So you believe that if a special ability is listed under ranged attack it can be taken as an attack action even if the description of the special ability says otherwise? Alchemical Golem or Brijidine Azata for examples.
If the description contradicts then no, you can't. However, in case of Jabberwock description does not say that jabberwock cannot fire single ray instead of one.
Lava Blast (Su) A brijidine can hurl a glob of lava at a target as a standard action. This attack has a range increment of 30 feet.
It is unclear if that standard action is an attack action or if it is separate kind of standrd action. However the line "this attack" suggest that it is attack action. I am not sure with Alchemical Golem but if it is not attack action then it should not be presented in ranged attack line.
How would you rule on the number of ranged attacks made by a hasted Jabberwock, hasted Brijidine Azata, and hasted Yrthak?
Haste grants additional manufactured weapon attack or unarmed attacks. Hasted Bridjine taking a full attack could make one additional attack with her flaming longsword but not with her Lava Blast. Jabberwock and Yrthak do not make manufactured weapon attacks at all so they only gain haste bonus to attack rolls, AC, Reflex and speed.
|
There are always gaps in the rules when the GM has to step in and adjudicate.
I probably would have run with the tactics as written before being presented with the argument why vital strike would not work with the eye rays. And look, the arguments are good. The entry for the Jabberwork says to activate the two beams is a standard action. However, it says nothing about one beam. Then again, all the reading I've done around the FAQ of Vital Strike leads me to think that it was designed for mundane type of attacks. In the end, GMs call.
Just looking at it now, I'm asking myself what is the range of the eye rays? How would you determine this? Any ideas?
Moving on to the other hot topic, the DR/Vorpal is an interesting one. I think the entry for Smite Evil is pretty clear. If DR/Vorpal was definite is probably should have said "even Smite Evil". The arguments of which came first and who new what don't really lead us anywhere. I say it's interesting because whole term "Vorpal" comes from a Lewis Carroll poen within Through the Looking Glass called "Jabberwocky"
One, two! One, two! And through and through
The vorpal blade went snicker-snack!
He left it dead, and with its head
He went galumphing back.
Carroll made the term up. It appears in this poem first.
The very reason the Vorpal Sword exists is to slay the Jabberwock. As the Briar awakens to it's full potential, it gains this quality. One would say it's fated to be in the hands of the heroes when they face this great evil. I would be quite cool with the GM ruling that only a Vorpal weapon could defeat the Jabberwock's DR if the PCs had the weapon in their hands at the time of this battle. Even if the sole reason was just to honour the term's history.
Dude? Chill. No one has denied that the wording of Smite Evil is pretty all inclusive. We have merely observed that:
A) DR/Vorpal did not exist in the Pathfinder rules when Smite Evil was written.
B) Compared to the standard types of DR, this is a highly specialized type.
C) The Jabberwock's entry specifically states that it's DR is only overcome by Vorpal weapons. Which could be read as a detailed explanation of what DR/Vorpal means, or it could be read as shutting down alternate means of DR penetration.I agree that it is a house rule. One I would implement without a second thought after seeing a paladin turn an encounter with a demilich into an utter anticlimax, but a houserule nonetheless. But there is at least some mild ambiguity in the rules, and acting pissy about people making that observation is, simply, unpleasant.
If the posts I took offense to were written like yours, I would not even have responded.
A few people were not making an observation. They were claiming their house rule as an actual rule. And they were ganging up on Leo telling him he broke the rules. I find that unpleasant, especially when they are not correct (the DR rule) or up to date on the current stance of the game designers (the Vital Strike discussion).
If you are going to hammer on someone, then know what you're talking about. This doesn't apply to you hopefully, but it applies to a few on this thread.
#1: I was far from the first in this thread to point out the text in the Jabberwock description stating that it's DR is only overcome by Vorpal weaponry. Some of the very people you were calling out with such vigor had also noted it, and it was only after that was posted that people began to talk as though it might be official that Smite wouldn't work. Admittedly, they didn't help matters by not immediately reposting that line which they were using as their premise when you asked. However, as it had come up several times in the thread so far, they may have misunderstood you as rejecting it, just as you misunderstood them as wholly rejecting the Smite rules.
#2: Where it was suggested that Leo broke the rules was in taking multiple swift actions in a round, and arguably for the gamey number of free actions he took, though that is as much or more on his GM as on him. Which brings us to
#3: This is not a thread purely about the rules; at least part of it is understanding why an awesome encounter with the flippin' Jabberwock turned into a Sunday stroll. So I see most posts here as having the unstated disclaimer "If I were GM, these are the rules calls I would make to ensure this was properly epic."
|
I have players that occasionally say fairly harsh stuff to one another, so I take that sort of talk with a grain of salt. So while I write off stuff like "waste of space" or whatever Leo said about the cleric/vindicator in the first post, you have to expect some negative response to posting something like that on these boards where so many read them with their own experiences. It became clear very shortly thereafter that what he was really saying was that, even though they were a 4 man party, it was really a three man party with an observer. However, I think the tone of a lot of the negative comments that were received had to do with this anecdotal remark, that really had nothing to do with the main discussion, other than adding color that wasn't flattering.
Personally, I thought, this being an AP forum and not a rules forum, that we were discussing the running of an encounter from an AP, which is not the same as discussing a RAW issue. I saw it more as trying to decipher the way an encounter was intended to be run by the writer/designer, not "what do the rules say before this new thing was introduced". Evidently several feel there is no room for discussion here, so I see little point in myself continuing that aspect of the thread, lest it spiral down into a flame war.
While I can't speak for the Paizo staff, based on what I have seen JJ and several others say in AP forums, I suspect that if they have intentionally not posted here, it was not because its obvious which way the rules go. If they had a comment to make, it could possibly be that you can run it either way and it doesnt matter. In other words, its up to the GM running the AP.
I thought the encounter failing to be exciting had less to do with Leo and more to do with his GM, because in the end, it all rests on the GMs shoulders. However, underestimating how strong your players are is far better than causing TPKs, and every GM that I have ever met typically does their best to make the game run well, regardless of the final outcome.
#2: Where it was suggested that Leo broke the rules was in taking multiple swift actions in a round, and arguably for the gamey number of free actions he took, though that is as much or more on his GM as on him.
I think (without being sure) that Maddigan was refering to either some posts that were saying that by letting the paladin's smite ignore the jabberwock's DR i was getting away with murder or to some posts saying that i was making house rules about paladins and DR.
I think (without being sure) that Maddigan was refering to either some posts that were saying that by letting the paladin's smite ignore the jabberwock's DR i was getting away with murder or to some posts saying that i was making house rules about paladins and DR.
#2: Where it was suggested that Leo broke the rules was in taking multiple swift actions in a round, and arguably for the gamey number of free actions he took, though that is as much or more on his GM as on him.
