Andrew Besso's page

I totally understand that he means no offense. I am not offended or insulted, just puzzled. I think he will learn from the experience.

EDIT: I would not veto the character. But I might point out that the Americans with Disabilities Act does not apply on Golarion. :-)

Please express my support and best wishes to your player.

Why do people want to play a guy who’s rather good at swinging a sword when you could play a guy who can rewrite reality? Different people enjoy playing all kinds of random things.

I know that, but I don't really understand it. I live with it. I can't imagine wanting to pretend to live with it.

I have multiple sclerosis, so I can barely walk. I generally use a walker at home, and a wheelchair when I'm out. I just cannot understand why someone would want to play this. Why go out of your way looking for trouble?

I am playing a dwarf Zen Archer in a campaign (25 point buy). He can take out a small army of minions single-handed. Usually someone else helps with the BBEG.

BUILD:
STR 12
DEX 14
CON 15
INT 8
WIS 20
CHA 7

FEATS
1: Precise Shot, Toughness
2: Point-Blank Shot
3: Deadly Aim
5: Deflect Arrows
6: Improved Precise Shot

At 4th level I took the point to CON (now 63 hp at 6th level).
I had planned to take Spider Step at 7th level, but I may not after all. Our GM greatly refers outdoor adventures. I am pondering what feat to take instead. Our GM encourages Leadership, but I prefer to wait until 9th level, after increasing my CHA.

If anyone has feat suggestions, I am listening.

Treantmonk has published a very good guide, but I do not remember where it is.

You make some excellent points, James.

I had started CHA at 19 with the intent of increasing it to 20 at level 4. That would give another use of channeling and increase the DC to resist the channel.

It would make far more sense to start CHA at 18, and put the 3 points into CON or CON and STR. A headband to increase CHA would compensate nicely.

I have a personal bias against "dump stats" but no saving throws depend on INT so lowering INT wouldn't hurt quite as much as lowering DEX or CON.
My current thought on feat progression is:
1: Selective Channel, Improved Channel
3: Command Undead
5: Versatile Channeler
7: Turn Undead
9: Extra Channel
11: ? (I haven't thought that far ahead...)

Thanks for the thoughts. I hope the OP has gleaned as much as I from this thread.

I am running a barbarian who will eventually multiclass into sorcerer and then dragon disciple. That character is not entirely CHA-based, though.

Edit: I really don't see this character relying much on melee, so decreasing STR wouldn't hurt much either. That would mean even more points for CON and DEX.

Edit II: The 70 lb limit for STR 7 is the maximum heavy load. The maximum light load at STR 7 is 23 lbs - less than most types of medium armor and three types of light armor. This build needs armor. And do I really want to expend a spell slot for Ant Haul?

I would like to play a charisma-based neutral cleric of a neutral deity. I would take Extra Channel and Selective Channel at first level, and channel negative energy. At higher levels, I would take Versatile Channeler and Improved Channel.

Race: Human
Statistics:
STR: 10
DEX: 10
CON: 10
INT: 10
WIS: 15
CHA: 19 (17+2)

I realize this CON score is low, but I am not willing to decrease anything else to increase it.
The character could channel 9x per day and exclude 4 comrades.

Anyway, there is my 2 coppers worth.

"In Service to Lore", for example, is a Tier 1 scenario. It does not have faction missions, because it is designed for new payers who may not have chosen a faction. Instead of faction missions, it has four tasks to perform for the Society, which involve meeting some of the faction leaders. When the character does choose a faction, prestige is assigned to the character as appropriate (1 point for completing 3 tasks, 2 points for completing all 4 tasks).

I plan to GM all three of these scenarios at the school where I work; students asked me to act as GM for the new RPG club, and I don't think any of them have played PFS. They seem to come mostly from D&D 3.x or 4.0.

Thanks to piecemail armor, we finally have things in a "leg" slot

PANTS!!!!! REJOICE!!!!!!

Sigh...I'll miss my toga.

Randall Newnham wrote:

You know... after reviewing that bonus feat list for level 6, and taking into account my low HP total, I may be taking Parting Shot. It's still quite a ways off, but as an archer with a squishy HP total, distance and no AoO's seems the way to go. And cheap shots are better than no shots! :)

Trust me, if your DM is familiar and using the cover rules correctly then a lot of times you are going to have to take that -4 due to soft cover because your allies are in the way.

