| 8 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Answered in the FAQ. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In the transition from 3E to PF, paizo added a new superscript to its magical properties for ranged weapons table that did not exist before -- #2, "Bows, crossbows, and slings crafted with this ability bestow this power upon their ammunition."
In so doing, they potentially made several previously valid options to be placed on a projectile weapon invalid -- Distance, Seeking, and Speed, to be specific. Brilliant Energy also lacks the 2, but its own text (unchanged from 3E) explicitly restricted it from being placed on a bow, crossbow, or sling already anyway.
This is IMO pretty silly, especially in the case of Distance, since ammunition doesn't even have a range increment, so requiring it to be placd on the ammunition is even more strange.
Is this intentional, an oversight, or does lacking the 2 (and thus not applying the property to ammunition) not required in these properties' cases (in which case a clarification would be nice)? An answer for all three properties would be appreciated.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I'm not sure I see the problem. The note that goes with the superscript "2" says to apply the ability to the ammo. The properties you list - for which ammo makes no sense - lack that superscript and therefore don't apply the ability to the ammo.
Which seems to be what you want. Am I missing something?
|
|
As you pointed out, ammunition doesn't have a range increment, so the only valid choice for that enhancement is on a ranged weapon. Put another way, the Distance special quality modifies a property that only ranged weapons have. It cannot be placed on ammunition for this reason.
Putting Distance on ammo would be like putting a carburetor on your PC.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
As you pointed out, ammunition doesn't have a range increment, so the only valid choice for that enhancement is on a ranged weapon. Put another way, the Distance special quality modifies a property that only ranged weapons have. It cannot be placed on ammunition for this reason.
Putting Distance on ammo would be like putting a carburetor on your PC.
And Distance lacks the bestow-on-ammunition footnote, thereby avoiding the issue you describe.
So, why are we supposed to be clicking the FAQ button?
I'm not sure I see the problem. The note that goes with the superscript "2" says to apply the ability to the ammo. The properties you list - for which ammo makes no sense - lack that superscript and therefore don't apply the ability to the ammo.
Which seems to be what you want. Am I missing something?
I think this is the case as well. If so, however, I would like clarification that this is in fact why they lack the 2. Because others here are of the opinion that "no 2 = can't put it on the projectile weapon at all."
That's why I had the 3rd possibility listed and requested clarification if true.
if you look closer, the #2 isn't added to the 2 properties you have an issue with bestowing the ability on the amunition, so there isn't a problem. The abilities are applied to the weapon, not the ammo, and give the character wielding it the proper benefits.
Brilliant energy says in it's text that it's ammo only for ranged weapons. Putting every touch attack from a bow would make the ability pretty overpowered for any dedicated archer. Leaving the 2's off these options is deffinatly intentional.
Asta
PSY
+1s to Jiggy and Thorkull.
You can't put Seeking on a bow because then the bow itself would have to be thrown as a weapon. The superscript is left off because Seeking is one that specifically has to be applied to the ammunition itself, not the weapon that fires it. In regards to Distance, as you say, ammunition has no distance. The ability is conferred to the weapon, allowing that weapon to fire its ammunition farther than it normally would.
This question made me really look at seeking for the first time, and I'm now confused. Say I put the Seeking ability on a dagger (obviously to be thrown). Since it automagically seeks its target, what do I roll for an attack roll? To attack a square, iirc, is just an AC of 10. Since the dagger once aimed at that square avoids all miss chance, does it then hit? If so, that ability is awesome, and, I feel, deserves much more than just a +1 equivalency.
|
|
Since the dagger once aimed at that square avoids all miss chance, does it then hit? If so, that ability is awesome, and, I feel, deserves much more than just a +1 equivalency.
"Miss chance" as in "the miss chance from concealment", not "the possibility your attack roll won't beat the target's AC.". "Miss chance" is a defined game mechanic which is an addition to, not a replacement for, an Attack Roll.
Because others here are of the opinion that "no 2 = can't put it on the projectile weapon at all."lolwut
You may want to look at the post immediately above yours.
This thread is necessary. I really, really wish it wasn't.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
You can't put Seeking on a bow because then the bow itself would have to be thrown as a weapon. The superscript is left off because Seeking is one that specifically has to be applied to the ammunition itself, not the weapon that fires it.