"Getting away with murder" was used in reference to the amount of free actions you took, and things like interpreting Quick Draw to let you grab your Rod, not in regards to the interpretation of Smite.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This began with Leo, a player, lamenting his group's lame encounter with the Jabberwock, as he put it. His GM is nowhere to be found because he either doesn't post on Paizo's boards or doesn't know his players criticize his ability to run a game, or both. Thus far we've only heard one side (Leo's) of the story.
In said encounter, Leo's group took out the Jabberwock in the first round of combat at 16th level before the creature even took it's turn through a series of improperly played actions on both sides of the table. Regardless of what call a GM makes about their interpretation of DR and Smite, you cannot Smite at all in a round in which you've already taken a Swift Action. There were so many things wrong with that combat from tw get-go that it's not even worth picking apart any longer.
The fact is that a player who may have never GM'ed at all is harping about rules to a community of GMs for the sake of arguing. I already said what I wanted to say about antagonistic players so I won't repeat myself.
Maddigan, you can say what you want but the RAW is there to provide the groundwork for a GM to use during a game. I don't really care if the RAW says this or that as long as my players have fun and the game goes mostly according to the rules so as to not break the game. I GM on the fly, always have for years, and I adapt the game and make calls as they happen to keep the flow of the game going. I have the groundwork of the rules in my head and go from there. If I miss something, I have players who will remind me of it and I'll adjust accordingly, and vice versa. If after the game I go back and look at the rules and see something was wrong, I make a note of it to be correct for next time.
I don't need to argue with anyone on rules. It's needless and annoying. I don't tolerate it at my table and I'm done with it here. It creates drama and it leads to flaming, which is ridiculous. Rules are there for GMs to run with as they will. You do it your way and I'll do it mine. I don't buy Paizo material so I can follow what they say to the letter of the RAW, I buy it because it compliments my style best and I enjoy their story flavor and ideas.
I've listed rules and cited pages and I could continue to do so all day, but in the end it's not worth it. Some people are too unyielding to see the other person's point despite being in disagreement with their argument.
If it'll make you happy, I'll equip my Jabberwock with a Eyebeam Ray Gun so he can use Vital Strike with it. Then it'll work, right??????
Sorry, there is no way that you can claim that smite evil overcomes the Jabberwocky's DR - RAW does not state this.
Explanation:
You can only overcome DR by the type of damage mentioned after the dash. Smite Evil ignores DR, too. So every monster in the bestiary with DR can only be harmed normally by a weapon dealing the required damage type or by a paladin smiting evil. This very sentence can be stated in the stat block by:
DR XX/[type]
If the Jabberwocky's DR could be bypassed by Smite evil, then the extra entry in its stat block explaining and detailing its DR would be redundant and useless since it would be already detailed by the simple line:
DR XX/vorpal
just as it is with every other monster. The extra entry would contain no extra information regarding the DR of the Jabberwocky since it would follow exactly the same rules as every other monster, and every player would know that DR XX/vorpal can be pierced by a vorpal sword or by a paladin with Smite.
The pure existence of this explanation shows that this DR is pierced by a vorpal sword only, not even by Smite Evil. This is RAW.
The pure existence of this explanation shows that this DR is pierced by a vorpal sword only, not even by Smite Evil. This is RAW.
Imagine someone who has not played D&D very extensively picking up this monster and looking at that stat block in a group of people who have not played D&D very extensively.
"What's vorpal?" the DM asks, knowing Briar is vorpal but not knowing what that means or where it is.
"I don't know," respond the players, who have never had time to look through the magic items section.
They spend time with the book.
"It's not in the index."
"Huh. I wonder what that means, then," says the DM. He knows Briar is vorpal, but what does DR/vorpal mean?
Sorry, not convincing. The DM would also have to be ignorant about the meaning of "DR", since only then he would not know that "vorpal" has to be some type of damage which can be looked up under magic weapon special ability description in the core rule book (p 468ff, "vorpal" being described on p 472).
The book is not a beginner's module with low level monster for inexperienced GMs/PCs, but the last volume of a series bringing the PCs to almost epic levels.
Edit: Thinking about it, in the end it doesn't matter whether the DM/PCs are inexpierenced or not. All stat blocks follow a standard format without considering the professionalism of their readers. The existence of an explanation of DR/Vorpal at the end of the stat block is evidence enough that it conveys some special information about this occurrence of DR that differentiates it from the way DR is working normally.
@DoomCrow
To my best of my knowledge this guy (the one who DMed Kingmaker doesn't post here on Paizo's forum).
I have told him (in person) that the way he run the entire AP wasn't good enough.
Remember that when i created this thread i asked how other people run the jabberwock encounter to see if the jabberwock is indeed such an easy an encounter or not. And only a handful of people answered on that, the rest started arguing rules.
The majority of the people here didn't say that rules should be altered in order to make this encounter better or more fun they said that the rules aren't what they are and started arguing about it.
PS. Oh and by the way saying that anyone who hasn't DMed (in fact i have but only a few times) doesn't have the right to argue rules is... well i don't use the word because i fear the ban hammer... and stinks of elitism.
Sorry, not convincing. The DM would also have to be ignorant about the meaning of "DR", since only then he would not know that "vorpal" has to be some type of damage which can be looked up under magic weapon special ability description in the core rule book (p 468ff, "vorpal" being described on p 472).
The book is not a beginner's module with low level monster for inexperienced GMs/PCs, but the last volume of a series bringing the PCs to almost epic levels.
Edit: Thinking about it, in the end it doesn't matter whether the DM/PCs are inexpierenced or not. All stat blocks follow a standard format without considering the professionalism of their readers. The existence of an explanation of DR/Vorpal at the end of the stat block is evidence enough that it conveys some special information about this occurrence of DR that differentiates it from the way DR is working normally.
It's not about professionalism of the readers, it's about providing rules for something they put in a book, tell me if this entry wasn't there to what part of the rules would you go to see how t overcome DR X/vorpal? without speculating that is, because for every other type of DR the rules tells us how to overcome it but not for DR X/vorpal.
If they make monster with DR 15/keen we wouldn't know what it means because we don't have rules for this kind of DR, yes probably it means by a keen weapon but it would very well mean by weapon who has a crit threat range of 18-20 or larger.Remember the rules are a machine (an algorithm if you want) and a machine should be working. How we decide to use the machine is another matter.
|
|
@DoomCrow
To my best of my knowledge this guy (the one who DMed Kingmaker doesn't post here on Paizo's forum).
I have told him (in person) that the way he run the entire AP wasn't good enough.
Remember that when i created this thread i asked how other people run the jabberwock encounter to see if the jabberwock is indeed such an easy an encounter or not. And only a handful of people answered on that, the rest started arguing rules.
The majority of the people here didn't say that rules should be altered in order to make this encounter better or more fun they said that the rules aren't what they are and started arguing about it.
