Andrew Teo's page

Let's invoke the too good to be true rule then. Your reading makes some feats and weapon features give multiple times more damage than equivalent costed options. If the reading you use is atantly obviously broken and the reading literally everyone else uses isnt, maybe just maybe you've got it wrong.

If you will a absolutely only accept a busy dev to come in a d tell you that your personally wrong, I dont know what yo say.

I have conceded to the dominant interpretation of the rules. I maintain that the written explanations in the book are ambiguous to a fault. I'm just surprised that it is not more of an issue amongst the community.

"Too good to be true" is subjective i guess. My players were happy with it.

Andrew Teo wrote:

How is it that you were clearly able to derive this without further clarification? And why are you so certain that my interpretation is certainly wrong?

The answer to these questions will not bring you satisfaction.

I was able to derive this without further clarification because the words used only have one meaning given their order and context, and that is also why I am certain that your interpretation is wrong.

English is a complex mess of inconsistent rules riddled with exceptions, which means that while words are synonyms in some context they are not necessarily synonyms in all contexts. That's the case with how I used "involving" and "based on" in my prior post.

Both striking runes and power attack say "use this number of dice." Neither of them says "Do X for each die." To illustrate the difference, I will quote text from the rules:

This is how a feature that the text on page 279 is relevant for is written: "When you attack with it more than once on your turn, the second attack gains a circumstance bonus to damage equal to the number of weapon damage dice, and each subsequent attack gains a circumstance bonus to damage equal to double the number of weapon damage dice."

This is the text of a striking rune: "A striking rune stores destructive magic in the weapon, increasing the weapon damage dice it deals to two instead of one."

Note the differences. The first says "equal to the number" which is telling us to count how many there are, thus invoking the "Counting Damage Dice" rule. The second does not have that language, nor any other language which would mean the same thing.

To phrase differently to try and make this as clear as it can be: page 279 only matters when a rule asks "How many damage dice are there?" not when a rule says "This is how many damage dice there are."

I see your point, and I am thankful for your time. To quibble in the interest of quibbling, I think you may have come to conclude the certainty of your context with good and healthy reasoning, but to claim that you are absolutely certain, is confusing for me. I admire your confidence and clarity (again not being sarcastic) but I do not share it even in most cases when it comes to the evaluation of linguistic evidence. In quibbling defense I cling stubbornly to the wording on page 279.

Andrew Teo wrote:

Rysky wrote:

Andrew Teo wrote:

But I'm just surprised no one else ever came to conclude, from 279 that "weapon die" is a technical term which always includes the striking properties.

Because “die” is quite specific, and literal.

It does not mean all dice associated with the weapon’s damage. It means the weapon’s die.

Ok not to nit pick, but you quoted the idiom erroneously. Hence my confusion.

I actually stand by it. I paid for my copies of PF2 and Im enjoying the game immensely, but it is quite poorly written. There is little effort to reiterate for clarity and the jumbling use of terms leaves much to be desired. A simple problem which could have been solved had they been more prudent in the proof-reading process. I do not mean to condemn them in anyway but I honestly see the writing as problematic.

Ok but i have been told that in prose I sound like a turd. Apologies for crashing anyone's glasshouses... (abiding the metaphor but not the idiom which would require that I be the one living in the glasshouse)

In any case, baring the unlikely possibility as offered by thenobledrake that these queries would receive any official clarification, I have decided to implement the collective wisdom of the paiso forums in my games.

Thank you all. Stay safe and game at home!

But...you are.

I have no idea what you mean.

EDIT: ok wait so now u mean the forum is the glasshouse?

Andrew Teo wrote:

Yes this. But how am I wrong? Power attack in an "effect" which takes into account the weapon's "number of damage die" and would hence also take into account the number of "any extra dice from a striking rune."

You are wrong because there is a difference between involving the number of dice, and being based on the number of dice.

Power attack does not tell you to count up how many dice there are to determine what it will do, and that is why page 279 doesn't apply.

The same is true of striking runes themselves, they do not have you count up how many dice there are to determine what they do, so page 279 has nothing to do with them either.

Also, isn't it inconsistent to believe that page 279 does apply to these elements but not also believe that if you upgrade from a striking rune to a major striking rune you would end up with 8 dice instead of 4 since the striking rune allegedly makes each "weapon damage die" 2dX?

"Nearly every post you've made in this thread is laced with condescension. And never open a thread with "I don't want discussion." as that just puts everyone in a negative mood and makes it seem like you're talking down to the entire community. The assumption that every other thread consensus MUST be wrong isn't a great move. I would guess that comes from an incorrect reading of English in the page 279 quote where you are most definitely wrong about how it works.

Anyway, I hope I've properly explained which of the glass houses you threw a brick into while standing inside of said house."

