every 4 levels thereafter, the monk increases the damage by 1 step in the damage progression chart (see FAQ), except at level 20 when it becomes 2d10.

There is actually therefore an ambiguity as to how monk damage increases work with virtual size increases (personally I'd say they stack, since the monk progression behaves differently to all other size increases and just makes life hard for everyone and I really tried to squeeze it in but it just doesn't play nicely with the other dice increases).


Matthew Downie wrote:
It specifically says "effective size increases" include "your damage die type increases by one step"
Yes, it does specifically say that, that being why you've elected to put it in quotation marks.
Quote:
even if it doesn't mention size.

It does not specifically say that, which is why you didn't bracket that wording in quotation marks. What it specifically said was: "...and similar language", with the context being the subject of the sentence ending in that wording, said sentence beginning with: "The same is true of effective size increases..."

-- Which led to my straight-up Yes/No question : "...is anything that budges the "Damage Dice Progression Chart" now considered an "effective size" change?"

Which no one yet has directly answered, and the longer there is not an answer, the greater the level of "ambiguity" (see below) increases.

Nefreet wrote:
Slim Jim, I've noticed from this and few of your other recent posts that your reading style leans toward the hyper analytical, like using a technical manual.
I am only like that when I am dealing with RULES, especially FAQs, as these are very important when I am designing a build with a lot of moving parts for a campaign subject to RAW.
Quote:
Pathfinder is written in a conversational style that is meant to be read casually
In the old days, they called that "flavor text". Maybe they still do. Flavor text was distinct from rules.
Quote:
and with a modicum of common sense.
I reject your insinuation that I lack common sense.
Quote:
Hyper analyzing
I reject your insinuation that I am "hyper" analyzing.
Quote:
one word in a paragraph
I reject this erroneous hyperbole. The FAQ question referred to three things, separated by two commas. The FAQ answer referred to two things, and...it should be clear that I am "analyzing" more than "one word in a paragraph".
Quote:
I say this because you've now created two threads that claim ambiguity when there is none.
The FAQ question referred to three things, separated by two commas. The FAQ answer referred to two things. -- That's "ambiguous". (Your word, and it will serve nicely.)
Quote:
...imagine how...a young teenager...would read the same passage...
With the attention-span of a gnat, I would imagine. You'll be tasked with attempting to explain why his 16d8 charge monster doesn't work, and have to polymorph yourself into an English teacher hauling out that FAQ. At which point you are their dream-crusher.
Quote:
It will really help you to actually understand what you're reading

Since I actually did do quite well in English grammar, I spotted the ambiguity of a three-things question getting a two-things answer without explicitly stating that two of the things were, henceforth, to be considered the same thing.

Let me help: If the title of the "Damage Dice Progression Chart" had the word size in it, this discussion and many others sprawled across the messagebases would not exist. March of 2015 would have been a good time to rename it (did the chart even exist in that form under that name before then?) Any time since then would have been a good time to rename it.

-- If that were the case, the sentence in the FAQ answer beginning with, "The same is true of effective size increases" could have ended with a period right there.

But unfortunately, it is not that way. So, I will ask again:

Is anything that increase or decreases damage along the "Damage Dice Progression Chart" now considered an "effective size" change (when it is not already an actual size change)?


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I can answer the question about whether the Damage Dice Progression Chart existed in that form before the FAQ:

No. I first proposed it here in October 2014 (specific rules don't quite match the final version the design team adopted).

Sczarni

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Starfinder Charter Superscriber

I don't think you're going to do well in this community, Slim Jim, unless you tone it back a bit.

Taking apart my post sentence by sentence is really proof positive that your reading style is "hyper analytical". When I say that it would be good practice to read things more in a conversational style, it's not a personal attack on you. I'm trying to help you understand the game in a way that will prevent strife, both for you and the people you engage in a dialogue with.

Myself and several of the other posters in this thread had a hand in both of those FAQs you're referring to, so listening to what we're telling you isn't just opinion.

If your home GM is so focused on "RAW", however they define that, then I would suggest finding another group, or joining PFS. There really is no such thing as "RAW", since multiple people can interpret the same written text in more than one way.

Reading is an interpretive activity. Hyper analyzing written text is useful in some aspects of life, but not Pathfinder.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The damage die progression chart is under a question. Within the question are 2 conditions, if you read the whole sentence:

"how to increase and decrease manufactured and natural weapon damage dice when[b] the weapon's size or effective size changes[\b].

ergo the entire following sections only applies to the heading in which it is contained. Thus the Damage Dice Progression Chart exist only with the context of size changes as per the question regardless of what it is titled.

Example book the phylogeny of clover has a chart called species. Am I talking about clover species or all species? Clearly the former.

Following the same logic we can isolate the conditions of the second faq. "Size increases and effective size increases" an other pair of conditions to which the contents of the answer apply, which should not be generalized beyond.

This provides us with the framework to interpret the ambitious phrase "similar language". By process of elimination "similar language" must be referring to virtual size changes. This results from two pieces of data. First, the real sized changes have already been addressed in the sentence, and second it is a parenthetical thought to effective size changes. The result is that for the similar language it must be indicated the it is a size changes or has to reference anynof the published or faq size charts.

We are now left with a single question "is the monk chart a chart or virtual size increase? To do this we look at what data is on each side.

In the afermative:
The charts are similar in content.

