Varmints in the Vaults

We forgot to link to the Treasure Vault product page! But you all seem to get it.

Am I the only one that now wants a 3-6 repeatable based on cleaning varmints out of the vaults? Should probably be a Vigilant Seal scenario.

The concept is absolutely amazing and I can see a lot of fun being had with such a story line. Something light-hearted but challenging.

Possibly with a few optional bonus bosses like "There's a horrible rat thing trapped in this well behind a steel-shod wooden cover and a bunch of paper talismans. If you don't want to face it we totally understand, but it would be really nice to have the well back."

Purepurin is precious and awesome and I can't wait to see her in action in the book! She's a smol dragon friend who is doing her best!

Alchemic_Genius wrote:

Not to be a party pooper here, but bombs techically don't have the thrown trait, which means rules as intended might not have them them work with the bandolier. I hope they do, but, well yeah

It says they are thrown weapons here:

https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=703

"Bombs are martial thrown weapons with a range increment of 20 feet."

And this fulfills all the requirements of the Thrower's Bandolier.

Bombs do not have the Thrown trait though. While they are descriptively thrown weapons, mechanically they are different.

Descriptive text is not always an indicator for mechanics. That it has been this long since release with many MANY debates across the internet, and Paizo hasn't clarified their intentions here is a bother.

Perhaps it is intentionally vague to allow GM's enough wiggle room to decide for themselves. But by Raw, since they do not have the thrown trait, they would not benefit from anything that references thrown specifically (feats or runes or equipment) though they are clearly ranged.

Bombs do not have the Thrown trait though.

But the item doesn't ask for a trait. It asks for "one-handed thrown weapons". Note the lack of capitalization on thrown. As such, it uses thrown in the general sense [which bombs qualify] as opposed to saying 'weapons with the Thrown trait'.

Weapon traits (and traits in general, if I recall correctly) aren't stylized with capitalization in rules text. You can see this in monk stance feats, as well as feats like Double Slice or Swipe.

THAT SAID, I believe you do not need the thrown trait to be considered a thrown weapon, as all the Reload -- ranged weapons are thrown without having the thrown trait listed in their traits section.

Alchemic_Genius wrote:

Every other rune transferring item requires the target item be be a viable candidate to have the rune etched on it; so that's a pretty big reach to play the "it *technically* doesn't use this exact verbiage, so it works!" card

IMO, it's the opposite: because every other item has that verbiage, it seems a reach to say it a complete accident that this one doesn't mention anything about it. When the boilerplate is missing, it's a jump to assume that there isn't a reason for it not to be there and say 'of course it should be there' or "bombs technically don't have the thrown trait" when they are called "martial thrown weapons" [which is you trying to use a technicality on the other side of the argument but then you turn around and complaining about others using technicalities :P]. As such, all we can to is judge it on what it actually says.

Myself, I figure they didn't add anything because there is a restriction on what weapons the item can empower [one-handed thrown weapons] and can only be etched with runes for [one-handed thrown weapons] so it'll be redundant to say that the for most options: now even if bombs might be an unintended combination, we have no idea if/when it'll be altered/errata'd especially as it doesn't seem overly powerful [item bonuses don't stack]. Seems better to debate an item on what if actually does as opposed to what we think it might have been intended to do.

With all respect, this line of thinking, that does not take into account the Too good to be true caveat, has caused many bouts of nerdrage in the past when things have been clarified / errataed as not working like many people hoped.

For PFS, for example, I might play a bomb user that uses the current wording but I should be fully prepared for the day the powers that be clarify that No, it does not work the way you hoped.

PFS additional rules/restrictions on this item, if any, will be interesting to see.

The only nitpick I have with this is that the water from the magic squirt gun would be better off "instantly evaporating" rather than "turning to sand".
Still, I want one, not to mention that bandolier. That poor ratchatcher should level up from this.

Weapon traits (and traits in general, if I recall correctly) aren't stylized with capitalization in rules text. You can see this in monk stance feats, as well as feats like Double Slice or Swipe.

If you look a those feats, you'll notice that they SAY trait after those: as such, it's doing the same as capitalizing it. That's not done here and the context of the sentence works as common language one [you are throwing a weapon] without any indicators it's referencing the trait [adding str damage when thrown].

With all respect, this line of thinking, that does not take into account the Too good to be true caveat, has caused many bouts of nerdrage in the past when things have been clarified / errataed as not working like many people hoped.

With the same respect, my post had NOTHING to do with the merits of which way it should be: that post was on someone saying 'it can't work because of Throwing', and I don't think that argument works. As to 'too good to be true', I really haven't seen an example that seems that way: it's mostly overlapping with what the bomb already gives for weapon dice and bonuses. If there is such an example, I'd be happy to look it over.

For PFS, for example, I might play a bomb user that uses the current wording but I should be fully prepared for the day the powers that be clarify that No, it does not work the way you hoped.

Sure, makes sense. However there are things like Recall checks that might not work as you expect already in the game [like adding that unique bonus and +2/roll or disagreements on 'useful']: the only difference is the bandoleer might actually get a FAQ/errata.

PFS additional rules/restrictions on this item, if any, will be interesting to see.

Agreed.

egindar wrote:

Weapon traits (and traits in general, if I recall correctly) aren't stylized with capitalization in rules text. You can see this in monk stance feats, as well as feats like Double Slice or Swipe.

If you look a those feats, you'll notice that they SAY trait after those: as such, it's doing the same as capitalizing it. That's not done here and the context of the sentence works as common language one [you are throwing a weapon] without any indicators it's referencing the trait [adding str damage when thrown.