With an APL of 16 and the Jabberwock encounter being CR 20, it should have been an extremely difficult, if not overwhelming fight. According to the RAW (CRB pg. 397, Table 12-1), APL +3 is considered to be an Epic difficulty CR, and this was APL +4.
Obviously this gets murky when parties reach high levels, especially depending on the gear they have. I'm guessing your party was outfitted out the wazoo, judging by the magic items you listed for your character in this thread (perhaps too well geared, which would also explain why you were all killing everything in your paths so easily).
@DoomCrow
To my best of my knowledge this guy (the one who DMed Kingmaker doesn't post here on Paizo's forum).
I have told him (in person) that the way he run the entire AP wasn't good enough.
Remember that when i created this thread i asked how other people run the jabberwock encounter to see if the jabberwock is indeed such an easy an encounter or not. And only a handful of people answered on that, the rest started arguing rules.
The majority of the people here didn't say that rules should be altered in order to make this encounter better or more fun they said that the rules aren't what they are and started arguing about it.With an APL of 16 and the Jabberwock encounter being CR 20, it should have been an extremely difficult, if not overwhelming fight. According to the RAW (CRB pg. 397, Table 12-1), APL +3 is considered to be an Epic difficulty CR, and this was APL +4.
Obviously this gets murky when parties reach high levels, especially depending on the gear they have. I'm guessing your party was outfitted out the wazoo, judging by the magic items you listed for your character in this thread (perhaps too well geared, which would also explain why you were all killing everything in your paths so easily).
At 10th level we banned the craft magic item feats for this game because it can really wreck it and re-made our characters with the expected wealth of a 10th level character, after that we were always -10% or +10% of expected WBL for each level. And only the cleric draw money from the kingdom once or twice, everyone else has heeded my warning that doing that will wreck the game.
Where do you see my character overequipped for a 16th level character?No there 4 main reasons for killing everything in our path so easily:
1) our god stats due to the 2d6+6 roll three sets, keep best, the unluckiest of us (me) had the equilevant of a ~40 point buy.
2) the majority of the module doesn't challenge the players with magic, that means that a meat machine can dominate every major fight.
3) The 15 minute work day the AP suggests to implement.
4) The DM making bad tactical decisions (i don't know why), like having enemies always attack my animal companion first other anyone of us, like coup de gracing the fallen animal companion while the battle was still on, like moving for not taking flanking position, by not making full attacks to squishy characters like the rogue but instead attacking either the shield using cleric or the mirror imaged and blurred magus etc.
|
|
@DoomCrow
To my best of my knowledge this guy (the one who DMed Kingmaker doesn't post here on Paizo's forum).
I have told him (in person) that the way he run the entire AP wasn't good enough.
Remember that when i created this thread i asked how other people run the jabberwock encounter to see if the jabberwock is indeed such an easy an encounter or not. And only a handful of people answered on that, the rest started arguing rules.
The majority of the people here didn't say that rules should be altered in order to make this encounter better or more fun they said that the rules aren't what they are and started arguing about it.With an APL of 16 and the Jabberwock encounter being CR 20, it should have been an extremely difficult, if not overwhelming fight. According to the RAW (CRB pg. 397, Table 12-1), APL +3 is considered to be an Epic difficulty CR, and this was APL +4.
Obviously this gets murky when parties reach high levels, especially depending on the gear they have. I'm guessing your party was outfitted out the wazoo, judging by the magic items you listed for your character in this thread (perhaps too well geared, which would also explain why you were all killing everything in your paths so easily).
At 10th level we banned the craft magic item feats for this game because it can really wreck it and re-made our characters with the expected wealth of a 10th level character, after that we were always -10% or +10% of expected WBL for each level. And only the cleric draw money from the kingdom once or twice, everyone else has heeded my warning that doing that will wreck the game.
Where do you see my character overequipped for a 16th level character?
No there 4 main reasons for killing everything in our path so easily:
1) our god stats due to the 2d6+6 roll three sets, keep best, the unluckiest of us (me) had the equilevant of a ~40 point buy.
2) the majority of the module doesn't challenge the players with magic, that means that a...
Like I said, perhaps too well geared. Since I have no idea what your character's full gear list is as far as magic items are concerned, I cannot say either way with certainty.
|
No there 4 main reasons for killing everything in our path so easily:
1) our god stats due to the 2d6+6 roll three sets, keep best, the unluckiest of us (me) had the equilevant of a ~40 point buy.
This is likely the main culprit as to why you kerbstomped the Jabberwock. By the sounds of it your DM wanted you to have epic stats while not modifying the AP in any way; did no one explain to him that this would significantly overpower you?
This is likely the main culprit as to why you kerbstomped the Jabberwock. By the sounds of it your DM wanted you to have epic stats while not modifying the AP in any way; did no one explain to him that this would significantly overpower you?
No there 4 main reasons for killing everything in our path so easily:
1) our god stats due to the 2d6+6 roll three sets, keep best, the unluckiest of us (me) had the equilevant of a ~40 point buy.
At some point it became apperant that we had WAY too good for the AP but that was a long time after we begaun playing it and i didn't know that the APs were made with 15 point buy in mind. Other than that no, during the end (before the jabberwock fight) it became clear to nearly everyone (except the cleric player) that high stats (or high point buy) can damage the game, now nearly all of us know better.
I don't know why the DM wanted us to have such good stats but i can say that at the time we didn't know for what point buy the system was made for. I knew that such high stats would make us powerful, i just couldn't imagine the extent of it.
|
Thank you Maddigan for carrying the torch through the night (at least where i am), you have pretty much said what i would have said.
Don't worry about me i won't be easily persuaded by people who don't give concrete RAW proof about things they are saying (like Diego Rossi did with the rods arguement) and i hadn't doubted the paladin's ability ti ignore DR even for a moment.
Thanks for posting Maddigan and clearing this up.
|
|
This is likely the main culprit as to why you kerbstomped the Jabberwock. By the sounds of it your DM wanted you to have epic stats while not modifying the AP in any way; did no one explain to him that this would significantly overpower you?
No there 4 main reasons for killing everything in our path so easily:
1) our god stats due to the 2d6+6 roll three sets, keep best, the unluckiest of us (me) had the equilevant of a ~40 point buy.
At some point it became apperant that we had WAY too good for the AP but that was a long time after we begaun playing it and i didn't know that the APs were made with 15 point buy in mind. Other than that no, during the end (before the jabberwock fight) it became clear to nearly everyone (except the cleric player) that high stats (or high point buy) can damage the game, now nearly all of us know better.
I don't know why the DM wanted us to have such good stats but i can say that at the time we didn't know for what point buy the system was made for. I knew that such high stats would make us powerful, i just couldn't imagine the extent of it.