In the negative:
It does not mention size.
The charts, though similar, are different.
The warpriest also has no mention of size.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nefreet wrote:

I don't think you're going to do well in this community, Slim Jim, unless you tone it back a bit.

Taking apart my post sentence by sentence is really proof positive that your reading style is "hyper analytical". When I say that it would be good practice to read things more in a conversational style, it's not a personal attack on you. I'm trying to help you understand the game in a way that will prevent strife, both for you and the people you engage in a dialogue with.

Myself and several of the other posters in this thread had a hand in both of those FAQs you're referring to, so listening to what we're telling you isn't just opinion.

If your home GM is so focused on "RAW", however they define that, then I would suggest finding another group, or joining PFS. There really is no such thing as "RAW", since multiple people can interpret the same written text in more than one way.

Reading is an interpretive activity. Hyper analyzing written text is useful in some aspects of life, but not Pathfinder.

Except for those situations where you are expected to hyper-analyze the text. For example, not all Monk (weapon discriptor) weapons are Monk (fighter weapon group) weapons, and if you use a particular weapon mod to make a ranged weapon into a bow (fighter weapon group), it still doesn’t qualify for some bow feats.

So, the rules text is conversational until it isn’t.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ventnor wrote:
Nefreet wrote:

I don't think you're going to do well in this community, Slim Jim, unless you tone it back a bit.

Taking apart my post sentence by sentence is really proof positive that your reading style is "hyper analytical". When I say that it would be good practice to read things more in a conversational style, it's not a personal attack on you. I'm trying to help you understand the game in a way that will prevent strife, both for you and the people you engage in a dialogue with.

Myself and several of the other posters in this thread had a hand in both of those FAQs you're referring to, so listening to what we're telling you isn't just opinion.

If your home GM is so focused on "RAW", however they define that, then I would suggest finding another group, or joining PFS. There really is no such thing as "RAW", since multiple people can interpret the same written text in more than one way.

Reading is an interpretive activity. Hyper analyzing written text is useful in some aspects of life, but not Pathfinder.

Except for those situations where you are expected to hyper-analyze the text. For example, not all Monk (weapon discriptor) weapons are Monk (fighter weapon group) weapons, and if you use a particular weapon mod to make a ranged weapon into a bow (fighter weapon group), it still doesn’t qualify for some bow feats.

So, the rules text is conversational until it isn’t.

Or for instance, thrown weapons. When a rule says that, what does it mean: the weapon group or a weapon actually being thrown? Is my far strike monk allowed to flurry with a dagger in melee [weapon group] or an improvised weapon [physically thrown and in no weapon group]?

Often the easy, common sense and conversational reading is farthest from the correct answer. Until we actually get a default standard for reading rules that the Dev's actually follow, there really isn't a point for calls of "conversational style" reading because there's a good chance that it doesn't match the Dev's read.


Saying "often" doesn't equate to every time, nor this topic.

Also I would challenge the usage of often there too without proof that common sense is the farthest from a correct answer. I would greatly disagree there, and can find developer posts that state the opposite in approach.


Cavall wrote:
Saying "often" doesn't equate to every time, nor this topic.

Saying it ONCE means that it really isn't appropriate for people to come in and say 'THE way to read the rule is X'. "X" isn't the universal answer.

Cavall wrote:
Also I would challenge the usage of often there too without proof that common sense is the farthest from a correct answer. I would greatly disagree there, and can find developer posts that state the opposite in approach.

it's meaningless to show developer posts when they do the opposite. As to "often", it's FAR too often IMO. it's to the point where you have no idea how to read the rules until the Dev's actually come in and tell you. We've listed several issue to date where 'conversational reading' [if you dislike 'common sense'] fails.

As to "common sense is the farthest from a correct answer", take the Ammo FAQ. Literally 1 person, out of maybe 50 people in the thread, read it that magic ranged weapons didn't allowed ammo to bypass DR: the way it was written was quite clear that it did. However, the FAQ agreed with the 1 dude. I'd call that appropriate to the quote. Did YOU agree/anticipate with the FAQ? If not, it was "the farthest from a correct answer" ruling for you and the other 50 people in that thread.

Sczarni

Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Outliers do not set precedence, though, otherwise they wouldn't be outliers.


Nefreet wrote:
Outliers do not set precedence, though, otherwise they wouldn't be outliers.

It proves what it proves: that there is NO one way to read the rules and "Hyper analyzing" may be the correct read.

As to "Outliers", we'll have to agree to disagree. There is enough for me to see a very clear and obvious pattern of "Do what we say, not what we do". Even if you see it differently, we have to notice the outliers and their existence shows that "conversational style" isn't the one true answer to any and all rules questions: It's an exception that tests the rule. Absolute like "always read the rules in a "conversational style" are notoriously incapable to holding true.


Here's an example of hyperanalyzing: looking at a clause in an FAQ about Virtual Size Increases and then declaring that all damage dice changes are size increases!

Monk Unarmed Strikes Damage does not say it is any kind of Size increase, virtual or otherwise. If Paizo wants MUSD to count as virtual size increases, they need to say so. Extrapolating text describing Virtual Size Increases to apply to things that don't say they are Virtual Size Increases is over-reaching and hyperanalyzing. If Paizo intends to retroactively re-define all kinds of damage dice changed to be some kinds of Size increases, even the ones that don't even say they are any kind of Size Increase, then then need to do that directly. If Paizo is really doing that with a subordinate clause nested in quotes, nested in parentheses, nested in a FAQ, well, that's crap.

