DMO's page

I believe he is asking if his mount will even get to attack, due to have 5ft reach, while his lance has 10ft.

I wonder how this is supposed to work as well. The same issue could come up with a mount that has 10ft reach, and you have 5ft.

The rules for charging from a mount state that both you and the mount are charging, and should follow all the rules for charging. But you can't in the situation where your reach differs, since the mount moving to the closest square it could attack from would not be the same square as the rider. One of you violates the rules no matter what.

This thread discussed it, but did not seem to come to a satisfying conclusion.

thread

Was there ever another faq to address this?

_Ozy_ wrote:

So, a spell that is supposed to 'double the damage that is taken' will actually only increase damage by 50% when critting with a x2 weapon, 33% when critting with a x3 weapon, and 25% when critting with a x4 weapon?

Is that what people are claiming? That the spell is literally wrong when it says 'double damage'?

That is how spirited charge works.

With a lance, a crit is not x3 x3, a crit is x5 (adding x-1 minimum 1 to the crit modifier).

I can imagine the design meeting for this spell though;

"Paladins do not have many smites per day, and that's sad"

"Yeah but smites are super awesome, they should be limited"

"But! What if we game them a spell that is like a super smite at level 2? Then they could have more smites!"

"Wow I never thought of it like that, ship it!"

Key difference being Spirit Charge modifying the damage you deal (damage rolls of the PC), while LoR, and other things like it (vulnerability, DR, resistance, etc.) modify the damage the creature takes (post damage rolls, once the number is passed to the GM).

Since you are not stacking multipliers onto your roll with LoR, it does not work like spirited charge. The differences between damage dealt vs taken are discussed more in depth above.

Is there a TL;DR answer yet?

The general consensus seems to be yes, RAW, it works like vulnerability, but perhaps that is not RAI.

RAW: The OP is correct. This is not in the damage dice step, it is in the taking damage step which is after damage is rolled.

The multiplier rule is applied before damage is rolled (to determine what you roll). LoR is after damage is rolled and before it is applied.
RAI: I believe this is a case of bad wording. It should not be 'taking' and it should be the regular multiplier.
As an aside, I have seen multiple people read it as double damage after dice are rolled. The OP is not alone in this thinking.

As with all muddy RAW/RAI discussions, expect table variance as to how it works in practice.

Look at how Acid, Alchemist's Fire, and Wall of Fire are worded, among other results when searched for.

If what you say is true then the splash damage from those can't be resisted or anything else since they say "takes damage" the same way that Litany is worded.
How do you explain those?
Also please cite something from the rules to support your claim.

DR, Resistance, vulnerability, and LoR are all things that modify damage taken. Your damage taken starts a 1 in the case of an acid flask splash hit. It is then modified by any applicable modifiers that modify damage taken. In all the modifiers I know off the top of my head, they are special qualities or buffs/debuffs specific to the creature.

The descriptions assume that the creature does not have any specific special qualities. It would take a lot of words to put every possible creature quality that a specific item might intact with into every description in the game. There would also have to be constant rewriting.

DMO wrote:

Little combative to engage, but I'll try one more time.

I have provided numerous examples above that display how damage dealt and damage taken are different. You even did yourself once. They are not defined in any rulebook that I know of because there is no need to define self-defining terms. Damage dealt is the damage you deal from an attack. Damage taken is the damage a creature actually takes, once situational modifiers are added (DR, resistance, vulnerability, etc.) This is elementary, as in, not decomposable into simpler elements.

If you don't see that distinction, then I don't know what to tell you at this point. We will just have to agree to disagree.

Your entire argument is based on a false assumption.

DMO wrote:

Does this mean that LoR works like vulnerability instead of a crit, causing the creature under LoR to take (10 x2 x2) 40 damage instead of (10 x(2+1)) 30 from the Paladin's longsword crit?

Thanks in advance.

You have been attributing that Litany of the Righteous works in a manner similar to when vulnerability acts.

Even if that were true. THE MOMENT that you were to get a Critical Hit you have to follow the rules for Multiplying.

It stipulates that:

When you are asked to apply more than one multiplier to a roll, the multipliers are not multiplied by one another. Instead, you combine them into a single multiplier, with each extra multiple adding 1 less than its value to the first multiple. For example, if you are asked to apply a ×2 multiplier twice, the result would be ×3, not ×4.

You can't double a double. Its in the Common Terms of the game section. I've been responding about that.

The multiplying rules never come into play for the reasons listed above. If my argument in my first post was unclear, I'm sorry it confused you. Every single post has been an attempted clarification of said argument. Going back to the first post and saying "but that format and phrasing is unclear, so everything else you've said is wrong" is kind of ridiculous.

It seems you're just trying to "win" an argument rather than explore all avenues of the rules as they might possibly interact RAW/RAI. The original question has been answered to my satisfaction due to your contributions and the contributions of others. Thanks for helping.