Again we gamers are a touchy bunch, it seems. I had not intended to sound condescending and I opened the way i did because that precise, prior discussion had already been covered. Again apologies for unintended tonal turdery.

Well, i sorely disagree that it is a matter of English comprehension, which is precisely my beef with all this. I think when thenobledrake explained it, it summed up my entire problem with the use of language in the book. I'm happy that it is so clear for the rest of you, which is why then you can all come to inform me and i can learn from you... but
"You are wrong because there is a difference between involving the number of dice, and being based on the number of dice." the fact that this is so clear to you based on the language eludes me. I am absolutely certain that "based on" and "involving" and not as distinguished as you would imagine. "I make decisions based on my desire" VS "i make decisions involving what I desire". The vagueness in semiotics is maddening. Again, to thenobledrake I wish to express how i deeply appreciate you taking the time to explain your POV to me, and I imagine given more context you would be much clearer, but I must ask that you consider, given the distinction you have provided that is no way you can ask of me to certain that your interpretation leans more closely into the language than mine.

How is it that you were clearly able to derive this without further clarification? And why are you so certain that my interpretation is certainly wrong? My questions do not aim to challenge, again I beg everyone's pardon. I believe that you lot, being more experienced are more tapped into the invisible vein of the intention of the rules, which is why I will abide by your advice.

i think it petty and... downright childish to assume that I have arrived at my prior interpretation of page 279 due to my insufficient grasp of English. As i have said, in a vaccum, and only looking at page 279, it beckons that one takes into account the "Effects based on a weapon’s number of damage dice" to "include ... the weapon’s damage die plus any extra dice from a striking rune", just these two lines clearly indicate that they CAN (caps for emphasis on tone and not condescension) apply to things like power attack and weapon storm. The seeming clarity that it does not and should not, seems to extend from a game balancing point of view, a view which I have come to accept, based on my reading of other threads as well.

Thank you all for your time, and again apologies for my turdesque tonality, which I did not intend.

Andrew Teo wrote:

But I'm just surprised no one else ever came to conclude, from 279 that "weapon die" is a technical term which always includes the striking properties.

Because “die” is quite specific, and literal.

It does not mean all dice associated with the weapon’s damage. It means the weapon’s die.

Ok not to nit pick, but you quoted the idiom erroneously. Hence my confusion.

I actually stand by it. I paid for my copies of PF2 and Im enjoying the game immensely, but it is quite poorly written. There is little effort to reiterate for clarity and the jumbling use of terms leaves much to be desired. A simple problem which could have been solved had they been more prudent in the proof-reading process. I do not mean to condemn them in anyway but I honestly see the writing as problematic.

Ok but i have been told that in prose I sound like a turd. Apologies for crashing anyone's glasshouses... (abiding the metaphor but not the idiom which would require that I be the one living in the glasshouse)

In any case, baring the unlikely possibility as offered by thenobledrake that these queries would receive any official clarification, I have decided to implement the collective wisdom of the paiso forums in my games.

Thank you all. Stay safe and game at home!

Rysky wrote:

I’m honestly scratching my head at how you’re taking the paragraph from 279 to get the numbers you’re coming up with.

What's going on is that he's thinking that bit of text means that a weapon's damage dice is affected by striking runes such that a striking greatsword has 2d12 as its damage die and would add 2d12 any time another rule element said "one extra weapon damage die."

Which is wrong because that's not what the words used mean in the order and context they are used in.

Yes this. But how am I wrong? Power attack in an "effect" which takes into account the weapon's "number of damage die" and would hence also take into account the number of "any extra dice from a striking rune."

OK at the very least, thanks so much I now know with certainty that many in the community do not view it as we do. So despite our own certainty (justified or not) about how the numbers play out, many do not feel the same?

But I'm just surprised no one else ever came to conclude, from 279 that "weapon die" is a technical term which always includes the striking properties.

Again if this was clarified elsewhere (not that I now imagine it would need to be since no one else assumes it as such) I would reaaaally appreciate a link. Thanks lots

Andrew Teo wrote:

Apologies for the lack of clarity, I didn't think my grammaticality needed polishing as I has assumed the rather casual nature of such a forum and did not expect condescending responses which seek to help me write in better English.

Don’t throw bricks in glass houses.

Sorry for being rather thick. I get the metaphor but not the context. Is the issue of grammar the touchy subject, hence the glass house? Or is it my assumption that everyone is nice and generally not condescending/would immediately assume I AM being condescending because of my use of CAPs. I always throw bricks but which glass house should i be avoiding? I am loving PF2 but this page 279 thing was something my group fought over, thought we settled but now the can of worms walks.

I didn't miss your claim, your claim was incorrect.

Your quoted bits of text also don't say what you think they say.

Andrew Teo wrote:

Falchion with rune of major striking = 4d10.

This is correct.

Andrew Teo wrote:

4d10 on a power attack at level 18, is already 16d10.