But lets assume for the moment that Paizo is actually throwing this shovel full of crap at us.

FAQ wrote:
"your damage die type increases by one step"

Does Monk Unarmed Strike have this language?

Monk wrote:
A monk also deals more damage with his unarmed strikes than a normal person would, as shown above on Table: Monk.

Nope.

Does Warpriest Sacred Weapon Damage have this language?

Warpriest wrote:
At 1st level, 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.

Double nope.

Well, do those damage progression table steps for Monk or Warpriest match the Size increase damage dice steps?

The size increase steps go from 1d8->2d6 and from 1d10->2d8.

For both Monk and Warpriest, the increase steps go from 1d8->1d10->2d6.

Triple nope!

Shadow Lodge

If something mentions the damage die progression chart it is 99.44% likely to be a size increase.

What specifically did you think might be an exception to it?

Shadow Lodge

graystone wrote:
Nefreet wrote:
Outliers do not set precedence, though, otherwise they wouldn't be outliers.

It proves what it proves: that there is NO one way to read the rules and "Hyper analyzing" may be the correct read.

Hyper analyzing usually isn't the right read.

The stronger reading usually isn't the right read.

Hyper analyzing to get the stronger reading being the right read has a chance i'd describe as "lottoesque"


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Slim Jim wrote:
Nefreet wrote:
Slim Jim, I've noticed from this and few of your other recent posts that your reading style leans toward the hyper analytical, like using a technical manual.

I am only like that when I am dealing with RULES, especially FAQs, as these are very important when I am designing a build with a lot of moving parts for a campaign subject to RAW.

Quote:
Pathfinder is written in a conversational style that is meant to be read casually
In the old days, they called that "flavor text". Maybe they still do. Flavor text was distinct from rules.

I used to write technical manuals. And all mathematicians are skilled at hyper analyzing.

Unless a technical manual is written for experts in the field who use the same jargon, it needs an overview that defines the language and intent of its techniques. So-called common sense pulls from experience to create a mental model of how a process works. People with different experience have different mental models and could come to different conclusions by common sense. The overview helps the reader adopt the same mental model as the developer.

For example, graystone pointed up that "thrown weapons" could mean either the weapon group named thrown weapons or a weapons being thrown. The writer who said "thrown weapons" had such a strong mental image of what he or she meant by "thrown weapons" that he or she did not see any reason to clarify. The reader might have a different mental image, and the lack of clarification could lead to error. Common sense can be a pitfall.

The coversational style of the Pathfinder rulebooks serves to make the book easier to read for people unaccustomed to technical reading and provides the overview necessary for expressing the rules without added clarification. It is not just flavor text.

Slim Jim wrote:
Matthew Downie wrote:
It specifically says "effective size increases" include "your damage die type increases by one step"
Yes, it does specifically say that, that being why you've elected to put it in quotation marks.
Quote:
even if it doesn't mention size.

It does not specifically say that, which is why you didn't bracket that wording in quotation marks. What it specifically said was: "...and similar language", with the context being the subject of the sentence ending in that wording, said sentence beginning with: "The same is true of effective size increases..."

-- Which led to my straight-up Yes/No question : "...is anything that budges the "Damage Dice Progression Chart" now considered an "effective size" change?"

Which no one yet has directly answered, and the longer there is not an answer, the greater the level of "ambiguity" (see below) increases.

When hyper analyzing, asking the correct question is critical. "Budging" is not a precise term. The precise question is, "Is the Damage Dice Progression Chart used for any weapon damage changes besides size increases and effective size increases?"

The answer is no. If an effect refers to moving up or down steps in that chart, then it is either a size change or an effective size change. The FAQ would have been clearer if Paizo had named the chart, "Damage Dice Progression Chart for Weapon Sizes."


Slim Jim wrote:
Is anything that increase or decreases damage along the "Damage Dice Progression Chart" now considered an "effective size" change (when it is not already an actual size change)?

There is no way to stack effective size increases at this time.


Threads like this make me confident in running my games "Rules as I read them," not "Rules as FAQ'ed." Not that I especially disagree with this one, but there's too many FAQs, and too many that break the "conversational style."


BigNorseWolf wrote:
graystone wrote:
Nefreet wrote:
Outliers do not set precedence, though, otherwise they wouldn't be outliers.

It proves what it proves: that there is NO one way to read the rules and "Hyper analyzing" may be the correct read.

Hyper analyzing usually isn't the right read.

The stronger reading usually isn't the right read.

Hyper analyzing to get the stronger reading being the right read has a chance i'd describe as "lottoesque"

"usually isn't the right read" means that sometimes it is: this means that offhandedly dismissing it is incorrect. We have NO idea when the Dev's are going to be "Hyper analyzing" a rule [see ammo FAQ] so the person that's also "Hyper analyzing" might be the correct reader.

There is no 'one true way' to read the rules. it's fine to suggest one type of reading is more likely to get you to the right conclusion but each of us is going to disagree on what the percentage chance is that each method is going to work. For me, lately the percentage chance for conversational reading being the right way has been dropping after every FAQ... "usually" has been a lot less 'usual' lately.

