Desna's Shooting Star and Conductive Starknife


Rules Questions

1 to 50 of 63 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.

Does a damaging ability channeled through a Conductive Starknife count as a"Damage Bonus" for the advanced benefit of Desna's Divine Fighting Technique?

Seems unlikely.

Quote:
Advanced Benefit: You can impart a powerful spin to a thrown starknife so that multiple blades strike the target rather than just a single blade of the four, dealing extra damage with the other blades. As a full-round action, you can make a single attack with a thrown starknife, rolling 1d4 to determine how many effective strikes you gain with the attack (if you roll a 1, then only one blade strikes). If the attack hits, all of the effective strikes damage the target. Apply precision-based damage (such as sneak attack damage) and critical hit damage only once for this attack. The damage bonus from your appropriate ability score modifier applies to each strike, as do other damage bonuses, such as a bard’s inspire competence bonus. Damage reduction and resistances apply separately to each strike.

Conductive


You failed to read after the bolded part, which gives another example.

Quote:
The damage bonus from your appropriate ability score modifier applies to each strike, as do other damage bonuses, such as a bard’s inspire competence bonus.

Funnily enough, that's actually an obvious typo, because inspire competence doesn't add to damage, but inspire courage does. So, other static numerical values that are added to the damage from each blade would be applied here.

Other random values, such as a Flaming property or the Conductive property from the likes of, say, Channel Energy, wouldn't.

Of course, that's beside the factor that this feat is basically a waste, since a full attack will be more consistent and deal much more damage than this if you're factoring in random numerical values such as Flaming into the math.


It's good if you don't have a way to make multiple attacks in a round with a thrown weapon.

Though a blink back belt or ricochet toss make it unnecessary. But if you don't have access to those options (for some reason) this divine fighting technique + returning can allow a full attack-like option.


Now why wouldn't flaming count? I can see conductive not working since the ability has to be spent on each attack but flaming is on for each attack anyways and flaming is not critical hit damage or precision-based damage and just because the only one they called out was a static bonus doesn't mean that only static bonuses work.

Now if the author or dev team has pointed out that it shouldn't that's different but that's not what the feat says.


Talonhawke wrote:

Now why wouldn't flaming count? I can see conductive not working since the ability has to be spent on each attack but flaming is on for each attack anyways and flaming is not critical hit damage or precision-based damage and just because the only one they called out was a static bonus doesn't mean that only static bonuses work.

Now if the author or dev team has pointed out that it shouldn't that's different but that's not what the feat says.

The feat says damage bonuses apply, and gives two examples, ability score modifier and inspire courage, which are both static modifiers to a single roll.

The Flaming Property does not count as a "damage bonus", as it is its own damage dice, and not a modifier to another dice or statistic as we've been given examples for. If they wanted to include rider effects, then they would've simply said "Apply bonuses and other on-hit effects for each blade that strikes an enemy."

As such, saying it would include those kinds of effects with the original description is an inconclusive answer with no rules support backing it up.


So to verify then by your reading manyshot would have the same restriction?

Benefit: When making a full-attack action with a bow, your first attack fires two arrows. If the attack hits, both arrows hit. Apply precision-based damage (such as sneak attack) and critical hit damage only once for this attack. Damage bonuses from using a composite bow with a high Strength bonus apply to each arrow, as do other damage bonuses, such as a ranger’s favored enemy bonus. Damage reduction and resistances apply separately to each arrow.


Darksol the Painbringer wrote:


Of course, that's beside the factor that this feat is basically a waste, since a full attack will be more consistent and deal much more damage than this if you're factoring in random numerical values such as Flaming into the math.

But im not factoring in flaming, but 6d6+.5con cold damage. A bit diffrent, and potentially useful to get 1d4 times.

Considering I want the initial benifit anyways, the feat seems fine to me.

Water Dancer


Talonhawke wrote:

So to verify then by your reading manyshot would have the same restriction?

Benefit: When making a full-attack action with a bow, your first attack fires two arrows. If the attack hits, both arrows hit. Apply precision-based damage (such as sneak attack) and critical hit damage only once for this attack. Damage bonuses from using a composite bow with a high Strength bonus apply to each arrow, as do other damage bonuses, such as a ranger’s favored enemy bonus. Damage reduction and resistances apply separately to each arrow.