YES! YES! YES! What he said! Ignoring cover is good. You will often want to target the enemy spell caster, who will typically be surrounded by his own allies.

Don't forget that at third level, a ZA can shoot without provoking AoO ("Point-Blank Master"). When you are suddenly surrounded by a small detachment of enemy soldiers that ability is without peer.

Double-checking the equipment descriptions, I find that 10 crossbow bolts (Medium) and the quiver weigh 1 pound. If the quiver weight is negligible, 1 bolt weighs 0.1 lb. Since Large weapons weigh twice as much as Medium weapons, and Huge weapons weigh twice that, a Huge crossbow bolt would weigh 0.4 pounds. Reading about ballistae, I find that they were used to shoot small boulders or solid metal projectiles (which look as though they might weigh 30 lb or so). So this puts me no closer to a definitive answer than I was before. I think our on-the-fly solution works for our little group.

I like the "you cannot deflect it if you cannot shoot it" rule.

The Deflect Arrows feat specifically prohibits deflecting large missiles such as boulders or ballista bolts. We (GM and I) wondered where the boundary lies. Clearly, a medium heavy crossbow bolt (1d10 damage) can be deflected, while a ballista bolt (damage 3d8 for a dragon ballista) cannot be deflected. The question arose when a cyclops was shooting a large heavy crossbow (damage 2d8), somewhere between. We decided that it would be DC 11, with WIS modifier to deflect the bolt. As it happened, the cyclops kept missing, (poor depth perception?) so the point was moot.

Has anyone else had anything like this come up?

MundinIronHand wrote:

Andrew Besso wrote:

Most college students I have known would give a tooth for something like that. Especially the nearly broke graduate students.

I thought all college student were broke

Nope, nearly broke is different from the average "totally broke" college student. The Nearly broke one still have some body parts to sell for beer.

When I was in graduate school, the graduate students were, in general, flat broke or nearly so. The undergraduate students, on the other hand, were mostly supported by Mummy and Daddy. They had expensive cars and cash. Of course, I was in graduate school in the last century. Things may be different now.

Our GM ruled early on that "physical" attributes (HP, Saves, BAB) and improvements in existing abilities (e. g. 1 more d6 sneak attack damage for a rogue, or 1 more ki point for a monk) happen when the characters sleep at night. Other things (new abilities, skill points, most feats, rogue talents, spells etc.) come only when the character is in a town or at least the local fort, depending on the nature of the improvement. This system works well for us.

If you are willing to consider the choice, my Zen Archer monk absolutely rocks.

No, he doesn't get the rogue's sneak attack, skills or trap-related abilities.

But a ZA can take Precise Shot (no penalty to shoot into melee) at first level. At third level, he can use WIS instead of DEX bonus to hit with a bow and he can shoot without provoking AoO. At 6th level, he can get Improved Precise Shot, allowing him to ignore anything less than total cover or total concealment. A rogue can't get that until level 15, with 19 DEX. At 10th level, the monk can take Pinpoint Targeting (ignore armor, shield, natural armor on a single ranged attack). The ZA also gets Perfect Strike (1 per day per level). And ZA gets to flurry with a bow. Oh, and don't forget the cool things you can do with ki.

Groo the Wanderer.

Our group has characters who loathe one another (Andoren paladin, Chelish barbarian), but even those two can get along long enough to carry out the Society's mission. They do not help each other in carrying out faction missions, but neither do they actively hinder each other.

Other than that, characters in our group do sometimes assist each other in carrying out rival faction missions. Perhaps the Andoren faction leader would take a dim view of my helping an Osirian, but when that same Osirian passes a bit on information to me the next week, I figure all is forgiven. Maybe that's not how it's supposed to work, but it's what we do. And we have fun, which is really the whole point of this thing.

This issue has not come up in our group, but I would think that wizards in PFS would share spellbooks.

Kobolds are evil, yes, but lawful evil. If you make a pact with them ("We won't kill you; you don't attack humans."), you can expect them to honor their side. Could something like that be done in your situation?

Isn't "Dark Knight" already being used by Bruce Wayne?

Perhaps I missed it, but I haven't seen anyone suggest "Nidalap".
(Sorry. I couldn't resist)
Edit: Yup. I missed it. I should have guessed that Kae Yoss would think of it.