For instance, we got a ruling that grappling isn't affected by an AoMF. So an item that modifies unarmed attacks doesn't effect an attack you make unarmed... Not exactly the result that comes from 'conversational style' reading.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

For fun in hyper-analyzing, let's look at the math of the Damage Dice Progression Chart. This has little to do with the original question, but the progresssion looked off kilter to me.

Damage Dice Progression Chart:
1, 1d2, 1d3, 1d4, 1d6, 1d8, 1d10, 2d6, 2d8, 3d6, 3d8, 4d6, 4d8, 6d6, 6d8, 8d6, 8d8, 12d6, 12d8, 16d6

Let's replace the dice by their average value:
1, 1.5, 2, 2.5, 3.5, 4.5, 5.5, 7, 9, 10.5, 13.5, 14, 18, 21, 27, 28, 36, 42, 54, 56

Let's look at the differences between adjacent entries to see how smooth and consistent the progression is:
0.5, 0.5, 0.5, 1, 1, 1, 1.5, 2, 1.5, 3, 0.5, 4, 3, 6, 1, 8, 6, 12, 2

The 1.5 difference between 2d8 and 3d6 is smaller than I would expect and the 0.5 difference between 3d8 and 4d6 is even worse. I think that whoever designed the chart decided that Xd6 should be followed by Xd8, which adds X to the average damage, even if X is too big and forces the next difference to be unusually small.

We can test my hypothesis by examining differences between pairs two apart rather than adjacent.
1st cut: 1, 1d3, 1d6, 1d10, 2d8, 3d8, 4d8, 6d8, 8d8, 12d8
Differences: 1, 1.5, 2, 3.5, 4.5, 4.5, 9, 9, 18
2nd cut: 1d2, 1d4, 1d8, 2d6, 3d6, 4d6, 6d6, 8d6, 12d6, 16d6
Differences: 1, 2, 2.5, 3.5, 3.5, 7, 7, 14, 14

Those numbers are more consistent with each other.

For full smoothness, I need to model the progression.

If the progression were supposed to be quadratic, then their differences would increase linearly:
0.5, 0.5, 0.5, 1, 1, 1, 1.5, 1.5, 1.5, 2, 2, 2, ...
But that is too slow at the end.

If the progression were supposed to be geometric, then the 4.5, 4.5, 9, 9, 18 and 3.5, 3.5, 7, 7, 14, 14 patterns of the two-apart differences imply a multiplier of the 4th root of 2, which is 1.18. The first average damage, 1, and the last average damage, 56, are 19 apart, suggesting the 19th root of 56/1, which is 1.24. And the ratio between 1d6 and 1d8 is 4.5/3.5 = 1.29. Let's compromise at a multiplier of 1.254, which makes the sequence 3.5, 4.5, 5.5 appear fairly cleanly.

That gives the sequence:
1.4, 1.8, 2.2, 2.8, 3.5, 4.4, 5.5, 6.8, 8.6, 10.8, 13.6, 17.0, 21.4, 26.8, 33.6, 42.1, 52.8, 66.3
and we adjust to distinct dice-based numbers:
1.0, 1.5, 2.0, 2.5, 3.5, 4.5, 5.5, 7.0, 9.0, 11.0, 13.5, 16.5, 21.0, 27.0, 33.0, 42.0, 54.0. 66.0
1d1, 1d2, 1d3, 1d4, 1d6, 1d8, 1d10, 2d6, 2d8, 2d10, 3d8, 3d10, 6d6, 6d8, 6d10, 12d6, 12d8, 12d10

The differences of the average damage in this dice progression are:
0.5, 0.5, 0.5, 1, 1, 1, 1.5, 2, 2, 2.5, 3, 4.5, 6, 6, 9, 12, 12

Shadow Lodge

graystone wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
graystone wrote:
Nefreet wrote:
Outliers do not set precedence, though, otherwise they wouldn't be outliers.

It proves what it proves: that there is NO one way to read the rules and "Hyper analyzing" may be the correct read.

Hyper analyzing usually isn't the right read.

The stronger reading usually isn't the right read.

Stop reading halflway through is never the right read.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
graystone wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
graystone wrote:
Nefreet wrote:
Outliers do not set precedence, though, otherwise they wouldn't be outliers.

It proves what it proves: that there is NO one way to read the rules and "Hyper analyzing" may be the correct read.

Hyper analyzing usually isn't the right read.

The stronger reading usually isn't the right read.

Stop reading halflway through is never the right read.

True, but I'll forgive you. ;)

EDIT: Sorry, being snarky. I do agree with it being very unlikely that the Dev's will rule to strengthen an option, so I do understand your point I was just making a different point semi-tangential from yours.


Nefreet wrote:
Slim Him wrote:
Nefreet wrote:
and with a modicum of common sense.
I reject your insinuation that I lack common sense.
I don't think you're going to do well in this community, Slim Jim, unless you tone it back a bit. Taking apart my post sentence by sentence is really proof positive that your reading style is "hyper analytical".

I gave some consideration to just ignoring the ad-hominem barbs peppering your prose in recent exchances, but, as I've noted this behavior across several threads now with myself not the only target, chose to respond in the manner I did in order to let you know how you come across to others as they are reading your material left-to-right, top-to-bottom. Anything offensive JUMPS out. What you are engaging in is "argument from intimidation", and it needs to stop.

"Why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?"

Rather than either one of us being idiots, I propose an alternative hypothesis: the rules still need work, and it's a good thing we're not launching satellites with this code.