Manyshot is a little different, in that you are using one attack roll to resolve two attacks with two different projectiles (and the bow is conferring that property on both sets of ammunition), whereas this is all with a single weapon.

In short, it's a "same source" thing, in that the flaming damage wouldn't get added twice for the same "weapon," which a Bow with ammunition conferring gets around.

I similarly wouldn't allow a Sorcerer of Desna with VMC Magus apply multiple Chill Touch applications with this feat either, so it's not a "Because Flaming Property" thing, it's a "Because Weapon Mechanics" thing.


Conductive: "When the wielder makes a successful attack of the appropriate type"

Desna's Divine Fighting Technique: "you can make a single attack with a thrown starknife"

The number of strikes doesn't matter, it only activates once per attack and only once per round. Desna's technique only makes one attack. So it WOULD allow a few extra d4+stat of damage which isn't bad: it's just not going to give multiple blasts/round.


Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Talonhawke wrote:

So to verify then by your reading manyshot would have the same restriction?

Benefit: When making a full-attack action with a bow, your first attack fires two arrows. If the attack hits, both arrows hit. Apply precision-based damage (such as sneak attack) and critical hit damage only once for this attack. Damage bonuses from using a composite bow with a high Strength bonus apply to each arrow, as do other damage bonuses, such as a ranger’s favored enemy bonus. Damage reduction and resistances apply separately to each arrow.

Manyshot is a little different, in that you are using one attack roll to resolve two attacks with two different projectiles (and the bow is conferring that property on both sets of ammunition), whereas this is all with a single weapon.

In short, it's a "same source" thing, in that the flaming damage wouldn't get added twice for the same "weapon," which a Bow with ammunition conferring gets around.

I similarly wouldn't allow a Sorcerer of Desna with VMC Magus apply multiple Chill Touch applications with this feat either, so it's not a "Because Flaming Property" thing, it's a "Because Weapon Mechanics" thing.

As greystone pointed out its also one attack from Desna's so either manyshot doesn't grant anything but static bonuses or Desna's does. You can't have it work both ways when the text (which you are relying on for your argument to work) is functional identical.


Yes, I can, because the rules work that way.

The rules for Flaming and other energy-based properties have this addendum for their table entry:

Quote:
Projectile weapons with this ability bestow this power upon their ammunition.

So, if I am firing two projectiles from a Flaming bow, each projectile has the Flaming effect. The feat says I fire two projectiles and not one.

Desna's feat doesn't say you throw multiple Starknives, so you don't get multiple Flaming procs.


Flaming works on a successful hit which you are making 2 of with many shot and 1d4 of with Desna's. The ability doesn't state successful attack roll or you would only get one with either.

How does Bane work? Is it +2 damage per strike but no bonus dice? And if so why does only half the ability work?

How much bleed damage would a wounding weapon do?

On a roll of higher than 1 does a Mimetic weapon grant more resistance?

Sure of those bane is the only one that really provides a strange contradiction but in actuality any ability that might provide some type of bonus would have to be considered through the filter you provide. And then you may suddenly have abilities with identical rulings working differently between weapons or abilities. Whereas the other way is it works unless its one of the called out types.


Talonhawke wrote:

Flaming works on a successful hit which you are making 2 of with many shot and 1d4 of with Desna's. The ability doesn't state successful attack roll or you would only get one with either.

How does Bane work? Is it +2 damage per strike but no bonus dice? And if so why does only half the ability work?

How much bleed damage would a wounding weapon do?

On a roll of higher than 1 does a Mimetic weapon grant more resistance?

Sure of those bane is the only one that really provides a strange contradiction but in actuality any ability that might provide some type of bonus would have to be considered through the filter you provide. And then you may suddenly have abilities with identical rulings working differently between weapons or abilities. Whereas the other way is it works unless its one of the called out types.

The Desna feat states "effective strikes," which means they aren't actual hits, and therefore need specific wording for us to apply certain things. That wording included bonuses, but not dice (aside from weapon dice, of course), which means allowing them to include other dice (or bonuses to those dice) is a stretch at best, and at worst not supported in the feat description.

Yes, if a Bane Starknife was used with this feat, the 2D6 only applies once, but the +2 increased enhancement would apply to each effective strike, and that wouldn't need the "effective strikes" or "damage bonus" clauses because the Bane property directly improves Weapon damage.