It sounds like the stats were only part of the problem. I would venture from your comments Leo that your party was far more efficient and tactical in combat than your GM. Also, you all sound like you were pretty efficient in selecting magic items that enhanced and complemented your strengths.
Bottom line, excellent combat players need an excellent combat GM(or a few missing limbs) to NOT whip up on the competition. The addition of the stats and magic to boost your butt-whupping potential was too much for the hapless AP in the hands of your GM.
At some point it became apperant that we had WAY too good for the AP but that was a long time after we begaun playing it and i didn't know that the APs were made with 15 point buy in mind. Other than that no, during the end (before the jabberwock fight) it became clear to nearly everyone (except the cleric player) that high stats (or high point buy) can damage the game, now nearly all of us know better.
I don't know why the DM wanted us to have such good stats but i can say that at the time we didn't know for what point buy the system was made for. I knew that such high stats would make us powerful, i just couldn't imagine the extent of it.
With only four players he may have been trying to be sure you had enough points to cover the various positions of leadership if you wanted to even if they weren't a 'natural' fit for your class.
Also I tend to allow my players a bit higher of a point buy because I have a tendency to be more deadly as a GM than I initially mean to be.
Not that this looks to be the case here, but the GM might have thought it would be.
|
|
A lot of DM's (myself included) like to empower their players; so they can play more powerful characters that seem a little more legendary than normal, able to accomplish feats beyond even most adventurers. A friend of mine runs Gestalt rules even though he has enough players for the same reason.
Its a perfectly understandable sentiment, but it will have to be compensated for.
|
|
A lot of DM's (myself included) like to empower their players; so they can play more powerful characters that seem a little more legendary than normal, able to accomplish feats beyond even most adventurers. A friend of mine runs Gestalt rules even though he has enough players for the same reason.
Its a perfectly understandable sentiment, but it will have to be compensated for.
I too empower my peeps they love being heroic and doing heroic things. I do make sure bosses and named monsters can give them a heck of a challenge though. It's kinda funny when they are use to mowing through 'no names' then all of a sudden 2 party members drop in one round. I guess it's not so funny to them.
Sorry, there is no way that you can claim that smite evil overcomes the Jabberwocky's DR - RAW does not state this.
Explanation:
You can only overcome DR by the type of damage mentioned after the dash. Smite Evil ignores DR, too. So every monster in the bestiary with DR can only be harmed normally by a weapon dealing the required damage type or by a paladin smiting evil. This very sentence can be stated in the stat block by:
DR XX/[type]If the Jabberwocky's DR could be bypassed by Smite evil, then the extra entry in its stat block explaining and detailing its DR would be redundant and useless since it would be already detailed by the simple line:
DR XX/vorpal
just as it is with every other monster. The extra entry would contain no extra information regarding the DR of the Jabberwocky since it would follow exactly the same rules as every other monster, and every player would know that DR XX/vorpal can be pierced by a vorpal sword or by a paladin with Smite.The pure existence of this explanation shows that this DR is pierced by a vorpal sword only, not even by Smite Evil. This is RAW.
Go post in the rules section and hit FAQ. See if you're interpretation stands up.
I say by RAW Smite Evil bypasses a Jabberwock's DR. So does Exploit Weakness and Penetrating Strike.
Unless the entry under the Jabberwock says Smite Evil doesn't work. That is RAW.
Go find me proof otherwise from an official source not your speculation.
This began with Leo, a player, lamenting his group's lame encounter with the Jabberwock, as he put it. His GM is nowhere to be found because he either doesn't post on Paizo's boards or doesn't know his players criticize his ability to run a game, or both. Thus far we've only heard one side (Leo's) of the story.
In said encounter, Leo's group took out the Jabberwock in the first round of combat at 16th level before the creature even took it's turn through a series of improperly played actions on both sides of the table. Regardless of what call a GM makes about their interpretation of DR and Smite, you cannot Smite at all in a round in which you've already taken a Swift Action. There were so many things wrong with that combat from tw get-go that it's not even worth picking apart any longer.
The fact is that a player who may have never GM'ed at all is harping about rules to a community of GMs for the sake of arguing. I already said what I wanted to say about antagonistic players so I won't repeat myself.
Maddigan, you can say what you want but the RAW is there to provide the groundwork for a GM to use during a game. I don't really care if the RAW says this or that as long as my players have fun and the game goes mostly according to the rules so as to not break the game. I GM on the fly, always have for years, and I adapt the game and make calls as they happen to keep the flow of the game going. I have the groundwork of the rules in my head and go from there. If I miss something, I have players who will remind me of it and I'll adjust accordingly, and vice versa. If after the game I go back and look at the rules and see something was wrong, I make a note of it to be correct for next time.
I don't need to argue with anyone on rules. It's needless and annoying. I don't tolerate it at my table and I'm done with it here. It creates drama and it leads to flaming, which is ridiculous. Rules are there for GMs to run with as they will. You do it your way and I'll do it mine. I don't buy Paizo material so I can...
I love you missed the point.
Go make this argument to other people. I don't care what you do in your own games.
But don't try to sell something as RAW if it isn't. I was defending leo period with actual rulings rather than the speculation masequerading as "RAW" on this thread.
If you want to run the game any way you want, you go right ahead. No one is telling you to do otherwise. I do exactly the same thing. But don't tell me it's RAW when it is only your house rule.
Understand any better now since you decided to jump into a conversation without understanding why the conversation occurred.
#1: I was far from the first in this thread to point out the text in the Jabberwock description stating that it's DR is only overcome by Vorpal weaponry. Some of the very people you were calling out with such vigor had also noted it, and it was only after that was posted that people began to talk as though it might be official that Smite wouldn't work. Admittedly, they didn't help matters by not immediately reposting that line which they were using as their premise when you asked. However, as it had come up several times in the thread so...Dude? Chill. No one has denied that the wording of Smite Evil is pretty all inclusive. We have merely observed that:
A) DR/Vorpal did not exist in the Pathfinder rules when Smite Evil was written.
B) Compared to the standard types of DR, this is a highly specialized type.
C) The Jabberwock's entry specifically states that it's DR is only overcome by Vorpal weapons. Which could be read as a detailed explanation of what DR/Vorpal means, or it could be read as shutting down alternate means of DR penetration.I agree that it is a house rule. One I would implement without a second thought after seeing a paladin turn an encounter with a demilich into an utter anticlimax, but a houserule nonetheless. But there is at least some mild ambiguity in the rules, and acting pissy about people making that observation is, simply, unpleasant.
If the posts I took offense to were written like yours, I would not even have responded.
A few people were not making an observation. They were claiming their house rule as an actual rule. And they were ganging up on Leo telling him he broke the rules. I find that unpleasant, especially when they are not correct (the DR rule) or up to date on the current stance of the game designers (the Vital Strike discussion).