Quandary wrote:

Yeah... I`m just not sure if RAI is that you REALLY lose all benefits of Invisibility, i.e. Invisible dude gets Grappled by Black Tentacles, now everybody can see and target him with spells and attacks with no miss chance, etc... or if RAI is that loss of Invisibility benefits applies vs. only the Grappler...?

Hmmm. I just assumed that it was just versus the grappler, but you're right it does leave it a bit open-ended for some rules lawyering. I could see if you were trying to target the invisible creature you would have a certain advantage with someone wrapped around him, but he does have the grappled condition which already imposes a few penalties. I guess I would say that an invisible grappled creature's location is pinpointed. Meh.

Meh, indeed. His location is pinpointed, but he is still invisible. I think I would rule 20% miss chance for someone not directly involved in the grapple.

We used to roll 3d6 six times for each ability score (keep the best of course), in order. That meant rolling first, then choosing race & class. Of course, the order then was STR, INT, WIS, DEX, CON, CHA.

I really would prefer to roll, but I also usually play PFS. I am part of a campaign, but that was also point buy.

You get one attack for free when you cast the spell. You can then make more attacks as turns pass and you get more actions. At this point the touch spell is a weapon for most purposes and you get attacks based upon your BAB and normal combat rules. Things like haste may give you an additional attack with a full round action of attacking.

As always you have to have the target within reach and you have to hit the touch AC of the target with your attack.

So, assuming my magus survives to level 2, it might go something like this:

Round 1:
Attack with weapon. Cast Chill Touch defensively (assume success). Attack with Chill Touch
Round 2:
Attack with weapon. Attack with Chill Touch. I would think that even a magus could not cast another spell this round.

OR (even better):
Round 1:
Attack with weapon. Cast Chill Touch defensively (again assume success) with Spellstrike. Attack with weapon again. A hit this time delivers normal weapon damage + Chill Touch damage.
Round 2:
Attack with weapon. A hit delivers normal weapon damage + Chill Touch. Cast another spell using Spell Combat.

Chill Touch

School necromancy; Level magus 1, sorcerer/wizard 1, witch 1
CASTING

Casting Time 1 standard action
Components V, S
EFFECT

Range touch
Targets creature or creatures touched (up to one/level)
Duration instantaneous
Saving Throw Fortitude partial or Will negates; see text; Spell Resistance yes

A touch from your hand, which glows with blue energy, disrupts the life force of living creatures. Each touch channels negative energy that deals 1d6 points of damage. The touched creature also takes 1 point of Strength damage unless it makes a successful Fortitude saving throw. You can use this melee touch attack up to one time per level.

An undead creature you touch takes no damage of either sort, but it must make a successful Will saving throw or flee as if panicked for 1d4 rounds + 1 round per caster level.

At higher level, a caster can hit multiple targets. Clearly the target(s) must be within reach. But how does a caster hit multiple targets?

1. Attack all adjacent targets in one round:
1a. If there is only one target, too bad. Additional uses are lost.
1b. If there is only one target, attack him again.

2. Attack one target per round:
2a. As 1a
2b. As 2b
2c. You can move between attacks and the additional attacks do not even have to be in contiguous rounds

3. If you do mot have multiple attacks (BAB +6/+1) too bad. Additional uses are lost.

Yeah, I suppose damaging everything within 30' is pretty potent. This hypothetical cleric wouldn't be much good against undead, though. The Command Undead feat helps some.

I didn't like Mom's answer, so I asked Dad, I suppose. Whine, whine.

The description of the Extra Channel feat makes no mention of taking the feat multiple times. Other similar feats (Extra Rage, Extra Ki, Extra Perform etc.) all can be taken multiple times, with stacking effects. Is this deliberate? Is channeling energy so powerful that it must be limited to 5 + CHA modifier?

EDIT: I ask because I am considering a LN cleric of Asmodeus for some time in the future. This cleric (PFS) would be charisma based and rely heavily on channeling negative energy, with Selective Channel of course.

With a 35-point buy (Your GM must be planning to teshmetter you!), at 4th level, I would do:

STR 18 = 17 + 1 (level 4) (13 points)
DEX 14 = 12 + 2 (race) (2 points)
CON 15 (7 points)
INT 10
WIS 19 = 17 + 2 (race) (13 points)
CHA 8 = 10 - 2 (race)

Many people would disagree with my emphasis on wisdom over strength.