It does 1 bleed because the weapon only actually hits once. Effective Strikes aren't stated to count as hits for anything other than damage bonuses, and an unrelated bleed effect is not a damage bonus.

Mimetic would stack up because it only cares about damaging an enemy with the weapon and not the number of hits, effective or otherwise, you make with the weapon. With the damage being reduced multiple times, this means the damage of each "effective strike" is calculated separately, which creates multiple instances of damaging (but not hitting) an enemy, which is what Mimetic triggers on.

Trust me, the ruling I make is quite consistent and fairly straight forward, even if it looks like splitting hairs.


But nothing says extra dice don't apply and nothing says that they do with manyshot the same logic that allows 2 arrows to deal flaming twice both are creating additional hits with a flaming weapon off of a single attack roll. Both would have all hits negated with an ability to shake off one hit. And both have short of naming a different bonus on the ability have the exact same wording. So yes your splitting hairs especially with the Bane property only half working.


You're making the Ancient Aliens argument. "Nothing says it doesn't include dice effects, so it includes dice effects." Which is a stretch when you induce a mechanic that says it's a hit for determining XYZ, but isn't actually a hit. By that logic, potions and extracts are the same, because it creates the same precedent.

You don't understand the logic if you think firing two projectiles that each possess a property compared to one that possesses that same property. It's basic math. If I was hit by two projectiles, that's two instances of Flaming applying. If I was hit by one thrown weapon, that's only one instance of Flaming applying. Effective Strikes don't change the actual hits except in the case of weapon damage and Damage bonuses.

No they don't. One uses "hit," and involves multiple projectiles, the other uses "effective strikes," and refers to a single weapon. Saying they're the same is like saying Spells and SLAs are the same.


Quote:

Melee Attacks

With a normal melee weapon, you can strike any opponent within 5 feet. (Opponents within 5 feet are considered adjacent to you.) Some melee weapons have reach, as indicated in their descriptions. With a typical reach weapon, you can strike opponents 10 feet away, but you can’t strike adjacent foes (those within 5 feet).

Seeing a lot of talk about how far away you can STRIKE someone, no mention at all about HITTING at all. If you want to insist on a rule distinction between the two, be careful.


Darksol, are you arguing that only 1 out of the 4 blades on an enchanted starknife is actually enchanted? Does that mean someone not using this ability has to roll a 1d4 to see if their enchanted blade is the one that hits the target? I'm not trying to put words in your mouth here - but this is how I am understanding what you have written so I am seeking to clarify this point.

I did a quick search for "bonus damage" in the PRD and it didn't come up with a specific definition. So I won't say for sure that the flaming property gives bonus damage - though I feel like it would be defined as that. I did come up with a specific quote regarding bane.

PRD wrote:
Greater Bane (Su): At 12th level, whenever an inquisitor uses her bane ability, the amount of bonus damage dealt by the weapon against creatures of the selected type increases to 4d6.

Bolded by me. The inclusion of the phrase bonus damage suggests that the 2d6, or 4d6 in the case of greater bane, would be included with each strike of the starknife per the "as do other damage bonuses" part of the feat.


The counter arguement is that since bonus dice weren't mentioned explicitly for Desna's they don't count but they do count with Manyshot because 2 arrows is two hits and not effective strikes.

On that whole line of reasoning Darksol all the hits are "effective strikes" so are you saying that nothing but static bonuses apply to the hits?


Core PRD: "Additional Damage Dice: Some magic weapons deal additional dice of damage. Unlike other modifiers to damage, additional dice of damage are not multiplied when the attacker scores a critical hit."

Additional damage dice from magic weapons isn't counted as part of "all your usual bonuses" as per core combat and magic item sections, being counted the same as Precision damage.

"A critical hit means that you roll your damage more than once, with all your usual bonuses, and add the rolls together."

"Exception: Precision damage (such as from a rogue's sneak attack class feature) and additional damage dice from special weapon abilities (such as flaming) are not multiplied when you score a critical hit."

Now add the sneak attack FAQ:
"Sneak Attack: Can I add sneak attack damage to simultaneous attacks from a spell?

No. For example, scorching ray fires simultaneous rays at one or more targets, and the extra damage is only added once to one ray, chosen by the caster when the spell is cast.
Spell-based attacks which are not simultaneous, such as multiple attacks per round by a 8th-level druid using flame blade, may apply sneak attack damage to each attack so long as each attack qualifies for sneak attack (the target is denied its Dex bonus or the caster is flanking the target)."