DMO wrote:

Brain in a Jar wrote:

Vulnerability uses +50% making it not a multiplier.

[You keep saying Vulnerability does 1.5 when in fact it is not expressed that way. It matters.]

Energy Immunity and Vulnerability wrote:

Vulnerability means the creature takes half again as much (+50%) damage as normal from that energy type,...

Litany of Righteousness wrote:

takes double damage from attacks made by creatures with a good aura

Those bolded words are the same words. No line reading in between necessary. One just has a different value than the first (+100% rather than +50%). This is what I'm saying when I make the distinction between damage taken and damage dealt. Damage taken is added multiplicatively. You take the whole sum, (post multipliers, since it is a function of the creature, not yourself) and add half again that number. LoR is written the exact same way.

So by your own stance, LoR is not a multiplier either, and is not subject to the Multiplier section of the rules, because it is damage taken by the creature, rather than dealt by the player. That is what I've been trying to say this entire time. I thought the fireball example in the OP outlined the difference between damage dealt and taken clearly, but I guess it didn't. Sorry for the runaround to get back to the point made in the first post.

EDIT: Just to be ultra clear, I'm saying that the Multiplier rules are not applied because you are not stacking multipliers onto the same roll. The rolling is done and damage is just a number by the time LoR is applied, just like vulnerability (i.e. post any DR, resistance, etc.. Damage dealt = before DR, resistance, etc., damage taken = number modified post DR, resistance, etc.,)

Can you cite the rules for this like a link or even an idea of where to find it?

If you think your correct shouldn't you be able to back it up with more than just your words and opinions.

If it works how you say you should be able to quote the rules and...

Little combative to engage, but I'll try one more time.

I have provided numerous examples above that display how damage dealt and damage taken are different. You even did yourself once. They are not defined in any rulebook that I know of because there is no need to define self-defining terms. Damage dealt is the damage you deal from an attack. Damage taken is the damage a creature actually takes, once situational modifiers are added (DR, resistance, vulnerability, etc.) This is elementary, as in, not decomposable into simpler elements.

As Gauss said above, and I mentioned myself several times, the Multiplier rules do not apply since you are not adding multipliers to your damage roll. You are making a damage roll, and if an attack crits, you will apply the critical multiplier pertinent to your weapon. The number resolved from this is your damage dealt. Next, you apply modifiers to see how much damage the creature actually takes. Does it have DR? Resistance? Vulnerability? Currently LoR'd? These do not modify your damage roll. It's already done. So you aren't adding multipliers.

If you don't see that distinction, then I don't know what to tell you at this point. We will just have to agree to disagree.

I have also banned LoR in it's RAW form from my table. It is an insane spell when used to double damage after dice are rolled.

Just curious how much this actually lowered the power of the spell, in your experience. This would only change how it would multiply critical damage, correct? It would still double all damage done normally, essentially making every hit a x2 crit.

It would actually make it MORE powerful if there were no crits, and you were somehow not bypassing DR by also smiting, since you would double before applying DR.

I house rule it to be like vital strike. All attackers double their base damage, but ignore SR. This makes it more balanced and roughly what the power of a 2nd level spell should be.

Definitely reasonable, but the only thing I would point out is that 2nd level Paladin spell =/= 2nd level wizard spell since Paladin only goes to 4th. Unless at your table you believe 9th level spellcasters should have more powerful spells by default, and all spell levels should work off the same scale. Which I also think is a reasonable stance, and makes your houserule perfectly in line with that.

RAW: The OP is correct. This is not in the damage dice step, it is in the taking damage step which is after damage is rolled.

The multiplier rule is applied before damage is rolled (to determine what you roll). LoR is after damage is rolled and before it is applied.

RAI: I believe this is a case of bad wording. It should not be 'taking' and it should be the regular multiplier.

As an aside, I have seen multiple people read it as double damage after dice are rolled. The OP is not alone in this thinking.
I have also banned LoR in it's RAW form from my table. It is an insane spell when used to double damage after dice are rolled.

I agree that it is obscenely powerful as written (as if Paladins need more firepower to decimate an evil creature), but it has its limitations. Paladins have a hilariously low number of spells per day, and they can be quite valuable. Also, good luck breaking any kind if meaningful SR as a Paladin.

Even with those limitations, I self-ban using it on full attacks, and generally only incorporate it into a move+vital strike turn for particularly thematic moments.

Vulnerability uses +50% making it not a multiplier.

[You keep saying Vulnerability does 1.5 when in fact it is not expressed that way. It matters.]