FEATS:
1: Dodge, Combat Reflexes
2: Improved Grapple, Toughness (MotSM bonus)
3: Power Attack

So, you have AC 18 = 10+2(DEX)+4(WIS)+1(Monk)+1(Dodge), Touch AC=18, Flat-footed AC=15
HP: 40 = 8+2+1(1st lvl)+3*(5+2) (2-4 lvl)+4(favored class)+4(toughnes)

I assume you take the hit point at each level.

As for magic items, I suggest a ring of protection, a magic weapon and a wand of mage armor.

Why you gotta be all anti-coprophiliac?

You sent me running to the dictionary. I cannot remember when that last happened. I hereby invite you to join SAGOTEL, the Self-Appointed Gaurdians of the English Lexicon. To become member, you must promise to use the words "penultimate", "fortuitous" and "literally" correctly, promise never to use "impact" as a verb, and promise never, EVER to say, "irregardless".

Well, I guess I'll burn that bridge when I get there. Thanks, folks!

The more I think about it, the better I like the idea of a human adopted and raised by dwarves. Captain Carrot keeps flitting through my mind. His dwarvish name, if I remember correctly, translates to "BumpsHisHeadOften".

I can find nothing in the rules limiting the armor types that can have spikes attached. Is there such a rule and I missed it? I find it hard to imagine spikes on leather armor, and I am not so sure even about chain mail.

At 5th level, a fighter gains Weapon Training with one class of weapon. The flail class (one choice) is:
Flails: dire flail, flail, heavy flail, morningstar, nunchaku, spiked chain, and whip.
This list excludes the Dwarven Dorn-Dergar. Is this deliberate or an oversight? The weapon sounds similar to other weapons in the list.

Dorn Dergar, Dwarven

This exotic weapon is a 10-foot-long, heavy metal chain weighted at the end by a round ball of solid iron about the size of a large fist. Though fallen into disuse over the spanning centuries, the dorn-dergar is still sometimes employed by dwarves who cling to the old ways.

I ask because I am planning a character in the future who will specialize in this weapon. Of course, I had planned to make the character a dwarf, but it might be fun to play a human who is fascinated by the dwarvish race. I fit the "phlegmatic" personality type - indecisive.

On the other hand, the Two-Handed Fighter archetype gets some neat bonuses with two-handed melee weapons, which category includes the Dorn-Dergar. Maybe I'll just do that instead of a plain vanilla fighter.

My "ancient" AD&D books did mention that players' relieving themselves could be part of why they are surprised when encountering monsters.

I reckon since there is no mention of Frodo or Sam looking for a Port-O-Let in Mordor, we can ignore the issue in Pathfinder.

This doesn't really relate to your original question, but I have learned not to devalue odd-numbered attribute scores. For my first characters, I always made my ability scores even, but was sorry at 4th level when I could increase an ability score and realized that the increase made little or no difference.

And I agree with rkraus that you want point-blank and precise shot. Being able to shoot into melee without penalty has helped me often.

EDIT: My rogue character depends on Acrobatics to get into flanking position without provoking. Almost every character (except perhaps toe-to-toe fighters) will want Acrobatics to help get out of the way.

(GASP! I AGREE WITH A CHELAXIAN!)

Andrew Besso wrote:

Jadeite wrote:

Andrew Besso wrote:

Jadeite wrote:

How about abusing Dervish Dance? Hold a scimitar in one hand and get your dexterity on your unarmed strike damage.

This is not "cheese". This is deliberately misreading a rule. It would be equivalent to saying that a first level monk's unarmed strike damage is 1d12 because he is holding a lucerne hammer. The feat description clearly needs to be reworded - you add the DEX bonus to damage on attacks with the scimitar that you are wielding!

They had the chance to reword the feat when they included it in the Inner Sea World Guide, yet they chose not to do so (unlike the once glorious Aldori Dueling Mastery).

Can you support your statement about the lucerne hammer monk?
A monk getting dexterity of damage isn't even broken. Unlike the the 'errataed' terrible remorse which still allows the caster to either shut down an opponent with a spell of third or fourth level or deal 1d8+Str damage to it per round.
If you think it's stupid for a monk to gain a bonus to damage while wielding a scimitar (and it certainly is stupid in my opinion), you are free to allow a monk this bonus by simply expending three feats.