"Extra damage" only gets added once per simultaneous attack and Desna's Divine Fighting Technique mark II does 1d4 simultaneous attacks...


And Manyshot does 2 simultaneous attacks but we have people arguing its treated differently for extra damage so we still have incongruity between the two for no reason other than the term "effective" and "two arrows"


@ Tolrin: I'm saying that the effect only applies once per weapon/projectile unless it is directly linked with weapon damage or is a damage bonus (and not a dice bonus).

As for the Inquisitor ability, the original Bane property doesn't say that.

Quote:
A bane weapon excels against certain foes. Against a designated foe, the weapon's enhancement bonus is +2 better than its actual bonus. It also deals an extra 2d6 points of damage against the foe. To randomly determine a weapon's designated foe, roll on the following table.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Talonhawke wrote:
And Manyshot does 2 simultaneous attacks but we have people arguing its treated differently for extra damage so we still have incongruity between the two for no reason other than the term "effective" and "two arrows"

The difference is that they aren't equivalent abilities. Arrows are treated as their own weapons and the bow transfers enchantments to them. As such, manyshots is an attack with multiple 'weapons', each with the enchant on them. This isn't the case with desna's as it's a single weapon/enchant.

So one ability is treated as if you hit simultaneously with multiple weapons and one is treated as if you hit simultaneously with the same weapon: you only get weapon enchants once/weapon/attack.


The sneak attack FAQ is irrelevant as given in it's phrasing

wrote:
Sneak Attack: Can I add sneak attack damage to simultaneous attacks from a spell?

Emphasis mine, this is a feat not a spell, otherwise this FAQ would apply to Manyshot as well.

Going back to the original feat we see that

wrote:
Advanced Benefit: You can impart a powerful spin to a thrown starknife so that multiple blades strike the target rather than just a single blade of the four, dealing extra damage with the other blades. As a full-round action, you can make a single attack with a thrown starknife, rolling 1d4 to determine how many effective strikes you gain with the attack (if you roll a 1, then only one blade strikes). If the attack hits, all of the effective strikes damage the target. Apply precision-based damage (such as sneak attack damage) and critical hit damage only once for this attack. The damage bonus from your appropriate ability score modifier applies to each strike, as do other damage bonuses, such as a bard’s inspire competence bonus. Damage reduction and resistances apply separately to each strike.

They specifically call out precision damage (sneak attack) and critical hits to only apply once, so any FAQs relevant to Sneak attack and critical hits cannot apply here as it is treated differently from other damage sources.

Looking at flaming we have

flaming wrote:
Upon command, a flaming weapon is sheathed in fire that deals an extra 1d6 points of fire damage on a successful hit. The fire does not harm the wielder. The effect remains until another command is given.

going back to the feat we see

wrote:
As a full-round action, you can make a single attack with a thrown starknife, rolling 1d4 to determine how many effective strikes you gain with the attack (if you roll a 1, then only one blade strikes). If the attack hits, all of the effective strikes damage the target.

going back to flaming we see

wrote:
on a successful hit

not on a successful attack roll

Therefore if you succeed with your single attack you are considered to have made 1d4 successful strikes (or hits), and your flaming damage would be added assuming you had activated your weapon previously.

The only way this would not be true is if you say that the weapons base damage isn't applied to each strike since it isn't called out in the feat as being applied to each strike.


willuwontu: Sneak attack FAQ and the weapons section show that magic weapon bonus dice are treated like precision-based/critical hit damage.

Next lets look at flaming... "extra 1d6 points of fire damage on a successful hit": Desna's only make a single roll to hit with 1d4 strikes, hence a SINGLE 1d6. Strikes ARE NOT HITS, HITS are HITS.

"extra 1d6 points of fire damage on a successful hit" + "As a full-round action, you can make a single attack with a thrown starknife, rolling 1d4 to determine how many effective strikes you gain with the attack (if you roll a 1, then only one blade strikes). If the attack hits, all of the effective strikes damage the target."

"you can make a single attack": one

"If the attack hits": attack hits, not attacks hit.

"Exception: Extra damage dice over and above a weapon's normal damage are never multiplied.": you don't get multiple "extra dice" in an attack.