Mathmuse wrote:
When hyper analyzing, asking the correct question is critical. "Budging" is not a precise term. The precise question is, "Is the Damage Dice Progression Chart used for any weapon damage changes besides size increases and effective size increases?"
It is a more precise question, but it is also a different one.
Quote:
The answer is no. If an effect refers to moving up or down steps in that chart, then it is either a size change or an effective size change. The FAQ would have been clearer if Paizo had named the chart, "Damage Dice Progression Chart for Weapon Sizes."

Indeed it would have, because then the intent would have been clear that the chart pertains to size.

Scott Wilhelm wrote:

Here's an example of hyperanalyzing: looking at a clause in an FAQ about Virtual Size Increases and then declaring that all damage dice changes are size increases!

<snip>

If Paizo wants MUSD to count as virtual size increases, they need to say so.

This, *exactly*.

(The problem is that the chart is extraordinarily useful, as is Mathmuse's suggested variant suitable for home games, and it'd be a shame to pidgeonhole it exclusively for size changes. I can envision and hope for future reprintings where classes such as monk tie into it, and with the size-stacking issues revisited and clarified.)

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Slim Jim wrote:
I gave some consideration to just ignoring the ad-hominem barbs peppering your prose in recent exchances

It's not an ad hom.

That you are reading the rules with a hyper literal bent is an observation.

That this is not the only way to read the rules is a fact. The idea that you're advancing, that this is how the rules HAVE to be read, is simply false.

That this way of reading the rules has a horrible track record of being right is also a fact.

Nothing relies on you as a person. Whats being lambasted is the arbitrary decision to embrace a particular rules paradigm. A paradigm that is most often used to make rules lawyering arguments in favor of the rules lawyer and has a horrible track record of being right.

Aristotelian logic requires

1) A perfectly coherent system
2) full knowledge of that system
3) a perfect logician

Pathfinder is not a perfectly coherent system. Trying to act as if it was is going to run you into problems.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Pathfinder is not a perfectly coherent system.

I think this is the best/most accurate thing I've read today. Does this come in a poster?


BigNorseWolf wrote:
It's not an ad hom.
When, in a post specifically calling out another person (e.g, "Slim Jim, I've noticed from this and few of your other recent posts...), one includes phrasing such as "and with a modicum of common sense" (implication: the person you're talking lacks it), that is unequivocally ad-hom, the purpose of which is to shift the argument into being about the person rather than the topic. Let's just not do it.
Quote:
That you are reading the rules with a hyper literal bent is an observation.
As I stated in response to that up-page, I am designing a build with a lot of moving parts for a campaign subject to RAW. (And I chose the Rules forum for this thread, not Advice, to confine it to RAW.)
Quote:
Whats being lambasted is the arbitrary decision to embrace a particular rules paradigm. A paradigm that is most often used to make rules lawyering arguments in favor of the rules lawyer and has a horrible track record of being right.
I am trying to avoid anything with the least ambiguity in the aforementioned build. I.e., the exact opposite of the classic "munchkin" mentality that I get the impression you have assumed of me.
Quote:
Pathfinder is not a perfectly coherent system. Trying to act as if it was is going to run you into problems.

Yes! Excellent! -- There are ambiguities.

(I'll order a poster too.)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Coming in here with fresh eyes and getting back on topic instead of devolving the thread into back-and-forthing (compared to everyone else), I don't think the OP was "hyper analyzing" the FAQ at all, whatsoever. He was actually asking a whole different question than what the linked FAQ was meant to answer.

He's asking if something like the Monk's Unarmed Damage Dice progression, or if the Warpriest's Sacred Weapon Damage Dice progression, is considered a size bonus or not. And if it is, what type of bonus would it be: actual size, effective size, or some unknown third category that would stack with both?

And that's a valid question, especially since it may either change the way we stack effects on classes with such features, or create an addendum to the existing FAQ to include a clause related to this subject matter so that it doesn't become an issue later down the road (and believe me, it will some day).

To that end, I have a couple analyses that may provide a concrete answer.

The first analysis is in relation to how the Monk/Warpriest Damage Dice features interact with what's already spelled out in the feature: the Damage Dice benefits from the Monk/Warpriest scale based off of the class' actual size. If they're Large or bigger, they do more damage, and if they're Small or smaller, they do less damage.

We can already rule out that this feature isn't an actual Size increase, because if it was then the feature wouldn't include a clause stating that damage scaled based off of your actual size, as both your new size and the damage from your class wouldn't stack. But does that make it an effective size increase? Not necessarily, which leads into the next part.

The second analysis is in relation to the Warpriest's Damage Dice feature and how it interacts with certain spell/ability effects. Take for example, a Warpriest using a +1 Longsword. If he benefits from the Lead Blades spell (maybe he UMD'd a scroll or something), a spell which targets a creature and enhances their weapon attacks to deal damage "as if one size bigger," it would increase the Warpriest's Sacred Weapon damage, because this spell modifies the end result of the weapon's damage.

Compared to a weapon enhancement like Impact, which has a similar effect, but is chained to the weapon's base damage dice instead of targeting the Warpriest, meaning that it simply gives the Warpriest a different alternative between his weapon's damage dice and his Sacred Weapon damage dice.