I agree that a monk ought to get his dexterity bonus on unarmed strike damage. I absolutely agree. What I said was that using the "Dancing Dervish" feat to accomplish that is simply wrong. Think of it this way. If you have this feat, and you happen to be holding a scimitar, you get to add your DEX bonus to damage, even though you aren't actually hitting anything with the scimitar. If you drop the scimitar, you don't get to add your DEX bonus to damage. Doesn't that strike you as just a bit odd?

I don't see how anyone can read the feat description and think the DEX bonus applies to anything other than the scimitar. I think it makes as much sense as applying damage from a weapon that the monk happens to be holding, but not wielding.

Of course it's strange. That's...

I apologize if I have caused anger or offense.

go here

In the words of the immortal Andy Kaufman, "Tenk you veddy much!"

I think I might want that.

Andrew Besso wrote:

Jadeite wrote:

How about abusing Dervish Dance? Hold a scimitar in one hand and get your dexterity on your unarmed strike damage.

This is not "cheese". This is deliberately misreading a rule. It would be equivalent to saying that a first level monk's unarmed strike damage is 1d12 because he is holding a lucerne hammer. The feat description clearly needs to be reworded - you add the DEX bonus to damage on attacks with the scimitar that you are wielding!

They had the chance to reword the feat when they included it in the Inner Sea World Guide, yet they chose not to do so (unlike the once glorious Aldori Dueling Mastery).

Can you support your statement about the lucerne hammer monk?
A monk getting dexterity of damage isn't even broken. Unlike the the 'errataed' terrible remorse which still allows the caster to either shut down an opponent with a spell of third or fourth level or deal 1d8+Str damage to it per round.
If you think it's stupid for a monk to gain a bonus to damage while wielding a scimitar (and it certainly is stupid in my opinion), you are free to allow a monk this bonus by simply expending three feats.

I agree that a monk ought to get his dexterity bonus on unarmed strike damage. I absolutely agree. What I said was that using the "Dancing Dervish" feat to accomplish that is simply wrong. Think of it this way. If you have this feat, and you happen to be holding a scimitar, you get to add your DEX bonus to damage, even though you aren't actually hitting anything with the scimitar. If you drop the scimitar, you don't get to add your DEX bonus to damage. Doesn't that strike you as just a bit odd?

I don't see how anyone can read the feat description and think the DEX bonus applies to anything other than the scimitar. I think it makes as much sense as applying damage from a weapon that the monk happens to be holding, but not wielding.

How about abusing Dervish Dance? Hold a scimitar in one hand and get your dexterity on your unarmed strike damage.

This is not "cheese". This is deliberately misreading a rule. It would be equivalent to saying that a first level monk's unarmed strike damage is 1d12 because he is holding a lucerne hammer. The feat description clearly needs to be reworded - you add the DEX bonus to damage on attacks with the scimitar that you are wielding!

disarm, grapple, trip, sunder, breath weapons, spells, ect

Sounds a lot like a high level monk, specifically a drunken master. A 20th level DMM can flurry at +18/+18/+13/+13/+8/+8/+3, plus another attack at +18, plus he can breathe fire for 20d6.

Jason S wrote:

The Lantern Lodge, what is that?

In brightest day,

In blackest night,
No faction mission shall escape my sight.
All evil I will blight,
Beward my power,
I cast light!

But is the lantern green?

I don't know whether the fellow who draws the XKCD web comic reads these posts, but...

The last XKCD Comic

I'm done now. Three posts in a row is too much.

My big request for the FAQ right now is that it be placed in an easier to find place. Right now it takes about 4 clicks to get to it from the forums and I suspect many people would never think to go to the store to find it. Having a sticky at the top of the rules forum or perhaps a link on the side bar under the PRD link (or even on the main PRD page) might be good.

I still have not been able to find it.

...

I also liked that she used the biblical spelling for Michael, rather than the more common Micheal.
...

I've never heard of anyone named Micheal, only Michael.

Andrew Turner wrote:

Names like Aragorn or Arwen or even Cattie Brie and Bilbo are ironically eye-rollers only to people like us: other geeks.

It's not the fact it's a name from a D&D novel that leaves me slack-jawed in horror; it's the fact that every time I hear it, it makes me think 'p*ssy-cheese'.