If you are going to hammer on someone, then know what you're talking about. This doesn't apply to you hopefully, but it applies to a few on this thread.
The people that were having a discussion did not prompt my posting. It was mostly folks like Turin, Brunwald, and Redcelt specifically who are making assertions that don't fly with the rules as I know them and providing no support for their viewpoints other than pure speculation. Prior to you responding, I didn't see anything that I took offense to with your posts.
I don't much care how people run it. Whatever they feel like calling in their own games are up to them.
But I don't see the issue with the DR. The strongest DR in the game is DR #/-. Stronger than vorpal, stronger than epic, stronger than any other DR. And Smite Evil goes through it like a hot knife through butter. I see no reason to believe that the game designers intended DR #/Vorpal to be stronger than DR #/-. It doesn't make much sense.
If they intended Smite Evil not to work, they would have made the Jabberwock Chaotic Neutral or included in the DR description that powers that normally penetrate DR don't work against this DR.
Sort of like they did for the Anti-paladin ability that negates immunity to fear. They specifically state the ability counters immunity to fear. Game designers are smart folks and if they wanted the Jabberwock's DR to be extra special, they would have said so in the description. I think you understand that as well.
As far as the Vital Strike, that's a DM call. As far as I know you can't reduce a standard action attack with two eye rays to a single attack unless the power's description says you can do so. Jabberwock's power doesn't say you can, so no idea why the module designer considereed it a viable tactic. I changed it in my game. Didn't think it followed the rules as I understood it. And I liked the Jabberwock getting two eye rays, more chances to crit.
I say by RAW Smite Evil bypasses a Jabberwock's DR. So does Exploit Weakness and Penetrating Strike.
Unless the entry under the Jabberwock says Smite Evil doesn't work. That is RAW.
Go find me proof otherwise from an official source not your speculation.
Not sure where your aggressive tone is coming from in this thread, but Maddigan, your strongly-stated assertions are no more right or wrong than the claims of those you are arguing with.
Smite Evil: Regardless of the target, smite evil attacks automatically bypass any DR the creature might possess.
This is an absolute statement. The use of the word "any DR" means, well, any DR, including special stuff like vorpal, so this makes YOU right.
Damage Reduction (Ex) A jabberwock's damage reduction can be bypassed only by weapons that possess the vorpal weapon enhancement
This, too, is an absolute statement. The use of the word "only" means that's the only thing that can bypass its DR. This statement makes OTHERS right. It is no more overridden by the text of smite evil than smite evil is by the text of the Jabberwock's damage reduction special ability. Making the call that way doesn't make it a "house rule" or any less valid than calling it the other way.
Personally, I don't have a jabberwock headed my way, so I don't need to know one way or another, but you folks should tone down the aggressiveness in this little debate. Stating your interpretation of this rule more loudly, more forcefully or with more certainty or righteousness than another doesn't make it any more valid. Since you've got two competing absolute statements, both sides are right in reading it the way they are, and it'll take a developer making a call to know what the true design intent was. It doesn't make anyone less of a person for interpreting the rule the way they see it.
The people that were having a discussion did not prompt my posting. It was mostly folks like Turin, Brunwald, and Redcelt specifically who are making assertions that don't fly with the rules as I know them and providing no support for their viewpoints other than pure speculation.
I was making an assertion that flies with the rules as I know them as regards the Vital Strike feat chain. You are making an assertion that my assertion doesn't fly with the rules as you know them.
Neither one of us has quoted rules as regards Vital Strike interfacing with attacks other than weapons. Several posts have made it clear that the Jabberwock's eye rays are a standard action that generates two ranged touch attacks (not one).
The differences of interpretation has yet to be satisfactorily resolved.
Ya know, that whole Real Life Monster thing. :)
I think leo has been awesome on this. Note that I've never disagreed with anything in this thread other than how the Vital Strike feat chain should/could interface with the Jabberwock's eye rays.
Vital Strike stipulates "when you use the attack action, you can make one attack". This eliminates the second eye ray from the Jabberwock's duo of fiery death from use in combination with Vital Strike, but not its first, as posited by others. Please note that "Attack" is listed underneath the "Standard Action" header in the CRB. The eye rays are both - the Jabberwock can fire two rays or one ray via Vital Strike.
There are 3 errata for the CRB - none of them exclude Vital Strike from working with non weapons.
|
|
Funny thing about rules in general in the world... they always need adjudication for grey areas or exceptions. This is why we have judges, lawyers, appeals, blah blah. So tossing around rules as an absolute in just says to me that someone wants the discussion or debate to stop because they don't want to play anymore.
Honestly, its not like hammering someone to death with your opinion is going to change their minds or how they run things in their game.
My own personal goal here was to exchange opinions on how these contested issues could be adjudicated in an AP campaign. I thought we were debating which way a foggy issue with two apparently clear and right answers could be deciphered based on any cues or clues left by the writer.
If you were arguing from any different point of view, for instance, that there is only one possible answer, end of story, I wasn't talking to you, because you were obviously having another discussion.
So for those of you who I was chatting with, here is something else I noticed:
The jabberwocky in question has the Improved Critical (claw, bite, eye ray) feat. This seems to imply they are a natural attack form for the creature, just not one it could use in melee, otherwise tail would have been included instead. If this is the writer's intention, it may suggest why they gave it vital strike in the tactics section.
Assuming we're back to a civil tone, I thought I'd toss some more chum in the water over the vorpal debate.
The paladin's smite evil ability refers to an inherent quality in a character class. That is, the paladin is so infused with holy power that he is able to smash through the supernatural defenses of evil creatures no matter what.
But, the jabberwock's damage reduction desciption doesn't say a darn thing about protecting it from a character's inherent abilities or special talents. It refers specifically to the only type of WEAPON that can penetrate this DR, and if that weapon isn't vorpal, regardless of the abilities of the one wielding it, then it just isn't going to cut it. Literally.
Personally, by stating the ability this way, I think the design intent here was to exclude the DR-smashing special abilities of characters to focus solely on the qualities a weapon (NOT a character) must have in order to penetrate the DR. In the interest of word economy, in other words, it sidesteps having to talk about all the exceptions to its rule by making a ruling on weapon abilities, rather than listing each type of DR-penetrating special ability that might already-or-possibly-in-the-future exist in the game that don't count in this special case. And I think that's what it is--a special case, or else it wouldn't have its DR explained in the manner in which it is.
Again, I don't have anything gyreing or gimbling in my wabe, but I think the key to you guys figuring this out lies in the odd design choice to focus the jabberwock's DR explanation on the qualities of the weapon, and not the special abilities of character classes. Keep it clean.
stuffs
This argument falls flat on one point -- all DR is only cut through with specific things. A paladin's smite cuts through DR that doesn't even have something that can cut through it.