From here, we can rule out that it's an effective size increase due to how Lead Blades and Impact interact with a Warpriest, where one effect works due to it affecting the Warpriest himself and anything he wields, no questions asked, and the other doesn't because it affects only the weapon, and isn't relevant in the case of Sacred Weapon being applied since Sacred Weapon isn't the weapon's original damage dice that's being enhanced.

Another equivalency is in relation to Monk damage dice and Strong Jaw, which increases all of the natural attack and unarmed strike damage dice calculations as if two steps bigger, which is a modification of their unarmed strike damage dice as a whole.

So, with these two analyses, it's safe to assume that Warpriest/Monk Damage Dice features fall under the third, unlisted option, which means that it stacks with all actual size bonuses, and some effective size bonuses (depending on how those bonuses are applied, of course). It's more in-line with an effective size bonus, but because it lacks the language identified with the FAQ, it doesn't fall under that paradigm.

Honestly, I think this does deserve a FAQ, but this thread won't be the way to do it since the question for it wasn't worded properly.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

The chart does not need to be retitled. The chart is contained in within an faq, that faq o my deals with size changes and effective size changes therefore the chart only applies to those things. This is how titles and heading work.

Repeated example book the phylogeny of clover has a chart called species. Am I talking about clover species or all species? Clearly the former.

Monk damage increase is labeled as neither size nor effective size thus it is a third untyped option. Think of it more like short sword, long sword, great sword what type of damage dice increase is that? None, the weapon's just do increases damage like a monks fist.

Shadow Lodge

Slim Jim wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
It's not an ad hom.
When, in a post specifically calling out another person (e.g, "Slim Jim, I've noticed from this and few of your other recent posts...), one includes phrasing such as "and with a modicum of common sense" (implication: the person you're talking lacks it) , that is unequivocally ad-hom

That is not what an ad hom is. An ad hom is not an insult. An ad hom is a statement about the other person used as a basis for an argument.

He is telling you that the rules require common sense to read. (which if anything, implies that you do have common sense) and that the aristotilean approach you're demanding that the FAQ rules fit into is never going to happen. The rules aren't written that way. They don't write the rules that way because they need a lot of people to read them, and not nearly as many people are going to read a book written in computer code.

It isn't an ad hom that you're trying to do that. Case in point...

Quote:
As I stated in response to that up-page, I am designing a build with a lot of moving parts for a campaign subject to RAW.

There is no such thing as raw. RAW is like inner peace. The harder you try to have it the less of it you'll have. The more objectivity you look for the more subjectivity you will make. I would tell you that you're chasing a unicorn, but the game actually has unicorns.

and again...

Quote:
(And I chose the Rules forum for this thread, not Advice, to confine it to RAW.)

That's not how it works.

That's not how any of this works.

Since the rules aren't written with sola RAW in mind, and aren't meant to be read with a sola raw view, then why on earth would you expect the rules forum to be limited to a sola raw point of view?

Advice is not "the fuzzy rules forum". Its where you go to check over builds, find out what would be good, locate items or ideas you hadn't thought of. The rules forum is not the inane raw forum.(on a good day. I keep telling myself. On a good day...) If you're looking at a rules ambiguity raw is certainly going to be brought up, but the argument is rarely going to end there. Raw is often ambiguous and leaves two or more possible interpretations that you need to sort through. Common sense, power levels, developer commentaries etc. are all part of that.

Quote:
I am trying to avoid anything with the least ambiguity in the aforementioned build.

You are in the wrong game. It would be nice if there was a #sizeincrease or #virtualsizeincrease system in place but there isn't.

At the most we can say

I don't see anything that hints the monks fist is a size increase
It doesn't follow the progression for dice increases

I'm more certain it's not a size increase than I am of waking up tomorrow.


Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

Coming in here with fresh eyes and getting back on topic instead of devolving the thread into back-and-forthing (compared to everyone else), I don't think the OP was "hyper analyzing" the FAQ at all, whatsoever. He was actually asking a whole different question than what the linked FAQ was meant to answer.

He's asking if something like the Monk's Unarmed Damage Dice progression, or if the Warpriest's Sacred Weapon Damage Dice progression, is considered a size bonus or not. And if it is, what type of bonus would it be: actual size, effective size, or some unknown third category that would stack with both?

And that's a valid question, especially since it may either change the way we stack effects on classes with such features, or create an addendum to the existing FAQ to include a clause related to this subject matter so that it doesn't become an issue later down the road (and believe me, it will some day).

To that end, I have a couple analyses that may provide a concrete answer.

The first analysis is in relation to how the Monk/Warpriest Damage Dice features interact with what's already spelled out in the feature: the Damage Dice benefits from the Monk/Warpriest scale based off of the class' actual size. If they're Large or bigger, they do more damage, and if they're Small or smaller, they do less damage.

We can already rule out that this feature isn't an actual Size increase, because if it was then the feature wouldn't include a clause stating that damage scaled based off of your actual size, as both your new size and the damage from your class wouldn't stack. But does that make it an effective size increase? Not necessarily, which leads into the next part.

The second analysis is in relation to the Warpriest's Damage Dice feature and how it interacts with certain spell/ability effects. Take for example, a Warpriest using a +1 Longsword. If he benefits from the Lead Blades spell (maybe he UMD'd a scroll or something), a spell which targets a creature and enhances their weapon attacks to deal...

I'm not 100% sure that Lead Blades works with Warpriest Sacred Weapon, as it states it replaces the weapon damage, which is what is modified by Lead Blades. Do you have anything stating that Lead Blades works on it?