"A critical hit means that you roll your damage more than once, with all your usual bonuses, and add the rolls together." + "Exception: Precision damage (such as from a rogue's sneak attack class feature) and additional damage dice from special weapon abilities (such as flaming) are not multiplied when you score a critical hit.": flaming isn't "usual damage" and isn't added more than once per attack.


A hit is a successful attack roll though, so that's not proof enough to allow it multiple times when those are synonyms.

The only way you're going to definitively prove that properties like Flaming apply multiple times, regardless of attack rolls or projectiles/weapons involved, is to demonstrate how an "effective strike" is identical to a "hit" or "successful attack roll" in all respects. Something that's not possible with both the current wording and lack of official precedent.


So what you're saying is you only roll weapon damage once and add the appropriate ability scores damage multiple times.

Since a strike != hit and you only attack once.


Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

A hit is a successful attack roll though, so that's not proof enough to allow it multiple times when those are synonyms.

The only way you're going to definitively prove that properties like Flaming apply multiple times, regardless of attack rolls or projectiles/weapons involved, is to demonstrate how an "effective strike" is identical to a "hit" or "successful attack roll" in all respects. Something that's not possible with both the current wording and lack of official precedent.

The definition of attack is an attempt to strike, and a hit is an attack that succeeded, thus, a strike.

Combat wrote:
An attack roll represents your attempt to strike your opponent on your turn in a round. When you make an attack roll, you roll a d20 and add your attack bonus. (Other modifiers may also apply to this roll.) If your result equals or beats the target’s Armor Class, you hit and deal damage.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Weapon damage and any bonuses to weapon damage (such as the +2 from Bane) still applies to each strike. It's as I've said above:

Quote:
...[the] effect only applies once per weapon/projectile unless it is directly linked with weapon damage or is a damage bonus (and not a dice bonus)...

**EDIT**

Yes, but "effective strikes" aren't actual hits or strikes, which means you're creating something different from the original. So you still have to prove effective hits and actual hits or strikes are the same thing. The quote changes nothing.


Bundle all your flaming arrowing together and bludgeon people with them! +1d6 fire per arrow!


Thanks toastedamphibian

That shows that flaming is applied to each strike.


willuwontu wrote:

Thanks toastedamphibian

That shows that flaming is applied to each strike.

If you're using it as a melee weapon, then you'd only be able to use one arrow at a time for each attack, just like how you can only shoot one arrow at a time unless you have a feat that lets you shoot otherwise, and even then it's still limited.

A manyshot from a Flaming bow deals 2D6 if both arrows hit, because both arrows have that property. Again, 2 projectiles having the property doesn't do the same damage as one projectile (AKA the starknife).


Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
willuwontu wrote:

Thanks toastedamphibian

That shows that flaming is applied to each strike.

If you're using it as a melee weapon, then you'd only be able to use one arrow at a time for each attack, just like how you can only shoot one arrow at a time unless you have a feat that lets you shoot otherwise, and even then it's still limited.

A manyshot from a Flaming bow deals 2D6 if both arrows hit, because both arrows have that property. Again, 2 projectiles having the property doesn't do the same damage as one projectile (AKA the starknife).

Yep, I agree.

"Bows, crossbows, and slings crafted with this ability bestow this power upon their ammunition": So each arrow is bestowed with flaming from a flaming bow. No such rule exists for 'effective strikes' from a single attack, bestowing the enchantment on multiple 'usual damage' rolls from a single attack.

PS: toastedamphibian I'm sure most DM's would count a bundle as a single object/weapon. Secondly, improvised weapons don't get to use enchantments. You need to wield a weapon to activate its abilities and for ammo, that's by loading it into a ranged weapon. Stabbing someone with a magic arrow is as useful as stabbing someone with a non-magic one.


So you're saying an enchanted railgun would only adds its enchantments to its damage to the first target in its line


1 person marked this as a favorite.
willuwontu wrote:
So you're saying an enchanted railgun would only adds its enchantments to its damage to the first target in its line

Irrelevant. A rail gun isn't a starknife used with the Divine Fighting Technique, and has different mechanics, so it's pointless to answer.


Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
willuwontu wrote:
So you're saying an enchanted railgun would only adds its enchantments to its damage to the first target in its line
Irrelevant. A rail gun isn't a starknife used with the Divine Fighting Technique, and has different mechanics, so it's pointless to answer.