Think about it -- it's DR so great that nothing can get through it -- but the paladin's smite ability can.
Yet somehow this awesome DR is less than DR/Vorpal which is capable of withstanding blows that DR/- can't survive.
Yeah I call BS at that point.
Paladin smite cuts through DR/epic (only epic weapons can cut through it -- it explicitly states as much) it cuts through DR/- (Nothing cuts through this DR it explicitly states as much) and it cuts through DR/vorpal -- because DR/vorpal is no different than any other form of DR.
At the end of the day all DR is based solely on the weapon used to cut through it -- unless you have a means of bypassing DR. Which the paladin does.
Basically put I don't see how you can honestly argue that DR/vorpal is somehow better than DR/epic or DR/-
Finally since it's DR/vorpal the fighter actually can ignore up to 10 points of it with greater penetrating strike since it's not DR/- and greater penetrating strike bypasses 10 points of DR that isn't DR/- and 5 points of DR/- (the best DR there is).
Hey man -it is just a theory I was tossing out into the void for discussion. I didn't say it was right! No need to "call BS."
(And are you making fun of all my bolding?) =-)
Basically put I don't see how you can honestly argue that DR/vorpal is somehow better than DR/epic or DR/-
If we couldn't honestly argue that, we wouldn't be honestly arguing. This is a specific circumstance for a specific, legendary creature closely tied with a powerful magic weapon property. The jabberwock's special ability description tells us that the creature's damage reduction can be bypassed only by weapons that possess the vorpal weapon enhancement. That's an absolute enough statement that at least one contingent here among these fine, intelligent folks think that this supersedes the paladin's smite evil ability. I refer you to my post 5 messages upthread for why both sides are right to claim their interpretation, RAW, is correct.
I only weighed in because I was enjoying the discussion and debate until it got aggressive. Personally I think it could go either way.
Yeah Yeah I know -- they're still wrong though -- after all this is the internet I must correct them!
(I'm a bold and italicizing sort of person myself)
stuffsThis argument falls flat on one point -- all DR is only cut through with specific things. A paladin's smite cuts through DR that doesn't even have something that can cut through it.
Think about it -- it's DR so great that nothing can get through it -- but the paladin's smite ability can.
Yet somehow this awesome DR is less than DR/Vorpal which is capable of withstanding blows that DR/- can't survive.
Yeah I call BS at that point.
Paladin smite cuts through DR/epic (only epic weapons can cut through it -- it explicitly states as much) it cuts through DR/- (Nothing cuts through this DR it explicitly states as much) and it cuts through DR/vorpal -- because DR/vorpal is no different than any other form of DR.
At the end of the day all DR is based solely on the weapon used to cut through it -- unless you have a means of bypassing DR. Which the paladin does.
Basically put I don't see how you can honestly argue that DR/vorpal is somehow better than DR/epic or DR/-
Finally since it's DR/vorpal the fighter actually can ignore up to 10 points of it with greater penetrating strike since it's not DR/- and greater penetrating strike bypasses 10 points of DR that isn't DR/- and 5 points of DR/- (the best DR there is).
Ah, but writing 'DR/Vorpal' followed by text specifying that 'Only Vorpal weaponry penetrates this DR' is arguably more explicit than writing 'DR/-'. The latter is a general rule, which is trumped by the specifics of the Paladin's Smite Evil ability. Under this interpretation, the Jabberwock's DR/Vorpal has its own specific rule associated with, making its interaction with Smite Evil more questionable.
Again, for clarity, I believe that Smite trumps it by RAW. Just playing Asmodeus' advocate.
|
|
I can see both sides of the argument, especially because they worded the description of DR/vorpal in a somewhat ambiguous way. It says:
Damage Reduction (Ex) A jabberwock's damage reduction can be bypassed only by weapons that possess the vorpal weapon enhancement
which could be read:Damage Reduction (Ex) A jabberwock's damage reduction can be bypassed only by: weapons that possess the vorpal weapon enhancement.
Meaning the only way ever to beat DR is with a vorpal weapon. That is the way I read it at first.
But after reading Brandon's post, it could also be read...
Damage Reduction (Ex) A jabberwock's damage reduction can be bypassed only by weapons that possess the vorpal weapon enhancement
in which case it is only calling out which type of magic weapons are affected but mentioning nothing about any other source of DR bypass, which would imply that no specific new rule=old rules apply.
I think this is why the debate got heated, whichever way you read it, it clearly seems to be saying what you want it to say.
Assuming we're back to a civil tone, I thought I'd toss some more chum in the water over the vorpal debate.
The paladin's smite evil ability refers to an inherent quality in a character class. That is, the paladin is so infused with holy power that he is able to smash through the supernatural defenses of evil creatures no matter what.
But, the jabberwock's damage reduction desciption doesn't say a darn thing about protecting it from a character's inherent abilities or special talents. It refers specifically to the only type of WEAPON that can penetrate this DR, and if that weapon isn't vorpal, regardless of the abilities of the one wielding it, then it just isn't going to cut it. Literally.
Personally, by stating the ability this way, I think the design intent here was to exclude the DR-smashing special abilities of characters to focus solely on the qualities a weapon (NOT a character) must have in order to penetrate the DR. In the interest of word economy, in other words, it sidesteps having to talk about all the exceptions to its rule by making a ruling on weapon abilities, rather than listing each type of DR-penetrating special ability that might already-or-possibly-in-the-future exist in the game that don't count in this special case. And I think that's what it is--a special case, or else it wouldn't have its DR explained in the manner in which it is.
Again, I don't have anything gyreing or gimbling in my wabe, but I think the key to you guys figuring this out lies in the odd design choice to focus the jabberwock's DR explanation on the qualities of the weapon, and not the special abilities of character classes. Keep it clean.
Or the game designer was going off the Jabberwocky poem that lists the hero in the poem took up his vorpal sword to kill the Jabberwock and took its head.
Jabberwocky is a poem for those that might not be aware. And the game designer was doing his best to make a creature that fit the poem.
[link]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jabberwocky[/link] (whatever. Doesn't use standard HTML for linking).
That's why I don't think there was any intent whatsoever to make Smite Evil useless agains the Jabberwock. This was rather an explanation for a new type of DR previously unseen.
The people that were having a discussion did not prompt my posting. It was mostly folks like Turin, Brunwald, and Redcelt specifically who are making assertions that don't fly with the rules as I know them and providing no support for their viewpoints other than pure speculation.I was making an assertion that flies with the rules as I know them as regards the Vital Strike feat chain. You are making an assertion that my assertion doesn't fly with the rules as you know them.
Neither one of us has quoted rules as regards Vital Strike interfacing with attacks other than weapons. Several posts have made it clear that the Jabberwock's eye rays are a standard action that generates two ranged touch attacks (not one).
The differences of interpretation has yet to be satisfactorily resolved.
