| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
I'm uncertain whether I should post this in the errata thread, or here, so I thought I should inquire here first.
As per page 472:
Vicious: When a vicious weapon strikes an opponent, it creates a flash of disruptive energy that resonates between the opponent and the wielder. This energy deals an extra 2d6 points of damage to the opponent and 1d6 points of damage to the wielder. Only melee weapons can be vicious.
This is "untyped" energy damage. (Well unless "disruptive" is meant to be a type). Given that it has a necromancy magical aura, I wonder if the energy damage was intended to be negative energy damage?
I can't recall any other types of spells / magic that use "un-typed" energy, but I don't play a lot of spellcasters either.
My interpretation is that the damage is the same type as the weapon.
Heh. In 3.5 it was "negative" energy, not "disruptive" energy. I wonder if that was changed so undead didn't get a free heal out of it?
I can't recall any other types of spells / magic that use "un-typed" energy, but I don't play a lot of spellcasters either.
There are plenty. In core, just off the top of my head, telekinesis causes untyped damage. Technically flame strike does as well, because "divine" isn't actually a damage type.
Non-core, Warlocks are built around untyped damage.
That was the best part of the weapon. It was great when I'd have Wights and other intelligent undead use those weapon and heal 1d6 per successful attack.
It turned the lowliest of undead henchmen into a mountain of pain.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
Heh. In 3.5 it was "negative" energy, not "disruptive" energy. I wonder if that was changed so undead didn't get a free heal out of it?
Almost certainly. If the damage from a vicious weapon had a type, then something could gain resistance to it, thus negating the drawback of the vicious weapon.
Although the fact that it is typeless also means that it doesn't deal lethal damage to monsters with regeneration, so.... My evil DM side sees Large vicious greataxe-wielding trolls. 5d6 plus 1 1/2 Strength bonuses.
|
That was the best part of the weapon. It was great when I'd have Wights and other intelligent undead use those weapon and heal 1d6 per successful attack.
It turned the lowliest of undead henchmen into a mountain of pain.
that's assuming disruptive means negative. I interpret disruptive to mean that it harms anything wielding it and using that ability.
that's assuming disruptive means negative. I interpret disruptive to mean that it harms anything wielding it and using that ability.That was the best part of the weapon. It was great when I'd have Wights and other intelligent undead use those weapon and heal 1d6 per successful attack.
It turned the lowliest of undead henchmen into a mountain of pain.
He is talking about the 3.5 version which listed it as negative energy.
Heh. In 3.5 it was "negative" energy, not "disruptive" energy. I wonder if that was changed so undead didn't get a free heal out of it?
I can't recall any other types of spells / magic that use "un-typed" energy, but I don't play a lot of spellcasters either.There are plenty. In core, just off the top of my head, telekinesis causes untyped damage. Technically flame strike does as well, because "divine" isn't actually a damage type.
Non-core, Warlocks are built around untyped damage.
according to d20srd.com
"ViciousWhen a vicious weapon strikes an opponent, it creates a flash of disruptive energy that resonates between the opponent and the wielder. This energy deals an extra 2d6 points of damage to the opponent and 1d6 points of damage to the wielder. Only melee weapons can be vicious.
Moderate necromancy; CL 9th; Craft Magic Arms and Armor, enervation; Price +1 bonus."
No negative energy there unless it was eratta'd at some time.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Incorrect. Untyped damage has the least number of exploits.
Your use of exploit is polar opposite of mine.
My exploit I meant that untyped damage would cut through DR and other things while Slashing would need to combine with weapon damage to help cut through DR and if not sufficient would be blocked.
|
My exploit I meant that untyped damage would cut through DR and other things while Slashing would need to combine with weapon damage to help cut through DR and if not sufficient would be blocked.
That's why 'same type as weapon' is exploitable. If the creature wielding the vicious weapon has DR, it ignores the 1d6 damage it would take from the 'backlash', unless the weapon it was wielding would break its own DR. Untyped damage means that the wielder can't prevent it, and thus is less exploitable.
|
|
That's why 'same type as weapon' is exploitable. If the creature wielding the vicious weapon has DR, it ignores the 1d6 damage it would take from the 'backlash', unless the weapon it was wielding would break its own DR. Untyped damage means that the wielder can't prevent it, and thus is less exploitable.
Except what James is talking about is that it makes it work the other way as well. The 2d6 extra damage against the enemy ALSO cuts right through DR, where as typed damage wouldn't.
That's why 'same type as weapon' is exploitable. If the creature wielding the vicious weapon has DR, it ignores the 1d6 damage it would take from the 'backlash', unless the weapon it was wielding would break its own DR. Untyped damage means that the wielder can't prevent it, and thus is less exploitable.Except what James is talking about is that it makes it work the other way as well. The 2d6 extra damage against the enemy ALSO cuts right through DR, where as typed damage wouldn't.
If a creature had DR 10/- would it not stop the first 10 pounds of untyped damage? it's coming from a weapon and it's not elemental damage, or is untyped considered to be elemental?
Either way if it goes through it's a fair trade to use your own hp up to cut through DR. you have a chance of taking more damage than you deal.