Shadow Lodge

Evidence lead blades works

1) * The values shown are for Medium warpriests. See the sacred weapon class feature for Small and Large warpriests. (so yes, the value isn't set in stone it's based on size. If your warpriest were bigger you'd hit more. Lead blades make you hit as if you were bigger)

2) Whenever the warpriest hits with his sacred weapon, the weapon damage is based on his level and not the weapon type. <-- doesn't mention other effects, just the weapon type. So swap the weapon for the chart, that's it.


It also states "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."

Edit: Also the Sacred Damage is based on the Warpriest's size, not the weapon's. As stated by: "The damage for Medium warpriests is listed on Table 1–14; see the table below for Small and Large warpriests."

Shadow Lodge

Lead blades isnt the BASE weapom damage anymore


It seems, to me, that we have an X replaces Y situation. In this case, Sacred Weapon Damage and Weapon damage stand in for X and Y respectfully. Lead Blades is a modification of Y. Since Y gets replaced, Lead Blades doesn't take effect.

At least that is my reading (Stating this for clarification).

I don't see a problem with it if it works, but, to me, it doesn't seem to work. I admit, it's a bit ambiguous, but I lean more towards the side of it doesn't. However, since it isn't clearly spelled out, it's fine to rule it either way until clarification is given.

Shadow Lodge

But y is the base weapon damage. Not the base weapon damage and anything you do to it


Mathmuse wrote:

When hyper analyzing, asking the correct question is critical. "Budging" is not a precise term. The precise question is, "Is the Damage Dice Progression Chart used for any weapon damage changes besides size increases and effective size increases?"

The answer is no. If an effect refers to moving up or down steps in that chart, then it is either a size change or an effective size change. The FAQ would have been clearer if Paizo had named the chart, "Damage Dice Progression Chart for Weapon Sizes."

But Mathmuse, there is more than 1 Damage Dice Progression Chart.

In the Core Rulebook, in the equipment section, there is a Damage Chart based on Weapon Size. It, combined with the reglular table of Weapons says that a a size medium Weapon that does 1d8 does 1d6 if downsized to Small, 1d4 if Sized down to Tiny, 2d6 if sized up to Large, and 3d6 if sized up to Huge. A weapon that does 1d10 at size medium does 2d8 when sized up to Large.

Monk Unarmed Strike Damage increases with level, but their damage does not increase according to this chart. A level 7 Monk does 1d8 with an Unarmed Strike. A level 8 Monk does 1d10. A Size Medium Longsword does 1d8. A Size Large Longsword does 2d6. Different progression, different chart: the increasing base damage for Monk Unarmed Strikes does constitute a Virtual Size increase per RAW, unless I'm missing something.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Slim Jim wrote:
I gave some consideration to just ignoring the ad-hominem barbs peppering your prose in recent exchances
It's not an ad hom

Regardless of whether something is an ad hom, personal insults and verbal abuse violate community guidelines and are flaggable on those grounds.

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Nothing relies on you as a person.

Then it will not weaken anyone's argument at all if if people just kept their personal remarks to themselves!

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Pathfinder is not a perfectly coherent system. Trying to act as if it was is going to run you into problems.

So, if people are just trying to give someone good personal advice, and no offense was intended, then people could say,

"I'm just trying to help. If I offended you, I did so in error, and I apologize."


Lead Blades + Sacred Weapon is a problematic example.

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.

So, Lead Blades changes the base damage of the weapon as if the weapon were 1 size bigger.

But Warpriest Sacred Weapon Damage overrides base weapon damage.

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

It is a different matter with Strong Jaw and a Warpriest whose Sacred Weapons are Natural Attacks.

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

Strong Jaw increases base damage as if the target were bigger.

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

So that is a good example.


TrinitysEnd wrote:
I'm not 100% sure that Lead Blades works with Warpriest Sacred Weapon, as it states it replaces the weapon damage, which is what is modified by Lead Blades. Do you have anything stating that Lead Blades works on it?

The spell says that you, the creature, deal damage with melee weapons as if one size bigger. Which means that it's an effective size increase on you, the creature, and not necessarily the weapons you wield. This is evidenced by Lead Blades targeting a creature, and not a weapon.

Impact, on the other hand, is an effective size increase on the weapon, and not on you, the creature, which means that Sacred Weapon overrides the Impact effect due to it replacing only one weapon, and not the Lead Blades, which would affect your Sacred Weapon damage due to it treating the size in which you attack with melee weapons as if one size bigger, and it applying to all weapons you wield, no matter what sort of damage you deal.

@ Scott Wilhelm: The argument still holds true if we used Lead Blades on a Monk, since their Unarmed Strikes count as both natural and manufactured weapons for the purposes of spells and effects that target them. So saying that Strong Jaw works while Lead Blades is sketchy just doesn't add up.

It might be because I explained it poorly, but the idea is that both examples were to convey the same conclusion, in that the effects stacked with the damage dice features.

In hindsight, I believe if a FAQ answer were to be made on this question, it would fall along the lines of "The Monk/Warpriest features change the base damage of the weapons/unarmed strikes in question, and as such are neither an actual or effective size bonus."


Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
TrinitysEnd wrote:
I'm not 100% sure that Lead Blades works with Warpriest Sacred Weapon, as it states it replaces the weapon damage, which is what is modified by Lead Blades. Do you have anything stating that Lead Blades works on it?