Ya know, that whole Real Life Monster thing. :)
I think leo has been awesome on this. Note that I've never disagreed with anything in this thread other than how the Vital Strike feat chain should/could interface with the Jabberwock's eye rays.
Vital Strike stipulates "when you use the attack action, you can make one attack". This eliminates the second eye ray from the Jabberwock's duo of fiery death from use in combination with Vital Strike, but not its first, as posited by others. Please note that "Attack" is listed underneath the "Standard Action" header in the CRB. The eye rays are both - the Jabberwock can fire two rays or one ray via Vital Strike.
There are 3 errata for the CRB - none of them exclude Vital Strike from working with non weapons.
Did you not see my posting above?
Yes. I did quote a game designer and posted the Vital Strike feat clearly showing it does not work with spells even if they require an attack roll or special powers. I don't know about the single eye ray thing. That's a DM call as far as I'm concerned.
A standard action such as casting a spell that requires an attack roll is not an attack action.
Go post on the rules forum and see how they answer.
If you look at my previous post, the Lead Game Designer Jason Buhlman clearly outlined what Vital Strike works with and what an attack action is. An attack action is not casting a spell, using a special ability, or anything of the like. It is a single attack with a weapon that is a standard action, but in no way whatsoever indicates all standard actions that require an attack roll are attack actions.
It would work with a non-weapon if you didn't first have to cast a spell. Casting the spell is the action, making the attack roll is part of casting the spell. When you posted scorching ray worked with Vital Strike that was a strange interpretation I had never seen before.
I say by RAW Smite Evil bypasses a Jabberwock's DR. So does Exploit Weakness and Penetrating Strike.
Unless the entry under the Jabberwock says Smite Evil doesn't work. That is RAW.
Go find me proof otherwise from an official source not your speculation.
Not sure where your aggressive tone is coming from in this thread, but Maddigan, your strongly-stated assertions are no more right or wrong than the claims of those you are arguing with.
Smite Evil: Regardless of the target, smite evil attacks automatically bypass any DR the creature might possess.This is an absolute statement. The use of the word "any DR" means, well, any DR, including special stuff like vorpal, so this makes YOU right.
Damage Reduction (Ex) A jabberwock's damage reduction can be bypassed only by weapons that possess the vorpal weapon enhancementThis, too, is an absolute statement. The use of the word "only" means that's the only thing that can bypass its DR. This statement makes OTHERS right. It is no more overridden by the text of smite evil than smite evil is by the text of the Jabberwock's damage reduction special ability. Making the call that way doesn't make it a "house rule" or any less valid than calling it the other way.
Personally, I don't have a jabberwock headed my way, so I don't need to know one way or another, but you folks should tone down the aggressiveness in this little debate. Stating your interpretation of this rule more loudly, more forcefully or with more certainty or righteousness than another doesn't make it any more valid. Since you've got two competing absolute statements, both sides are right in reading it the way they are, and it'll take a developer making a call to know what the true design intent was. It doesn't make anyone less of a person for interpreting the rule the way they see it.
This turned into a rules discussion. I'm stating the rules as I know them. Not as I interpret them or as I feel about them, but as I know them from reading the rule itself and from clarification from game designers. If a game designer wants to hop in and change a rule, so be it. Until them, what I stated above is how the rule works. Smite Evil bypasses any DR even if it is vorpal.
And Vital Strike works with an attack action which is a very specific action that allows a single attack. Not an attack as part of spell casting or an attack from a special ray ability or an attack that is anything other than a single attack action attack.
Assuming we're back to a civil tone, I thought I'd toss some more chum in the water over the vorpal debate.
The paladin's smite evil ability refers to an inherent quality in a character class. That is, the paladin is so infused with holy power that he is able to smash through the supernatural defenses of evil creatures no matter what.
But, the jabberwock's damage reduction desciption doesn't say a darn thing about protecting it from a character's inherent abilities or special talents. It refers specifically to the only type of WEAPON that can penetrate this DR, and if that weapon isn't vorpal, regardless of the abilities of the one wielding it, then it just isn't going to cut it. Literally.
Personally, by stating the ability this way, I think the design intent here was to exclude the DR-smashing special abilities of characters to focus solely on the qualities a weapon (NOT a character) must have in order to penetrate the DR. In the interest of word economy, in other words, it sidesteps having to talk about all the exceptions to its rule by making a ruling on weapon abilities, rather than listing each type of DR-penetrating special ability that might already-or-possibly-in-the-future exist in the game that don't count in this special case. And I think that's what it is--a special case, or else it wouldn't have its DR explained in the manner in which it is.
Again, I don't have anything gyreing or gimbling in my wabe, but I think the key to you guys figuring this out lies in the odd design choice to focus the jabberwock's DR explanation on the qualities of the weapon, and not the special abilities of character classes. Keep it clean.
Or the game designer was going off the Jabberwocky poem that lists the hero in the poem took up his vorpal sword to kill the Jabberwock and took its head.
Jabberwocky is a poem for those that might not be aware. And the game designer was doing his best to make a creature that fit the...
Except
A) DR/Vorpal is technically new to Pathfinder, but it's featured in adventure paths before, namely in the form of a Demilich, statted out in full without the further text the Jabberwock possesses.
B) The notation 'DR/X' is self-explanatory. Or, rather, once you've seen it used once, you shouldn't have any trouble interpreting any other usage.
The text in the Jabberwock's Bestiary entry is redundant if it's not meant to shut down alternate means of DR penetration.
|
While I would prefer otherwise (and probably will make a houserule about it in my homegame), this is James reply:
1) It does. Whether or not that makes the special power underwhelming or it makes the paladin's smite even cooler depends on how you look at it. Not every group has a paladin, and even those who do still have characters who aren't paladins, so the jabberwock's DR still matters.
1) the Jabberwock and lesser Jabberwock DR is /Vorpal. It can be bipassed by a paladin Smite Evil power?
By RAW the Smite Evil power will overcome it, but the special nature of the creature make that a bit ... underwhelming
|
|
Good thing I don't have any Paladins in my group so I don't have to worry about any of this crap!
Imo, the developers created a lot of unnecessary waste putting in that description for DR/Vorpal and left room for doubt regarding this issue.
As for contributing to this discussion thread which will surely devolve into gloating, that's all for me. It's nice that you were proven right. My party thanks you in advance for all the fun they will encounter down the road as a result of all the great input gleaned from this thread.
I'll name the Jabberwock's Eyebeam Ray Gun 'Mad Leo' in your honor :)
Good thing I don't have any Paladins in my group so I don't have to worry about any of this crap!
Imo, the developers created a lot of unnecessary waste putting in that description for DR/Vorpal and left room for doubt regarding this issue.