Creative Director
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm relatively certain that the extra energy is just raw magic energy. It was certainly changed away from negative energy to keep it from healing undead, and by not typing the energy, it can pretty much do damage to anything. Which helps to make the sting of how much it hurts to use the weapon a bit more bearable.
If I had to nail down an exact type of damage, though (and we might...), I'd say that it was either extra damage of the same type as the attack (like sneak attack damage, sort of), or I'd say it was force damage (like a magic missile) if it HAS to be some sort of magic damage.
|
|
If a creature had DR 10/- would it not stop the first 10 pounds of untyped damage? it's coming from a weapon and it's not elemental damage, or is untyped considered to be elemental?
Either way if it goes through it's a fair trade to use your own hp up to cut through DR. you have a chance of taking more damage than you deal.
Like JJ just said, it's magic. You don't let DR affect Magic Missile, or Channel Negative Energy, why would you let it affect the Disruptive quality? So yes, it's a double-edged sword either way you rule it. Just in different ways.
Like JJ just said, it's magic. You don't let DR affect Magic Missile, or Channel Negative Energy, why would you let it affect the Disruptive quality? So yes, it's a double-edged sword either way you rule it. Just in different ways.If a creature had DR 10/- would it not stop the first 10 pounds of untyped damage? it's coming from a weapon and it's not elemental damage, or is untyped considered to be elemental?
Either way if it goes through it's a fair trade to use your own hp up to cut through DR. you have a chance of taking more damage than you deal.
The description says disruptive energy, which you are inferring to be magic :) I'm fine with letting it go through DR, but I also don't like ambiguety. It would be easy to say in the description "This extra damage is untyped and bypasses any and all DR by the wielder and the target.
|
The description says disruptive energy, which you are inferring to be magic :) I'm fine with letting it go through DR, but I also don't like ambiguety. It would be easy to say in the description "This extra damage is untyped and bypasses any and all DR by the wielder and the target.Like JJ just said, it's magic. You don't let DR affect Magic Missile, or Channel Negative Energy, why would you let it affect the Disruptive quality? So yes, it's a double-edged sword either way you rule it. Just in different ways.If a creature had DR 10/- would it not stop the first 10 pounds of untyped damage? it's coming from a weapon and it's not elemental damage, or is untyped considered to be elemental?
Either way if it goes through it's a fair trade to use your own hp up to cut through DR. you have a chance of taking more damage than you deal.
Yeah, I read it that way, too; if it was meant to be actual magical energy, or to automatically bypass DR, the description would likely say so. I'm planning to give a mummy lord such a weapon, and I thought the PF version is the ideal "compromise"; he can use it without harm, but it doesn't heal him either.
Let's try some boldface therapy:
"This energy deals an extra 2d6 points of damage to the opponent and 1d6 points of damage to the wielder. Only melee weapons can be vicious."
The damage to the opponent is extra damage. Extra damage on an attack which does not specify a type is always the same type of damage as the attack itself.
The damage to the wielder is just damage, not extra damage. It's untyped and there's no general rule to add a type. No reduction or resistance applies.
Extra damage on an attack which does not specify a type is always the same type of damage as the attack itself.
Can you please cite me the source of this rule?
Extra damage on an attack which does not specify a type is always the same type of damage as the attack itself.Can you please cite me the source of this rule?
Yes: the use of the English word "extra" with no qualifiers. It was spelled out explicitly in Complete Arcane for sneak attacking with spells, but I don't think anyone at WotC or Paizo ever bothered to write it down outside of that because they're not selling a dictionary.
By counterexample: the alternative is to assert that a 1st-level rogue sneak attacking a skeleton with a blowgun dart deals 1d6 damage no matter what, because while the dart's 1d2 is always fully negated by the skeleton's DR, the sneak attack ability description doesn't specify a type for its extra damage, so that goes through.
|
Creative Director
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Extra damage on an attack which does not specify a type is always the same type of damage as the attack itself.Can you please cite me the source of this rule?
I can't off the top of my head, but I can say that common sense indicates that extra damage is something that adds to existing damage. I think this pretty much means that the extra damage is the same type of damage as the weapon itself, just as the extra damage for a bane weapon works.
Yes: the use of the English word "extra" with no qualifiers. It was spelled out explicitly in Complete Arcane for sneak attacking with spells, but I don't think anyone at WotC or Paizo ever bothered to write it down outside of that because they're not selling a dictionary.Extra damage on an attack which does not specify a type is always the same type of damage as the attack itself.Can you please cite me the source of this rule?
Well, there's two problems with your use of that in this situation:
First, in this case the word "extra" does not always have the connotations you give it, even with this sort of use. For example, I could say "this spell deals 1d6 points of fire damage and an extra 1d6 points of damage" and it would be perfectly grammatically and mechanically correct, but only if one doesn't use your interpretation of the phrase "extra damage". "Extra" just means "additional, more", not necessarily "more of the same" (although that is a frequent use of the word).Second, the conjunction "and" carries the adjective "extra" to the second phrase, meaning both the 2d6 to the target and the 1d6 to the user are "extra" damage ... except that the user isn't taking any damage to start with, so the "extra" damage has to be untyped, but the source is the same (the disruptive energy), so it has to be the same as the type taken by the target ...