Vulnerability means the creature takes half again as much (+50%) damage as normal from that energy type,...

takes double damage from attacks made by creatures with a good aura

Those bolded words are the same words. No line reading in between necessary. One just has a different value than the first (+100% rather than +50%). This is what I'm saying when I make the distinction between damage taken and damage dealt. Damage taken is added multiplicatively. You take the whole sum, (post multipliers, since it is a function of the creature, not yourself) and add half again that number. LoR is written the exact same way.

So by your own stance, LoR is not a multiplier either, and is not subject to the Multiplier section of the rules, because it is damage taken by the creature, rather than dealt by the player. That is what I've been trying to say this entire time. I thought the fireball example in the OP outlined the difference between damage dealt and taken clearly, but I guess it didn't. Sorry for the runaround to get back to the point made in the first post.

EDIT: Just to be ultra clear, I'm saying that the Multiplier rules are not applied because you are not stacking multipliers onto the same roll. The rolling is done and damage is just a number by the time LoR is applied, just like vulnerability (i.e. post any DR, resistance, etc.. Damage dealt = before DR, resistance, etc., damage taken = number modified post DR, resistance, etc.,)

The only reason it mentions "takes" in the spell description is because if the Paladin in the example uses Litany it lasts for 1 round, during which time if others attack this target and they have Aura(Good) they also get to multiply damage.

I think this is where our viewpoints diverge. The above is an assumption on your part. If that was the intent, I would think it would have stated that "all creatures that have Aura(Good) deal double damage to the target."

Since it specifically mentions damage taken by the creature, and not damage dealt by attacking creatures, I envision LoR as a debuff on the target lasting for one round. Since it is a debuff on the target, your damage rolls are unaffected by it, meaning that the Multiplier rules are inapplicable to them.

If LoR where a buff that everyone around you shared, I would agree with you that the x2 damage multiplier is applied to your roll. But that is not how the spell description is written, to my eyes.

Since vulnerability is the mechanic that modifies damage taken by a creature independent of rolls, that ruleset seems more applicable to me. Even if it does not specifically say "vulnerability(good aura creatures), but x2 instead of x1.5", they share the same language, and no other mechanic that I know of has that language.

If nothing else seems to fit, then I will use the closest thing available.

This is the rule 100%.

Except it isn't, as I have pointed out in the case of a scorching ray crit. That is applying two multiples multiplicatively, which that rule says you cannot do. But you do.

Vulnerability means the creature takes half again as much (+50%) damage as normal from that energy type.

f the target is evil, it takes double damage from attacks made by creatures with a good aura (from a class feature or as a creature with the good subtype).

When you are asked to apply more than one multiplier to a roll, the multipliers are not multiplied by one another.

Emphasis mine is all cases. The argument I'm putting forth is that LoR does not ask you do multiply the damage that you deal. You are not multiplying any part of your rolls. You are figuring out how much damage you are dealing, and then that number is modified due to LoR, similar to how vulnerability works. The multiplying rules do not apply because you are not modifying the damage you deal. It has no effect on your damage rolls. It becomes a function of the monster for one round.

This the the distinction I was trying to make between damage dealt and damage taken with the fireball example in the OP.

All damage is totaled, and comes to, let's say 50. Since the creature is under LoR, that damage is then doubled to 100.

Maybe that's more clear? I think you're just not seeing the distinction I'm seeing between dealt and taken damage. Dealt is modifying damage rolls, taken does not.

EDIT due to ninjas to show the post I was replying to.

It seems I am still not being clear. I am aware of how critical hit multipliers work. Additively. This is not how vulnerability multipliers work, as a critical scorching ray does not equate to 10d6 damage (additive multiplier - (x2 + x(1.5-1)); rather, (4d6x2)x1.5.

I am not asking for the critical hit multiplier rules to be explained. The entire point of the question was to ask if they are even valid rules to apply to this spell in the first place, since there are actually two ways multipliers are resolved, despite the rule you quoted above.

My hypothesis is that the distinction between the two methods of multiplier interaction (additive for critical hits, multiplicative for vulnerability) lies in the difference between damage dealt vs. damage taken, as I attempted to explain with the fireball example above.

The thought I am trying to provoke is why is LoR thought to work like a critical hit, and not like vulnerability. LoR is not a critical hit, nor is it vulnerability. It is something unique, yet its language is more analogous to the vulnerability mechanic than it is to the critical hit mechanic, so it seems it should interact with damage like vulnerability does (multiplicatively instead of additively).

So the question is not how critical hit multipliers work; that is very clear. The question is not how vulnerability multipliers work either; that is also very clear. The question is which ruleset applies to how LoR multiplies damage

It seems to me that LoR is closer to vulnerability than it is to a critical hit. I gather that it seems to you that it is closer to a critical hit than to vulnerability. The question is why you think the critical hit rules apply, and NOT the vulnerability rules. Because it can't be both.