Only ranged weapons can have the seeking ability.
...?
Totally get that, and that's how I initially read it, but this language sticks in my craw,Since the dagger once aimed at that square avoids all miss chance, does it then hit? If so, that ability is awesome, and, I feel, deserves much more than just a +1 equivalency."Miss chance" as in "the miss chance from concealment", not "the possibility your attack roll won't beat the target's AC.". "Miss chance" is a defined game mechanic which is an addition to, not a replacement for, an Attack Roll.
The weapon veers toward its target, negating any miss chances that would otherwise apply, such as from concealment. The wielder still has to aim the weapon at the right square. , for example, do not veer and hit invisible enemies, even if they are nearby.
If all I have to do is aim the weapon at the right square, the target AC is only 10. This seems to be corroborated by the "arrows mistakenly..." When would any PC EVER shoot at an empty square, or at a square in general? If they were shooting at an invisible enemy they'd have located the square they are in somehow, detect magic, etc. A PC would never just blindly shoot an arrow at a square and hope for the best.
Also, don't even get me started on the fact that the language specifically mentions a "square." I mean, what if I don't play with a battle grid? What the heck does a "square" mean then?
You can't put Seeking on a bow because then the bow itself would have to be thrown as a weapon. The superscript is left off because Seeking is one that specifically has to be applied to the ammunition itself, not the weapon that fires it.Only ranged weapons can have the seeking ability....?
What's the question? I can't put Seeking on a bow, because it wouldn't confer that onto the ammunition. The arrows, bolts, or sling-stones, have to be Seeking. Seeking isn't one that is conferred onto ammunition from a bow or crossbow. So if you put Seeking on a bow or crossbow, you'd have to whip the bow at the target. Just like you don't put Returning on a bow, cause you're not throwing the bow. If you put Returning on a mithril arrow, that would be awesome.
This thread seems silly and unnecessary.
I must really be missing something if it is indeed, not so.Am I missing something?
A conscience?
:) LOLed
Seriously though, I think the OPs question has been thoroughly answered. Now I'm just looking for somebody to help me understand the specifics of the Seeking ability. I used to think I knew how that worked. You roll your attack, if the attack roll hits, you get to ignore any concealment type effects and just hit. Now that I look at it, and see things like "square" and "mistakenly shot into," I'm not so sure I fully comprehend the precision of the mechanics.
|
|
If all I have to do is aim the weapon at the right square, the target AC is only 10. This seems to be corroborated by the "arrows mistakenly..." When would any PC EVER shoot at an empty square, or at a square in general? If they were shooting at an invisible enemy they'd have located the square they are in somehow, detect magic, etc. A PC would never just blindly shoot an arrow at a square and hope for the best.
I've seen players mistakenly target a square where they *thought* there was an invisible opponent. I've also seen them take full attack actions to target multiple squares around them when they weren't sure which square an invisible opponent was in. In those cases, PCs are shooting at empty squares. Since I've seen PCs do it, I have to disagree with your assertion that a PC would never shoot at an empty square.
There are also other weapons, like a bag of powder or alchemist's fire, that can be thrown either at a creature or "at its feet" -- aka a "square" that it's standing in.
Distance and seeking properties are applied to weapon and not missiles because they modify actual performance of an attack action - which is made using the ranged weapon so they don't need to bestow those properties to ammo.
I would allow for arrows with those properties without problems, however.
@MendedWall12: When you determine the location of enemy (i.e. pin-point his location as it is sometimes called in a few places) - either through successful Perception check or special senses such as blindsense or tremorsense but still can't see him you can attack him with 50% miss chance. Seeking weapon allows you to fire arrow ignoring total concealment. It won't help you if you think that you pin-pointed your target but are wrong (e.g. invisible wizard cast ventriloquism to issue sound from another place and your Perception roll allowed you to determine the point from which the sound came). Neither it will help you if you you failed your Perception roll to pin-point invisible target and just state that you are firing your arrow against the wizard who is somewhere here.