By counterexample: the alternative is to assert that a 1st-level rogue sneak attacking a skeleton with a blowgun dart deals 1d6 damage no matter what, because while the dart's 1d2 is always fully negated by the skeleton's DR, the sneak attack ability description doesn't specify a type for its extra damage, so that goes through.
False dilemma. There are other alternatives, the most obvious of which is simply to rule that the word "extra" has no mechanical significance.
I can't off the top of my head, but I can say that common sense indicates that extra damage is something that adds to existing damage. I think this pretty much means that the extra damage is the same type of damage as the weapon itself, just as the extra damage for a bane weapon works.Extra damage on an attack which does not specify a type is always the same type of damage as the attack itself.Can you please cite me the source of this rule?
Flaming weapons add extra damage too; does a flaming longsword then do +1d6 fire-slashing damage?
Again, extra does not necessarily mean "more of the same". It just means "more". There's no grammatical or mechanical commandment that requires the damage to be typed at all, let alone of the same type the weapon deals. Furthermore, it makes no sense that the exact same energy deals weapon-based damage to the target but untyped damage to the wielder, as the straight reading of the description plus the badger's interpretation states. It's not like they're on separate lines or have separate descriptions: the same disruptive energy deals both sets of damage.
And, again, I have to point out that it's explicitly called out as disruptive energy, not some physical trait of the weapon itself; there's a mystical backlash involved with using a vicious weapon. There's no reason for it to have a type. The benefit of being untyped damage is paid for by taking the damage yourself (and being essentially just as unable to stop it as your target is).
First, in this case the word "extra" does not always have the connotations you give it, even with this sort of use. For example, I could say "this spell deals 1d6 points of fire damage and an extra 1d6 points of damage" and it would be perfectly grammatically and mechanically correct, but only if one doesn't use your interpretation of the phrase "extra damage".
It's perfectly mechanically correct with my usage, if a bit wordy. The extra damage, not being specified, is of the primary type (fire).
Second, the conjunction "and" carries the adjective "extra" to the second phrase, meaning both the 2d6 to the target and the 1d6 to the user are "extra" damage
I disagree. It carries the verb "deals," because the adjective is interrupted by the article "1d6."
Compare:
False dilemma. There are other alternatives, the most obvious of which is simply to rule that the word "extra" has no mechanical significance.
Every word in a mechanical definition has mechanical significance. ;) Furthermore, it's defined as a game term: "extra damage" is not multiplied by critical hits. That particular facet is not relevant here, but the fact that it has a defined meaning and yet no definition with regards to this particular application means that someone somewhere thought something was too obvious to write down. Naturally, people who think this are almost always wrong: the author's pre-existing knowledge makes things seem more obvious than they are. However, from the reader's position, the only recourse is to disassemble the provided examples.
To me, "extra" directly implies "of the same thing unless otherwise specified" in regular English usage. Clearly others disagree, but I should also point out that my reading is as valid as others', and unlike others', closes and seals the can of worms which is this entire topic. That's why I brought up sneak attack. Do you want your players arguing what I said there? Do you want it coming up at PFS tables? I say, defer to William of Ockham on this one.
It's a magical enhancement. Why do you think it would work in an anti-magic shell?
What this guy said.
My interpretation on Vicious as an untyped magic would be that the energy is a mix of positive and negative energy. When those two meet they have a violent reaction, which makes sense for the disruptive descriptor and the necromantic enchantment of the weapon.
If I had to give it a magic type, I'd call it a force spell, but one that does not specifically have full effect on incorporeal creatures (ghost touch).
Holy necromantic energy of vicious ability resurrecting threads, batfolk!
I'm relatively certain that the extra energy is just raw magic energy. It was certainly changed away from negative energy to keep it from healing undead, and by not typing the energy, it can pretty much do damage to anything. Which helps to make the sting of how much it hurts to use the weapon a bit more bearable.
This James Jacobs' quote from back in `09 pretty much says it all for my opinion. 2d6 untyped energy damage to the target and 1d6 untyped energy damage to the wielder. No DR or energy resistance protects either the target or wielder, and by resisting the urge to just call it force damage the vicious ability doesn't gain any special benefit of force (vs incorporeal creatures, etc).
Well, is a Vicious Sap, or Vicious Merciful weapon's extra damage nonlethal?
I'd treat it in the same way as sneak attack damage, or extra damage from having a high Strength, or extra damage from Vital Strike, or extra damage from Weapon Specialization, etc.
The rest is left up as an exercise to the reader.
|
|
I'd say that it would count as force damage but without most of the effects of magical damage. I'd also say that it would still have to overcome dr and would be effective against swarms as it is a flash of disruptive energy. Yet I have a level 6 invulnerable rager who would love this ruling because he wants his sword to be a +1 merciful vicious adamantine greatsword (with a strength of 26 while raging and power attack) so I already have a min damage of 21 (overcomes any dr I've seen in any of the bestiaries) and he has dr 6/lethal, so I'd take no damage but still cause 5d6+19 of nonlethal damage which is kind of cheesy.