Perhaps I'm wrong, and a scorching ray that crits on a white dragon actually means you roll 10d6. If that is the case, please inform me of my mistake.

I did not mean to suggest it gave energy vulnerability; the spell does what it does. It is a unique effect. It is not a critical hit, and it is not energy vulnerability, but it still increases damage. I noted in the example above that the spell's description modifies damage taken by a creature rather than damage dealt by a PC.

Critical hits are a mechanic that modify damage dealt by a PC (additive multipliers).

Energy vulnerability is a mechanic that modifies damage taken by a creature (mutiplicatively).

The language in the spell description seems to line up more with vulnerability than critical hits, which is why I asked if the knee-jerk reaction to treat it as a crit should be thought about more carefully.

If you crit with a scorching ray on something that is vulnerable to fire, you don't roll 10d6. You roll 8d6 then multiply by 1.5, correct? Because vulnerability modifies damage taken, rather than damage dealt. There is a distinction, and LoR specifically modifies damage taken by a creature. Is there another mechanic that also modifies damage taken, rather than damage dealt? Energy vulnerability is the only one I know of off the top of my head, so that's all I have to compare it to.

Litany of Righteousness is a little confusing.

At first glance, it seems to work like a crit, adding a multiplier to any existing multipliers. So if a Paladin were to hit something for 10 damage, LoR would double it to 20. If that Paladin were to instead crit with a longsword, dealing 20 damage, LoR would add a multiplier to his crit (x2 + x1) for 30 damage dealt, since multipliers stack additively.

Except for when something is vulnerable to a particular energy. Energy vulnerability damage is stacked multiplicatively, so that your damage is totaled, then multiplied by 1.5, making it clear that in some cases, damage dealt and damage taken can be different.

I notice LoR uses different language than something like Spirited Charge, saying that the target takes more damage from the attacks of certain creatures, rather than dealing more damage on a charge attack.

Does this mean that LoR works like vulnerability instead of a crit, causing the creature under LoR to take (10 x2 x2) 40 damage instead of (10 x(2+1)) 30 from the Paladin's longsword crit?

Thanks in advance.

I've seen a bunch of "MoMS dip Brawler" builds. For an archetype, do the features that have been swapped in follow the same rules/restrictions for the features that have been swapped out?

Style Fusing replaces Flurry of Blows. You lose Flurry of Blows when wearing armor. Wouldn't you then lose Style Fusing when wearing armor as well? Still a useful dip for bonus feats and saves and other monk stuff, but could you still combine styles if you were wearing Brawling armor?

Thanks.

Quark Blast wrote:

Panicked PC thinking
1) I need to get away NOW
2) The only way out I know of is through the maze we came in through
3) That maze was confusing when I could take my time to navigate
4) I need to quell this panic if I'm going to make it out of here
5) Casts Remove Fear on self, or drinks potion to do same...
I think people on this thread are confounding Fear with Confusion.

Yeah, good luck with that.

I think you are confusing "fear" with "able to think clearly and logically while running in a blind panic".

The above pretty much nails it. I would think panicked PC thinking, by definition being the absence of rational and logical thinking, and the subsequent overtaking of hysterical and irrational behavior, would go more like this:

1) I need to get away NOW.
2) I need to get away NOW.
3) I need to get away NOW.
4) I need to get away NOW.
5) I need to get away NOW.

May as well say you can Breath of Life yourself while unconscious. Fear, like being unconscious, is a condition that restricts your available actions. It's just harder to rationalize yourself out of unconsciousness.

I suppose that makes sense. The only quibble I could see is magic items that a dragon couldn't "wear" continuing to work, but not the weapon. Allow me to play devil's advocate for a second:

Say I had Feather Step Slippers. A dragon can't wear a foot slot wondrous item (I think? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you get the idea even so), yet the slippers continues to give me Feather Step while polymorphed (useless as it may be since I can just fly now). Since I was wearing it, the constant effect continues to function. But the weapon does not, even though I was wielding it before?

It may be as simple an explanation as weapon =/= wondrous item for polymorphing, but I just want to explore this thoroughly.

Thanks.

So:

Worn = absorbed with bonus
Wielded = absorbed with no bonus?

I realize when polymorphed, worn items are "absorbed" into the new form. What happens to your weapons?

Let's say I'm a 16th level Bloodrager with the Draconic bloodline, wielding a +2 Furious Courageous Greatsword. I enter a bloodrage, and choose to use my Dragon Form supernatural ability to polymorph as Form of the Dragon II.

I expect that my weapon gets absorbed into the polymorph, so I cannot attack with it (I am "stuck" with full attacking as a dragon, woe is me). But do I retain the Furious and Courageous effects as I would, say, the effect from a Ring of Protection or Cloak of Resistance? Do I even retain those bonuses, or am I just misinterpreting the "absorbed" part entirely?

Thanks in advance.