The spell says that you, the creature, deal damage with melee weapons as if one size bigger. Which means that it's an effective size increase on you, the creature, and not necessarily the weapons you wield. This is evidenced by Lead Blades targeting a creature, and not a weapon.

Impact, on the other hand, is an effective size increase on the weapon, and not on you, the creature, which means that Sacred Weapon overrides the Impact effect due to it replacing only one weapon, and not the Lead Blades, which would affect your Sacred Weapon damage due to it treating the size in which you attack with melee weapons as if one size bigger, and it applying to all weapons you wield, no matter what sort of damage you deal.

But once again, as stated in my second post, Lead Blades may be a spell that affects you, but the end result is it treats the weapon as one result larger. It does not treat you as one size larger. Because you are never treated as one size larger, your Sacred Damage doesn't increase. I would say that even Strong Jaw doesn't work as it specifically alters the weapons and not you. If it said in either case "You treat yourself as one (two) size(s) larger for the purpose of damage rolls with (natural) weapons" then it would work.

But it does not. Lead Blades specifies the weapons are treated as one size larger and Strong Jaw specifies the Natural Attacks are treated as if two sizes larger. None treat you as One or Two sizes larger and as such wouldn't scale up.

Shadow Lodge

Warpriest only replaces the weapons base damage. So if you have a 1d8 as a warpriest

This is your brain...erm. dagger
1d4. This is the base damage.

This is your dagger on lead blades

Base damage....lead blades damage
1d4----------->1d6

This is your dagger on warpriest

base*---Lead blades

1d8 ---- 2d6

. The warpriest can decide to use the weapon’s base damage instead of the sacred weapon damage.

Thats all it does. Just replace the base. It doesn't say to replace the entire weapon damage, just change the first number.


I'm leaning towards BigNorseWolf/Darksol on lead blades but the FAQ's "and similar language" throws enough of a wrench in things that I don't know. I wouldn't count monk/sacred weapon damage as having "similar language" but I'm not the person that makes the FAQ's so i can't say what THEY were thinking was "and similar language".


TrinitysEnd wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
TrinitysEnd wrote:
I'm not 100% sure that Lead Blades works with Warpriest Sacred Weapon, as it states it replaces the weapon damage, which is what is modified by Lead Blades. Do you have anything stating that Lead Blades works on it?

The spell says that you, the creature, deal damage with melee weapons as if one size bigger. Which means that it's an effective size increase on you, the creature, and not necessarily the weapons you wield. This is evidenced by Lead Blades targeting a creature, and not a weapon.

Impact, on the other hand, is an effective size increase on the weapon, and not on you, the creature, which means that Sacred Weapon overrides the Impact effect due to it replacing only one weapon, and not the Lead Blades, which would affect your Sacred Weapon damage due to it treating the size in which you attack with melee weapons as if one size bigger, and it applying to all weapons you wield, no matter what sort of damage you deal.

But once again, as stated in my second post, Lead Blades may be a spell that affects you, but the end result is it treats the weapon as one result larger. It does not treat you as one size larger. Because you are never treated as one size larger, your Sacred Damage doesn't increase. I would say that even Strong Jaw doesn't work as it specifically alters the weapons and not you. If it said in either case "You treat yourself as one (two) size(s) larger for the purpose of damage rolls with (natural) weapons" then it would work.

But it does not. Lead Blades specifies the weapons are treated as one size larger and Strong Jaw specifies the Natural Attacks are treated as if two sizes larger. None treat you as One or Two sizes larger and as such wouldn't scale up.

Incorrect.

The spell says it treats weapons you wield as if one size bigger, which means it doesn't matter if a weapon uses its base dice or Sacred Weapon dice, the damage dice you're using is still one size bigger.

Impact, on the other hand, targets the weapon itself, and alters only that weapon's base damage dice, and doesn't work with Sacred Weapon, which replaces that value. Lead Blades is a blanket effect that works on whatever weapon you wield, regardless of what damage dice you're using (that's not already similarly altered, of course).


Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

Incorrect.

The spell says it treats weapons you wield as if one size bigger, which means it doesn't matter if a weapon uses its base dice or Sacred Weapon dice, the damage dice you're using is still one size bigger.

Impact, on the other hand, targets the weapon itself, and alters only that weapon's base damage dice, and doesn't work with Sacred Weapon, which replaces that value. Lead Blades is a blanket effect that works on whatever weapon you wield, regardless of what damage dice you're using (that's not already similarly altered, of course).

I'm not saying the spell doesn't do that, but the spell doesn't make you treated as one size larger. Which is all Sacred Weapon cares about. Are you still a medium sized Warpriest after casting Lead Blades? Yes. Then use the Medium Sized Warpriest damage. A Medium Sized Warpriest does not get to use the large sized one just because the weapon counts as large sized, otherwise you could hold a large sized dagger and use that table too.

But Warpriest's wording clearly relies on your size, not the weapon's.

1 to 50 of 68 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo / Pathfinder® / Pathfinder RPG / Rules Questions / Effective size increases FAQ clarification All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.

©2002-2017 Paizo Inc.® | Privacy Policy | Contact Us
Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours, Monday through Friday, 10:00 AM to 5:00 PM Pacific time.

Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, Starfinder, the Starfinder logo, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc. The Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Legends, Pathfinder Online, Starfinder Adventure Path, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.