Extremely relevant, you're saying weapons that deal damage multiple times simultaneously somehow lose their damage on later simultaneous strikes. It's been pointed out that strikes are considered successful hits. And this feat gives you multiple strikes.

What is irrelevant is the fact that ammunition gains their enchantments from their launching weapon, as a starknife is a melee weapon that can also be thrown not ammunition. And melee weapons don't lose their enchantments out of the blue.

What needs to be proven for you to be satisfied about how this works, now that you've already been shown that strikes do equal successful hits?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
willuwontu wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
willuwontu wrote:
So you're saying an enchanted railgun would only adds its enchantments to its damage to the first target in its line
Irrelevant. A rail gun isn't a starknife used with the Divine Fighting Technique, and has different mechanics, so it's pointless to answer.

Extremely relevant, you're saying weapons that deal damage multiple times simultaneously somehow lose their damage on later simultaneous strikes. It's been pointed out that strikes are considered successful hits. And this feat gives you multiple strikes.

What is irrelevant is the fact that ammunition gains their enchantments from their launching weapon, as a starknife is a melee weapon that can also be thrown not ammunition. And melee weapons don't lose their enchantments out of the blue.

What needs to be proven for you to be satisfied about how this works, now that you've already been shown that strikes do equal successful hits?

It is irrelevant, because the Divine Fighting Technique doesn't attack multiple enemies using a single attack roll against all enemies, determining actual hits. It uses a single roll, yes, but it's only one target, and it's "effective" hits. Whirlwind Attack is more relevant to the Rail Gun than the Divine Fighting Technique is since it has more similar mechanics.


willuwontu wrote:
Extremely relevant

Not really as it's different mechanics: apples and oranges.

willuwontu wrote:
you're saying weapons that deal damage multiple times simultaneously somehow lose their damage on later simultaneous strikes.

Desna's not making multiple hits just damage rolls. Line weapons make multiple attacks vs multiple creatures checking hits vs a single roll.

willuwontu wrote:
It's been pointed out that strikes are considered successful hits.

It's been pointed out, but not proven. I still haven't seen anything to convince me it's true. In fact it's easily provable it's not as successful hits that are crits roll critical damage and precision-based damage could be added to each hit.

willuwontu wrote:
What is irrelevant is the fact that ammunition gains their enchantments from their launching weapon, as a starknife is a melee weapon that can also be thrown not ammunition. And melee weapons don't lose their enchantments out of the blue.

It's relevant as parallels have been drawn between desna's and multishot.

As to losing enchantments... I have no idea what that has to do with ANYTHING...

willuwontu wrote:
What needs to be proven for you to be satisfied about how this works, now that you've already been shown that strikes do equal successful hits?

Well first you'd have to actually prove what you think you did as it's the exact opposite of that IMO. You have to prove 'effective hits' are virtually identical to 'hits' for this ability and then prove why 'effective hits' was used if there is in fact no reason to because they aren't any different than actual hits.


Sure show me where I said effective hits and I'll do it, then show where hits mean you don't hit with the weapon.

Right now you guys are saying that each strike only adds bonus damage (ability scores, enchantments, etc.) No weapon damage is added. So show me where weapon Damage is rolled for each strike.


graystone wrote:


As to losing enchantments... I have no idea what that has to do with ANYTHING...

It has to do with the fact that a weapon that is hitting something keeps just as much of its enchantment properties as a ranged weapon applies to its ammunition. So somehow either only 1 spoke on the starknife is enchanted or the enchantments on it only partially work on the other 3 spokes since those spokes don't actually get the full effect when they deal damage.

As far as a penetrating weapon or a railgun it follows the same principal as the logic for Manyshot i guess. The enchantments must know that they hit the same target more than BaB allows and partial shut off until coming in contact with second target or coming from a separate projectile. But the logic that two functionally identical wordings work differently due to referenceing the rules for ammuntion while disregarding the rules for non-ammunition enchantments is baffling. Yes each arrow/bolt/bullet is enchanted by the weapon shooting it but the thrown weapon is always enchanted it isn't gaining its bonus by virtue of anything other than that fact so yes you are basicly claiming the enchants partially shut off.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
willuwontu wrote:
So you're saying an enchanted railgun would only adds its enchantments to its damage to the first target in its line
Irrelevant. A rail gun isn't a starknife used with the Divine Fighting Technique, and has different mechanics, so it's pointless to answer.