This is false.

Power attack says add 1, 2, or 3 dice. It does not say multiply. The falchion you mention being used with power attack at level 18 is 7d10 - not 16d10.

The text on Page 279 is about features like the forceful weapon trait, not an excuse to treat the sentence "increase it to three extra dice." as X 3 rather than +3.

Andrew Teo wrote:

Because if this were the case... no one would EVER power attack. 7d10 (with only one package of precision damage) VS 8d10? I rather hit twice.

Another false claim. Plenty of people that aren't cranking up the damage way beyond what the book actually says are willing to use Power Attack because of Multiple Attack Penalty making your "I'd rather hit twice" a significantly less likely event (though no, power attack is not the king of statistically expected damage per round)

Isn't there some fighter feat that lets u hit twice at the same attack bonus? And why is it a "false claim"? I posed a rhetorical question... sorry i digress.

"The text on Page 279 is about features like the forceful weapon trait, not an excuse to treat the sentence "increase it to three extra dice." as X 3 rather than +3." Why are u so certain? I mean this in the most polite way, i really want to know why you are so sure.

Because ""Counting Damage Dice
Effects based on a weapon’s number of damage dice
include only the weapon’s damage die plus any extra dice
from a striking rune. They don’t count extra dice from
abilities, critical specialization effects, property runes,
weapon traits, or the like." clearly would apply itself to power attack which says "Make a melee Strike. This counts as two attacks when calculating your multiple attack penalty. If this Strike hits, you deal an extra die of weapon damage. If you’re at least 10th level, increase this to two extra dice, and if you’re at least 18th level, increase it to three extra dice". Seems like the bug bear lies in the interpretation of 279, since to me it clearly includes effects like power attack.

1) first off, coming into forums and making/necroing threads to argue that the writers and other posters are wrong and tossing insults is not going to endear people to working with your posts and discussions in a productive manner. In the slightest.

2)

Quote:

So contrary to the forum posts which claim that it is CLEARLY stated that the spell deals 4 dice of damage

It’s claimed because it is.

Weapon Storm wrote:

You swing a weapon you're holding, and the weapon magically multiplies into duplicates that swipe at all creatures in either a cone or an emanation. This flurry deals four dice of damage to creatures in the area. This damage has the same type as the weapon and uses the same die size. Determine the die size as if you were attacking with the weapon; for instance, if you were wielding a two-hand weapon in both hands, you'd use its two-hand damage die.

Critical Success The creature is unaffected.
Success The target takes half damage.
Failure The target takes full damage.
Critical Failure The target takes double damage and is subject to the weapon's critical specialization effect.

The spell says you deal 4 dice of damage.

You deserve 4 dice of damage.

Full stop.

Thanks for the replies.

I did not mean to insult. I sounded a lot nicer in my head.

Again my apologies for sounding like the kobold turd i did not intend to.

So to both Rysky and thenobledrake, I take it that it is in your personal view that the description on page 379 for how weapon dice functions does not apply to effects like "power attack" and "weapon storm", and may i please know why? I am not challenging you in any way I just wish to understand why is it that you have read it so in the context of the language that is put forward.

As I have stated in my main post, it is very clear to me that due to the description on page 279 of the core rule book, "weapon dice" is a technical term that is always inclusive of the said weapon's striking runes. And would therefore apply itself to power attack as well as weapon storm. I understand that WS states "4 dice of damage" but would not the meaning of this "4 dice of damage" be modified by the language on page 279?

The spell's text is explicit that you deal 4 dice of damage.

The spell's text is explicit how to determine which size of dice these are.

If you are using a greatsword, that's 4d12. Doesn't matter if the greatsword you are holding has striking runes or not because 2d12 is not size of die and "I do four 2d12 of damage" is not a sentence.

This isn't discussion of game balance. This isn't the spirit of the rules. This isn't subjective. This is the clear official ruling, which you are very unlikely to get told to you from any more official of a source despite how demanding you might choose to be about it.

As for critical hits: other than specific exceptions such as splash damage, all of the damage that would occur if you had hit normally is doubled, and then any damage that occurs only because of a critical hit is added without doubling.

An 18th level fighter with a major striking greatpick using power attack is looking at 7d10 damage on a normal hit, and thanks to the fatal d12 trait would roll 7d12, add the relevant modifiers like strength and weapon specialization, double that, then add 1d12 more to the total on a critical hit.

Your numbers, however you got them, are way out of wack.

Thanks for your reply. Again, please read my post, apparently u missed out of my main claim. It would see in the main rule book that "weapon dice" has become a technical term which would then apply itself to the wording in weapon storm. I am aware the spell specifies "4 dice of damage".

