MagnificentMelkior's page

MagnificentMelkior wrote:

shroudb wrote:

Razing applies "whenever" you deal damage to an object.

But as far as the OP question stands, things are indeed more murky. Imo, in my tables, I would say that the Corrosive rune is the one dealing the damage and not the weapon (since you would in fact deal 0 "weapon" damage to the item but only the acid damage of the rune).

IF the corrosive rune was instead somewhat different like "deal your weapon's damage to the object" then I could see the razing rune being applied, but not how it currently works.

But have you considered the rules that define weapon property runes? It says "Property runes add special abilities to armor or a weapon in addition to the item’s fundamental runes"

Therefore, the corrosive rune critical effect is a special ability of the weapon its attached to. Therefore, any damage dealt by that ability (which is the weapon's ability now) is dealt by the weapon.

Yes, I have. I gave you my opinion on how the Corrosive rune is worded. You don't do any "weapon damage" in my opinion. So Razing wouldn't work. Adding a special ability to a thing, whatever that thing is, doesn't mean tht the damage isn't still coming from said ability.

A lightning zap 10ft away by lightning rune wouldn't cause more item damage because the weapon said lighning came out from was a sledghammer either. Both are abilities triggered by the runes.

That's as far sa RaW goes from my reading. And that's what I would tell my player.

BUT on real actual play, I would also throw the player some bonuses when he's hitting stuff that I think that razing would help, to even out the fact that razing is indeed a weak Trait and it makes players feel good to do some cool stuff at times with their weapons. But that's not a Rules argument.

Razing doesn't require "weapon damage." though, so why are you putting that in quotes? Its irrelevant. Razing requires you to deal damage with the weapon, which is not the same thing.

The special ability (of the weapon, regardless of how it got it) did the damage. So the weapon did the damage. The lightning zap from a shocking rune by RAW then WOULD do more damage to an animated statue. Although I grant that the imagery is a little silly.

Razing applies "whenever" you deal damage to an object.

But as far as the OP question stands, things are indeed more murky. Imo, in my tables, I would say that the Corrosive rune is the one dealing the damage and not the weapon (since you would in fact deal 0 "weapon" damage to the item but only the acid damage of the rune).

IF the corrosive rune was instead somewhat different like "deal your weapon's damage to the object" then I could see the razing rune being applied, but not how it currently works.

But have you considered the rules that define weapon property runes? It says "Property runes add special abilities to armor or a weapon in addition to the item’s fundamental runes"

Therefore, the corrosive rune critical effect is a special ability of the weapon its attached to. Therefore, any damage dealt by that ability (which is the weapon's ability now) is dealt by the weapon.

Razing only applies if you are intentionally hitting the equipment or object.

This isn't in the rules anywhere, you made this up. And its the very core of the question at hand.

It's quite obviously definition A. Another rule that would be impacted (to ridiculous degree) by definition B being true is dying. If you're dying 1 and you get hit by a flaming shocking sword that would be 3 instances and bring you to dying 4 (or dying 7 if it was a crit). Who is seriously arguing for definition B? It seems ridiculous.

Hi,

Im curious about a potential combo I found but for it to work, I need a ruling on the title question.

When I critically hit with a corrosive rune, the targets armor (or raised shield) takes damage. My by reading, this is me "doing damage to an object with my weapon" so it should trigger the Razing property. That 4(+) extra damage will make a big difference in breaking and destroying items so im excited for it, but I want to see if its legal, RAW.

I think it should be because property runes merely "add special abilities to armor or a weapon", so it is still the weapon inflicting the damage (even if its not "weapon damage", which is irrelevant to this case.) Also just the plain English meaning of "doing damage (to an object) with the weapon." But what do you think, denizens of paizo forums?

Edit: Separate question but in the case of a blocking shield crit by a corrosive weapon, does hardness apply once (combined damage) or twice (Separate instances of damage)

Razing: https://2e.aonprd.com/Traits.aspx?ID=784
Corrosive: https://2e.aonprd.com/Equipment.aspx?ID=2834
Weapon property runes: https://2e.aonprd.com/Equipment.aspx?Category=23&Subcategory=27

Hey gamers,
How is one supposed to close their eyes? People sometimes joke that pathfinder players "can't wipe their butt since there's no action listed for it in the rulebook". Unfortunately that has a basis in reality.

Suppose I want to have my character (who just so happens to be a blind fight having fighter) to be able to close his eyes to ignore his enemy's mirror image. How can I accomplish this? Or is it impossible within the simulation. Don't even mention avert gaze to me, which has no downside except it's action cost - this isn't the same thing.

My suggestion would be to allow you to close your eyes or open them as a free action at the start of your turn, to prevent cheese while also respecting the simplicity of an action like blinking, which imo shouldn't take up any of your time.

Interesting arguement. The "effect" (grapple) is clearly the thing that imposed the immobilized condition. The grabbed condition itself is not an effect, and so I say this arguement works. Though I do agree its clearly not the way the flavor text was written, but they didn't specify that its only magical effects you are resistant to.

Necroing this because with tbe new animation class having an aura of confusion focus spell it's suddenly much more relevant to me. Is the intent that i can drink this if I'm fighting an animist who lands confusion on me?

Unicore wrote:

Why would the dedication for a rare class not also be rare?

Well, technically in the original book as printed, the class is Rare but the archetype isn't, so ask the devs...(yes, they errata'd this, but I had to make the joke).

More seriously - I believe shroudb is making the point that it's extremely silly to ban the archetype for Rarity reasons when the actual argument is that it should be banned for mechanical ones. Because nobody has a problem with actual Exemplar (the class) despite it being Rare.

I actually do like the idea of banning the archetype for narrative reasons and not the base class. Because a new character created to be an exemplar is going to be written in a way that justifies the class fantasy, but an existing character not written with this in mind will not. And casual demigod-hood should not be a thing. Separately, it's also strong enough to be banned for gamist reasons, but if it were nerfed to be less OP then I would allow players to kill and diablerize exemplars in the world to steal their divine spark, to get access to the archetype.

Total Immanance Removal! It's the only way.

I've noticed a disturbing trend in recent paizo publications that is power creeping other melee options to exceed my beloved Double Slice. Gleaming Blade is officially beyond the pale. Now, without investing in a second weapon, a fighter or barbarian or anything really can pick up exemplar dedication, and absolutely destroy doubleslice in a dpr race (d12 weapon vs d8, +2 spirit dmg per hit). For the same cost (1 class feat/dedication feat for games with free archetype).

Remove the imminence ability from the Archetype entirely and it would still be a valid pickup. Paizo pls nerf!