*stuff starknife into railgun* Now What?


I'll throw this out there as well.

wrote:
rolling 1d4 to determine how many effective strikes you gain with the attack (if you roll a 1, then only one blade strikes).

If you roll a 2 then 2 blades strike and so on.

Show me where striking with your weapon (the blade) means you don't hit it.

They use effective strikes because
1) you're rolling once so abilities that counter a single attack will block this whole ability.
2) they don't know how many you'll make.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
willuwontu wrote:

Sure show me where I said effective hits and I'll do it, then show where hits mean you don't hit with the weapon.

Right now you guys are saying that each strike only adds bonus damage (ability scores, enchantments, etc.) No weapon damage is added. So show me where weapon Damage is rolled for each strike.

You don't say it, the feat does. You even linked it in a follow-up post.

Rider effects that trigger off that 1D4 weapon damage roll (enhancements, Inspire Courage, et al) would likewise not trigger if weapon damage isn't rolled at all, thereby rendering the 1D4 effective strikes roll useless, so it has to be present or you're doing 0 damage on the effective strikes, which is obviously not intended by the feat.


The Sideromancer wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
willuwontu wrote:
So you're saying an enchanted railgun would only adds its enchantments to its damage to the first target in its line
Irrelevant. A rail gun isn't a starknife used with the Divine Fighting Technique, and has different mechanics, so it's pointless to answer.
*stuff starknife into railgun* Now What?

The starknife would be unusable and would cause a misfire until removed from the Rail Gun barrel.

And that's a very generous ruling. As GM, I'd just outright say the rules don't let you do those kinds of shenanigans, but I'll entertain the idea for completions' sake.


Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
willuwontu wrote:

Sure show me where I said effective hits and I'll do it, then show where hits mean you don't hit with the weapon.

Right now you guys are saying that each strike only adds bonus damage (ability scores, enchantments, etc.) No weapon damage is added. So show me where weapon Damage is rolled for each strike.

You don't say it, the feat does. You even linked it in a follow-up post.

Rider effects that trigger off that 1D4 weapon damage roll (enhancements, Inspire Courage, et al) would likewise not trigger if weapon damage isn't rolled at all, thereby rendering the 1D4 effective strikes roll useless, so it has to be present or you're doing 0 damage on the effective strikes, which is obviously not intended by the feat.

Actually they would as the ability specifically states you add those to your damage with each strike, it does not state you roll weapon damage, and since you're saying you don't deal damage with your weapon (and thus add damage from flaming), you obviously don't roll damage from your weapon to add to each strikes damage, since they're only "effective" hits, and not real hits.


More musings

wrote:
Upon command, a flaming weapon is sheathed in fire that deals an extra 1d6 points of fire damage on a successful hit. The fire does not harm the wielder. The effect remains until another command is given.

All it cares about is if it's a successful hit, it does not care whether those hits were effective hits or not.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
willuwontu wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
willuwontu wrote:

Sure show me where I said effective hits and I'll do it, then show where hits mean you don't hit with the weapon.

Right now you guys are saying that each strike only adds bonus damage (ability scores, enchantments, etc.) No weapon damage is added. So show me where weapon Damage is rolled for each strike.

You don't say it, the feat does. You even linked it in a follow-up post.

Rider effects that trigger off that 1D4 weapon damage roll (enhancements, Inspire Courage, et al) would likewise not trigger if weapon damage isn't rolled at all, thereby rendering the 1D4 effective strikes roll useless, so it has to be present or you're doing 0 damage on the effective strikes, which is obviously not intended by the feat.

Actually they would as the ability specifically states you add those to your damage with each strike, it does not state you roll weapon damage, and since you're saying you don't deal damage with your weapon (and thus add damage from flaming), you obviously don't roll damage from your weapon to add to each strikes damage, since they're only "effective" hits, and not real hits.

Those are bonuses that apply to Weapon Damage rolls. If no weapon damage roll is being made, then they don't apply, even with the exception, since it's only an allotment that doesn't supersede the weapon damage roll restriction already in place. No weapon damage roll = no bonus.

And I never said you don't roll weapon damage, I said you don't roll Flaming damage, they are different, and not knowing that difference isn't a good excuse to strawman my arguments.