Please also read the stuff i quoted from the main rule book. Apologies for the lack of clarity, I didn't think my grammaticality needed polishing as I has assumed the rather casual nature of such a forum and did not expect condescending responses which seek to help me write in better English. For the record ""I do four 2d12 of damage" is not a sentence", is a sentence, in English. Again because of my surname someone has to assume my lack of proficiency in the English idiom.

"Your numbers, however you got them, are way out of wack"

Erm, same technicality, Please read page 279.

"Counting Damage Dice
Effects based on a weapon’s number of damage dice
include only the weapon’s damage die plus any extra dice
from a striking rune. They don’t count extra dice from
abilities, critical specialization effects, property runes,
weapon traits, or the like."

So by this erm... reasoning? Let's simplify things a little and minus some complications. Falchion with rune of major striking = 4d10.
4d10 on a power attack at level 18, is already 16d10. Unless you mean to tell me page 279's description of the modifying effect of weapon runes do not apply to "power attack". Because if this were the case... no one would EVER power attack. 7d10 (with only one package of precision damage) VS 8d10? I rather hit twice.

Now for the genuine apology. I did not mean to sound demanding. But i am somewhat upset by the poor wording in the book. And it is really hard to find actual clarification.

"Weapon Storm only does the damage listed in the spell," which is what exactly, because the spell doesn't list any damage type other than, "the same type as the weapon," which is either piercing or slashing depending on my mood since it's versatile.

... and no it doesn't, 4d12 is roughly 26 damage on average rolls and a fireball heightened to 4th level is 8d6, which does 28 damage on average. I'm basically gimping myself by not using fireball, which also doesn't require me to get close, which raises the question, why ever bother with the spell at all?

This is exactly why my group has been reading WS as taking into account runes of striking. The problem is though, that it quickly becomes the highest damage spell in the game by far. With a greater striking rune, heightened to say level 7, the spell does 7x3 d12 with a great sword. At its utmost, say level 10 with major striking, if your elder colossal whatever dragon elder thing fails critically it becomes dust. So the issue with this spell is that either interpretation of "weapon dice" is extremely polarizing in terms of the significance of the spell's inclusion in the game. PLEASE paizo clarify!!!!

Weapon Storm only does the damage listed in the spell. Additional runes on your weapon do not apply.

Using Weapon Storm with a D12 damage weapon does more damage than Fireball.

No it doesn't really. 4d12 is less than 8d6. I have to assume u are comparing a level 4 spell with a level 4 spell.

Please see my thread on weapon storm, would really like an official answer. Hope paizo can get their writing straightened out.

HI all I started a new thread to discuss something in this same spirit and weapon storm. I realised that the wording of "weapon damage die" and "weapon storm" itself is not as straight forward as most people assume, so I started a new thread to lay out the information from the rule book to make my case. Would appreciate your thoughts.

Basically Im thinking in the same vein as the OP, 4d12 at level 4 is waaaay too underwhelming. The language which describes "weapon die damage" seems to have become a technical term, and if we apply this technicality to the description of the spell "weapon storm", then CLEARLY it would deal 8d12 on level 4 if the caster were wielding a striking great sword.

Hi all,

sorry I'm late to the discussion. I know most of the community interprets Weapon Storm as dealing on 4 dice of damage at level 4, and does not take into account the runes of striking. But my play group has been reading it quite differently. We inferred this from page 279 of the Core Rule Book,

"Each weapon lists the damage die used for its damage
roll. A standard weapon deals one die of damage, but a
magical striking rune can increase the number of dice
rolled, as can some special actions and spells. These
additional dice use the same die size as the weapon or
unarmed attack’s normal damage die...

Effects based on a weapon’s number of damage dice
include only the weapon’s damage die plus any extra dice
from a striking rune. They don’t count extra dice from
abilities, critical specialization effects, property runes,
weapon traits, or the like."

in tandem with these descriptions under the spell weapon storm(pg 384):

"if you were wielding a two-hand weapon in both hands, you’d use its
two-hand damage die." and "Heightened (+1) Add another damage die"

So contrary to the forum posts which claim that it is CLEARLY stated that the spell deals 4 dice of damage, the terminology applied (specifically the term damage die), corresponds directly to the effects of runes of striking as described on page 280.
So i would like some form of official response? To be quite curt, Im not interested in discussion on game balance, spirit of the rules etc, because all that is quite subjective. I would like to know, if possible what was the specific intent of the writers/game makers(who really could be a lot more careful with their use of language).

Also, in case I'm wrong again, when you score a critical when you land a power attack, do you multiply the entire package? Im guessing you do, but numerically it's kindda bonkers.

Meaning, level 18 fighter with great pick imbued with major striking rune= 4d10 x 4(power attack)= 16 d10, on a critical does (16 d12) x 3 = 48 d12? Cos that's how we have been justifying the damage of weapon storm, ie to say there is something else out there that is as scary.

Thanks for your thoughts!

Would also appreciate if someone could direct me to an official response(if possible)? Thanks in advance.