@Thorkul: Perfectly reasonable, it's just not something any of my players have ever done. Firing "blindly" into an area to try and pinpoint a hidden foe is a tactic one could use. I've just never had a player resort to that. As for those bag/bombs those are usually a ranged touch attack correct? So you really aren't aiming at a square? You are aiming at the target (or his/her feet). Which brings up some interesting semantics too, because if I am targeting the square the AC is only 5. I researched it, and it is referenced in a few places in the Core Rulebook. Much easier to hit an AC 5 than a ranged touch AC of a foe.
@Drejk: Thanks for the detailed response. That is, in fact, how I'd always adjudicated that. Like I said earlier, I glanced at it, and went on with my life, then this thread made me really look at the language. That whole "aiming at a square" thing still irks me a bit. The PC is aiming at where they believe an enemy is, not "a square." This made me go through the Core Rulebook again, and I discovered that the term "square" is used A LOT. Which necessarily leads one to believe that in order to play Pathfinder "correctly" one must be using a battle grid, as several entries are mechanically bound to the use of a "square."
@MendedWall: If you're targeting the square in the sense that you're talking about, then success means you hit the floor, not a creature standing there. If you want to hit a creature, you need to attack their AC, not the floor's.
Right, right, I get it. I'm just saying with the phrase "aim the weapon at the right square" it could get confusing. If the PC is just "aiming at a square" the target AC is 5, and, with the Seeking ability on the ammunition, one could argue that the ammunition takes over and "veers toward its target," if the PC selected the "right square." If, instead, the PC is aiming at "someone or something" and has a good idea of what "area" they are in, they are obviously rolling against the target's AC, or touch AC depending on your weapon. I guess I'd be much more happy if the word "square" was changed to "place." Square has a definitive mechanical definition, whereas place just means the area. Like Drejk mentions, if I'm aiming in the completely wrong direction, squares have nothing to do with it. The PC is aiming at where they perceived to have heard a voice, rather than a completely, or incompletely, visible target.
@Thorkul: Perfectly reasonable, it's just not something any of my players have ever done. Firing "blindly" into an area to try and pinpoint a hidden foe is a tactic one could use. I've just never had a player resort to that. As for those bag/bombs those are usually a ranged touch attack correct? So you really aren't aiming at a square? You are aiming at the target (or his/her feet). Which brings up some interesting semantics too, because if I am targeting the square the AC is only 5. I researched it, and it is referenced in a few places in the Core Rulebook. Much easier to hit an AC 5 than a ranged touch AC of a foe.
It's true, but then there is no "primary target" - everyone, including the creature in the space you threw it at, only takes splash damage.
@Drejk: Thanks for the detailed response. That is, in fact, how I'd always adjudicated that. Like I said earlier, I glanced at it, and went on with my life, then this thread made me really look at the language. That whole "aiming at a square" thing still irks me a bit. The PC is aiming at where they believe an enemy is, not "a square." This made me go through the Core Rulebook again, and I discovered that the term "square" is used A LOT. Which necessarily leads one to believe that in order to play Pathfinder "correctly" one must be using a battle grid, as several entries are mechanically bound to the use of a "square."
What will really make your head hurt is when you start trying to deal with firing arrows at a square you think an opponent is in. Does it hit them if they're actually standing a square further back? Three squares closer in a direct line? (Assuming you make the attack roll and miss chance successfully, anyway.)
I was thinking about that, and the best thing I could come up with is just declaring the line of fire. That way the PC is declaring a complete line through which their ranged weapon is fired. If the enemy happens to be in any square in that line then they'll need to roll an attack roll. There are definitely some things there that cause a little sticky-wicket for a GM. Why? Because you are, sort of, providing some meta-game knowledge. If they declare a line and you say "roll an attack roll," they know they've hit the right line. However, are you really going to have them roll an attack roll for every line of fire they pick that isn't the right one? Then, what if they keep rolling terribly? They might keep firing at the same line for a while until they come up with a bigger number. Of course hopefully other members of the party are helping out in that situation with magic, or other means to locate hidden foes.
Is this an issue of nitpicking the wording of the rules or is this an actual issue?
The former.
Definitely
The only real question here is, does a projectile shot from a Seeking projectile weapon gain the benefit of the Seeking property?
One person on this thread has said, no, essentially seeking is thrown weapons only.
The rest of us say yes.