And class features like sneak attack that refer to agile or finesse weapons?

graystone wrote:

egindar wrote:

Weapon traits (and traits in general, if I recall correctly) aren't stylized with capitalization in rules text. You can see this in monk stance feats, as well as feats like Double Slice or Swipe.

If you look a those feats, you'll notice that they SAY trait after those: as such, it's doing the same as capitalizing it. That's not done here and the context of the sentence works as common language one [you are throwing a weapon] without any indicators it's referencing the trait [adding str damage when thrown.

And class features like sneak attack that refer to agile or finesse weapons?

Well #1 the way it's worded isn't in a natural form for it to mean anything else and #2 the game is sometimes lax/lazy with these things.

For #1, agile as an adjective doesn't make sense in natural language for an inanimate object, as it's saying the object can move quickly and easily: the wielder of a weapon could be agile but not the weapon. Finesse isn't an adjective at all, being either a noun or verb.

As to #2, the game says in Format of Rules Elements, Core Rulebook pg. 17: "The names of specific statistics, skills, feats, actions, and some other mechanical elements in Pathfinder are capitalized. This way, when you see the statement “a Strike targets Armor Class,” you know that both Strike and Armor Class are referring to rules." It just causes confusion when they don't follow their own guidelines.

Bottom line, if it's not capitalized, it's down to looking at the context of the sentence: if it's not clearly about a rules element there is no way to prove it involves one. In this case, nothing is capitalized and nothing in the context precludes a reading in natural language or makes reading it as a rules element make more sense. Hence, an argument that Throwing is a requirement isn't backed up by any proof/RAW. Now if you wan to argue it SHOULD read that way, then an RAI argument can be made.

I wasn't arguing that way, if you'll read my initial message, just pointing out that traits are not capitalized.

I'll put it this way: Do you have any examples of weapon traits being capitalized in the text of features?

As far as I'm aware there's a deliberate style guide involving which rules elements are and aren't capitalized (or italicized, as is the case for spells). You'll note your quote says "some other mechanical elements in Pathfinder," as in it's not every possible rules element. Rules text would get somewhat cumbersome to read if that were the case - you can look at some of OneD&D's playtest documents to see what I mean there.

Ah, on second look it seems like they do put the thrown trait on Reload -- weapons automatically. What I get for not doing full due diligence, I suppose. In that case I'd say it's an oversight that bombs are missing the trait.

Wizard Level 1 wrote:

Bombs do not have the Thrown trait though.

But the item doesn't ask for a trait. It asks for "one-handed thrown weapons". Note the lack of capitalization on thrown. As such, it uses thrown in the general sense [which bombs qualify] as opposed to saying 'weapons with the Thrown trait'.

By that logic you can put rocks in there since you can throw them as improvised weapons. Good luck convincing a DM of that though.

graystone wrote:

Wizard Level 1 wrote:

Bombs do not have the Thrown trait though.

But the item doesn't ask for a trait. It asks for "one-handed thrown weapons". Note the lack of capitalization on thrown. As such, it uses thrown in the general sense [which bombs qualify] as opposed to saying 'weapons with the Thrown trait'.

By that logic you can put rocks in there since you can throw them as improvised weapons. Good luck convincing a DM of that though.

Why would a GM object to that? I mean, if I'm your GM, and you want to fill up your bandolier with rocks, I'm certainly not going to be the one to stop you. Congratulations! You've managed to find a way to throw improvised weapons with runes on them. They're still terrible. You have fun with that.

graystone wrote:

Wizard Level 1 wrote:

Bombs do not have the Thrown trait though.

But the item doesn't ask for a trait. It asks for "one-handed thrown weapons". Note the lack of capitalization on thrown. As such, it uses thrown in the general sense [which bombs qualify] as opposed to saying 'weapons with the Thrown trait'.

By that logic you can put rocks in there since you can throw them as improvised weapons. Good luck convincing a DM of that though.

Improvised Weapons, Core Rulebook pg. 278: "The GM determines the amount and type of damage the attack deals, if any, as well as any weapon traits the improvised weapon should have." As you can see, there is no reason an improvised weapon couldn't have the Thrown trait. IMO, a rock having Thrown is a pretty simple ask. Second, there is a whole archetype for improvised weapons, Weapon Improviser. This item sounds like a good addition to their arsenal.

egindar: my whole point is that the rules say it SHOULD to avoid things like this argument. On Reload -, I'd argue that it doesn't get Thrown there: who's adding Str damage to bombs? "A thrown weapon adds your Strength modifier to damage just like a melee weapon does." As to traits in other places, normally they add the word "trait" so there isn't an issue: finesse and agile are the places where they don't add trait for some reason but as I pointed out, the sentences only work if read as traits so it's not an issue. Just using thrown is like using 'a crossbow' in a rule and trying to argue it means the crossbow group [like used in the gunslinger] instead of the specific weapon he crossbow. Without some context, it can be either and that was kind of he point of capitalizing rules elements that are common use words.

egindar: my whole point is that the rules say it SHOULD to avoid things like this argument. On Reload -, I'd argue that it doesn't get Thrown there: who's adding Str damage to bombs? "A thrown weapon adds your Strength modifier to damage just like a melee weapon does."

Not actually a factor. The splash trait of bombs explicitly removes/replaces the str bonus to damage.

graystone wrote:

egindar: my whole point is that the rules say it SHOULD to avoid things like this argument. On Reload -, I'd argue that it doesn't get Thrown there: who's adding Str damage to bombs? "A thrown weapon adds your Strength modifier to damage just like a melee weapon does."

Not actually a factor. The splash trait of bombs explicitly removes/replaces the str bonus to damage.

Ah, yes that is there. I'll retract that part then.

Trying to find the right pronunciation for Purepurin and failing.

Someone have a link to where it was mentioned?