As for contributing to this discussion thread which will surely devolve into gloating, that's all for me. It's nice that you were proven right. My party thanks you in advance for all the fun they will encounter down the road as a result of all the great input gleaned from this thread.
I'll name the Jabberwock's Eyebeam Ray Gun 'Mad Leo' in your honor :)
I don't if you were sarcastic in your post or not but i will be happy if all of the discussion in this thread helps another party to have fun with their fight with the jabberwock.
The text in the Jabberwock's Bestiary entry is redundant if it's not meant to shut down alternate means of DR penetration.
Redundant text in pathfinder? It's more likely than you think.
Text that is redundant isn't unlikely in pathfinder.
You are likely to find text that is redundant in pathfinder.
In pathfinder you stand a good chance of finding redundant text.
Did you not see my posting above?
Yes. I did quote a game designer and posted the Vital Strike feat clearly showing it does not work with spells even if they require an attack roll or special powers. I don't know about the single eye ray thing. That's a DM call as far as I'm concerned.
A standard action such as casting a spell that requires an attack roll is not an attack action.
Go post on the rules forum and see how they answer.
If you look at my previous post, the Lead Game Designer Jason Buhlman clearly outlined what Vital Strike works with and what an attack action is. An attack action is not casting a spell, using a special ability, or anything of the like. It is a single attack with a weapon that is a standard action, but in no way whatsoever indicates all standard actions that require an attack roll are attack actions.
It would work with a non-weapon if you didn't first have to cast a spell. Casting the spell is the action, making the attack roll is part of casting the spell. When you posted scorching ray worked with Vital Strike that was a strange interpretation I had never seen before.
The interface with spells is answered by Buhlman's post which you have so kindly quoted in this thread - but it doesn't answer regarding innate ray attacks...
Ray: Do rays count as weapons for the purpose of spells and effects that affect weapons?
Yes.
For example, a bard's inspire courage says it affects "weapon damage rolls," which is worded that way so don't try to add the bonus to a spell like fireball. However, rays are treated as weapons, whether they're from spells, a monster ability, a class ability, or some other source, so the inspire courage bonus applies to ray attack rolls and ray damage rolls.
The same rule applies to weapon-like spells such as flame blade, mage's sword, and spiritual weapon--effects that affect weapons work on these spells.
—Sean K Reynolds, 07/29/11
A creature has an innate ray attack that counts as a weapon, yet they don't work with the Vital Strike feat chain? I get that ray spells don't work with the feat chain. I don't get why they wouldn't work for innate ray attacks such as those of the Jabberwock.
The Jabberwock doesn't "cast" its rays, it simply shoots them in the same fashion that archers shoot arrows. Based upon the encounter text in Kingmaker #6, the Jabberwock can elect to shoot two ray attacks or one ray in combination with Vital Strike.
I will take up your gauntlet on asking this in the rules subforum. :)
Lets move to a slightly less esoteric monster: Does vital strike work with a Manticore's tail spikes? Can a manticore fire off a single spike as part of a full attack, or can it only do four as a standard action?
Also, Diego - can you link to the actual post? The quoting got weird on that.
|
|
Did you not see my posting above?
Yes. I did quote a game designer and posted the Vital Strike feat clearly showing it does not work with spells even if they require an attack roll or special powers. I don't know about the single eye ray thing. That's a DM call as far as I'm concerned.
A standard action such as casting a spell that requires an attack roll is not an attack action.
Go post on the rules forum and see how they answer.
If you look at my previous post, the Lead Game Designer Jason Buhlman clearly outlined what Vital Strike works with and what an attack action is. An attack action is not casting a spell, using a special ability, or anything of the like. It is a single attack with a weapon that is a standard action, but in no way whatsoever indicates all standard actions that require an attack roll are attack actions.
It would work with a non-weapon if you didn't first have to cast a spell. Casting the spell is the action, making the attack roll is part of casting the spell. When you posted scorching ray worked with Vital Strike that was a strange interpretation I had never seen before.
The interface with spells is answered by Buhlman's post which you have so kindly quoted in this thread - but it doesn't answer regarding innate ray attacks...
...Ray: Do rays count as weapons for the purpose of spells and effects that affect weapons?
Yes.
For example, a bard's inspire courage says it affects "weapon damage rolls," which is worded that way so don't try to add the bonus to a spell like fireball. However, rays are treated as weapons, whether they're from spells, a monster ability, a class ability, or some other source, so the inspire courage bonus applies to ray attack rolls and ray damage rolls.
The same rule applies to weapon-like spells such as flame blade, mage's sword, and spiritual weapon--effects that affect weapons work on these spells.
—Sean K Reynolds,
Hey Turin tell us what they say.
Will do, PJ.
|
|
It is clearer this way?
1) the Jabberwock and lesser Jabberwock DR is /Vorpal. It can be bipassed by a paladin Smite Evil power?
By RAW the Smite Evil power will overcome it, but the special nature of the creature make that a bit ... underwhelming
1) It does. Whether or not that makes the special power underwhelming or it makes the paladin's smite even cooler depends on how you look at it. Not every group has a paladin, and even those who do still have characters who aren't paladins, so the jabberwock's DR still matters.
The post is here.
It is clearer this way?
1) the Jabberwock and lesser Jabberwock DR is /Vorpal. It can be bipassed by a paladin Smite Evil power?
By RAW the Smite Evil power will overcome it, but the special nature of the creature make that a bit ... underwhelming
1) It does. Whether or not that makes the special power underwhelming or it makes the paladin's smite even cooler depends on how you look at it. Not every group has a paladin, and even those who do still have characters who aren't paladins, so the jabberwock's DR still matters.The post is here.
Yes, thank you. Personally, I disagree with his ruling, and won't use it in my game, but it's good to have the intent in mind. And when I get closer to running it, if I still have a paladin in my group, I might change my mind.
1) Damage Reduction is a quality that prevents damage, but some things can overcome it. This is a general rule that applies to everything: (anything attacks anything with DR).
2) Paladin's smite automatically bypasses whatever DR the creature possesses. This is an ability-specific power, so it overrules #1 when it's in effect (paladin attacks anything with DR).
3) The Jabberwock's DR specifically says it can only be bypassed by vorpal weapons. This is a monster-specific power which overrides the more general class specific power (paladin attacks jabberwock with DR).
I can easily see, though, how my #2 and #3 can be read in the other direction. Hopefully, if a PFS adventure ever includes a Jabberwock (which is highly unlikely), they'll provide specific instructions to the GMs. Aside from that, it's up to each GM which way to run it at home.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Another option for those GM's who want to require a vorpal weapon to slay the jabberwock (and I think that's a perfectly reasonable desire) would be to give the jabberwock Regeneration (vorpal) in place of its Fast Healing. Not quite the same thing as requiring a vorpal blade to penetrate its DR, but maybe it's a decent middle ground. Anyway, just a thought.