Oh sure I'm straw manning your argument because you never said

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Yes, but "effective strikes" aren't actual hits or strikes, which means you're creating something different from the original.

And lets looks at the rules for weapons dealing damage

PRD - Weapons wrote:
Dmg: These columns give the damage dealt by the weapon on a successful hit.

That sounds quite familiar, oh wait, lets look at flaming

PRD - Flaming wrote:


Upon command, a flaming weapon is sheathed in fire that deals an extra 1d6 points of fire damage on a successful hit. The fire does not harm the wielder. The effect remains until another command is given.

Hmmm it seems like it takes a successful hit to deal weapon damage and flaming damage.

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Yes, but "effective strikes" aren't actual hits or strikes

Therefore you don't deal weapon damage or damage from flaming with each strike.

And if you do deal weapon damage with each strike, what is the relevant FAQ or errata that stops flaming from dealing damage as well.


I just noticed that my link for the flaming description was wrong.

here is the correct link


1 person marked this as a favorite.
willuwontu wrote:

Oh sure I'm straw manning your argument because you never said

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Yes, but "effective strikes" aren't actual hits or strikes, which means you're creating something different from the original.

And lets looks at the rules for weapons dealing damage

PRD - Weapons wrote:
Dmg: These columns give the damage dealt by the weapon on a successful hit.

That sounds quite familiar, oh wait, lets look at flaming

PRD - Flaming wrote:


Upon command, a flaming weapon is sheathed in fire that deals an extra 1d6 points of fire damage on a successful hit. The fire does not harm the wielder. The effect remains until another command is given.

Hmmm it seems like it takes a successful hit to deal weapon damage and flaming damage.

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Yes, but "effective strikes" aren't actual hits or strikes

Therefore you don't deal weapon damage or damage from flaming with each strike.

And if you do deal weapon damage with each strike, what is the relevant FAQ or errata that stops flaming from dealing damage as well.

That's my reasoning behind why Flaming wouldn't apply. You're now taking that argument and extending it to other segments in an attempt to argue against an easier point that I didn't make (which is Weapon Damage wouldn't apply either). Ergo, strawman.

It doesn't matter if both effects trigger on a "successful hit" (which is semi-redundant, by the way, since there's no such thing as a failed hit, it'd just be called a miss), what matters is if effects that apply on a "successful hit" also apply to an "effective strike," which may not in fact be the case. We can say that it isn't the case for Weapon Damage because it obviously breaks the feat into uselessness. You can't say the same for weapon property and other damage dice effects because it doesn't do what I described before to the feat. It weakens it, yes, but doesn't absolutely destroy the feat. (Elemental damage properties aren't a great way to apply enhancement bonuses to weapons anyway, so it's not like the argument is being made because they're too powerful; I'd probably just roll with it if someone really wanted it to apply.)

And again, while the RAW argument of "weapon damage isn't stated to work" is applicable, that invalidates the idea of rolling for effective strikes when every bonus is keyed off of you dealing weapon damage, in that no weapon damage = no damage bonuses. Inspire Courage wouldn't apply because there's no weapon damage roll. Neither would Enhancements (which are applied when you roll weapon damage, which you aren't doing), feats (Weapon Specialization follows the same rules as Enhancements for application), and other similar subjects, which means you're doing 0 damage on your other attacks, and thereby turning the feat into Prone Shooter.


Oh please, the argument of it being a useless feat is not a valid reason on why weapon damage is applied, after all Monkey Lunge still exists and hasn't been errata'd. (Prone shooter actually does stuff now)

The feat itself states

wrote:
The damage bonus from your appropriate ability score modifier applies to each strike, as do other damage bonuses, such as a bard’s inspire competence bonus.

This means that regardless of whether weapon damage is rolled or not, you apply this damage to each strike. This does not mean you are rolling weapon damage in and of itself. You would only roll weapon damage if it was a successful hit, the same situation you would apply the damage from flaming in. You're straw manning yourself by saying that the way I interpret your statements would make this a useless feat.

And regardless I have shown that the feat itself makes strikes (or successful hits) against the target if the attack roll succeeds.

And all the language of flaming cares about is if you make a successful hit. It doesn't care whether it's an effective hit or not. Just whether its a successful hit. Therefore flaming is applied on each strike.

1 to 50 of 63 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Desna's Shooting Star and Conductive Starknife All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.