Most likely NOT what Salvatore intended, but, once you've seen a thing, you can't unsee.

And every kid who's ever innocently named his first halfling PC 'Bilbo' knows it takes two minutes (if that) before the other players mangle it to match a female pleasure device.

Anybody ever read "Bored of the Rings"?

It's funny how seemingly innocuous names can be twisted. I knew someone who knew someone named Timothy Burr. He was about 6'3" tall, and every time he had to walk somewhere in his office, people shouted, "TIM BURR!!"

I knew a guy whose last name was Doe. He named his son John Doe. His daughter's name was Harley, after the motorcycle.

I went to elementary school with a girl named Jennifer Ball. Her younger brother's name was Harry.

Makes Aragorn sound pretty good, no?

I am not new to gaming, but there are some slang expressions and abbreviations that elude me.

"munchkin" - I assume this is bad when used as a verb
"nerf" - to make a character/monster/party weak?
"OP" - usually "Original Post(er)", but not always
"troll" - Again, I assume this is bad when used as a verb
Many abbreviations seem to be games or campaigns; can someone put up a list?

There are probably others that I just don't remember offhand.

Thanks, all!

My friend's wife recently gave birth to their first son, and he wanted to name him Aragorn. No kidding. Thankfully, the people who register children names operate under a certain law, one that does not allow for stupid or strange names to be given to children (most of the time, some are still completely retarded, like naming your child after a farming implement). So, they refuse him, and he goes into frenzy mode, going around suing them and writing a complaint to everybody he thinks could do something about it.

Thankfully, he got shot down by his wife, so they named him a normal name after all.

I think that parents shouldn't give their kids some weird/strange names just so that their little baby will be unique. Have they any idea how abused and/or molested and/or made fun of will that child be if it has a name like Gandalf (unless they are from iceland)? Most other kids will not understand why he has a name like that, and when kids don't understand something they abuse it and make fun of it.

My friend was angry at his wife by the way, so i had to sit him down and talk to him...it took me three hours to make him see reason.

So if you are a future parent, please, please name your child a normal, regular name, it will thank you in the future.

Better "Aragorn" than "Strider"...

Because otherwise my poor Paladin can't see anything!

So far, I have found one in the Organized Play document:

Tomb Raider (Osirion Faction): You’ve spent most of your life exploring the ancient tombs and catacombs of Osirion. You gain a +1 bonus on Perception and Knowledge (dungeoneering) checks, and one of these skills (your choice) is always a class skill for you.

I'm still looking. Unfortunately, you can take this trait only if you belong to the Osirion faction in organized play.

Just a reminder, you need the PA for the full price not the upgrade cost

I know that. My real question here is whether a +1 keen rapier would cost 10320 gold or 8320 gold.

Woo-hoo! I'm wrong!

My rogue already has a masterwork rapier; I had not upgraded it to +1 because I want a keen rapier when I have the PA to buy it. If I understand the rules correctly, a +1 keen item costs the same as a +2 item. So a +1 keen rapier would cost:

20 (Rapier)
300 (MW)
2000 (+1)
8000 (Keen)
------
10320

Or is the 8000 gp (+base weapon +MW) the price of a +2 weapon, so it would cost 6000 gp to upgrade from +1 to +2 (or +1 keen)?

In any case, since I already have the MW rapier, I could only spend 2000 gp now and make it +1.

If you are willing to give up the human's bonus skill point, you might consider the "Child of the Wilderness" alternate racial trait in the APG. You get +5 on checks to stabilize when you are knocked below 0 HP and you add 1/2 HP per hit die to the negative HP needed to kill you.

... Sometimes all you get is trolls sometimes it's a red dragon.

Mama always said, "Pathfinder is like a box of chocolates...."

The organized rules document ssys that I can upgrade a masterwork weapon or piece of armor to +1. Likewise I can upgrade the +1 item to +2. If I read the rule correctly, I would not be able to upgrade some other item the same way, for example I could not make a +1 ring of protection into a +2 ring of protection just by paying the cost difference. Likewise I could not turn my +1 rapier into a +1 keen rapier.

I hope I sm wrong...

The Point-Blank Shot feat adds +1 damage if the target is within 30'. Is this damage multiplied on a critical hit, or is it "precision damage", which is not multiplied?