| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Half-Elves do count as Humans and Elves for "effects related to race" now.
really? what about half-orcs, teiflings, and asimar and the rest of the half breeds?
@kazann, i'm not predisposed to my opinion, i just dont see the rules as indicating that the touch attack from a spell as being not part of the spell. i've seen nothing that states this, really. all i see is the game reusing a rule to determine hit/miss chance instead of makes a whole new one. and i would like to point out that it IS a double standard to be able to take weapon focus (ray) and not weapon focus (touch). thats completely asinine. it should be both or neither. either spells with attack rolls count as weapons, or they dont. not some of them do, some dont.
|
I disagree with this. The fact that the spell gives an additionnal melee attack is irrelevant to how this would work. Even if I miss my first spellstrike on the beginning of the next turn I'm gonna attempt to do exactly the same thing which is declaring spellcombat, doing a spellstrike (assuming I'm still holding the charge), casting defensively SG and trying to deliver another Spellstrike.
It makes no sense that those two Spellstrikes would be treated differently.
Diego, I think your reasoning is wrong because you've misread the Enforcer feat. I'm not arguing that a Spellstrike Frostbite deals non lethal weapon damage. The bold part of the Spellstrike ability you quoted is actually exactly why i think it works. The melee (weapon) attack deals regular weapon damage AS WELL AS the effects of the spell. In this case, it will be the melee weapon attack that will deal the non lethal spell damage from Frostbite.
Now the Enforcer feat says that's it's the weapon melee attack that has to deal non lethal damage, not that it has to deal non lethal weapon damage which is a completely different thing.That´s why I think it's difficult to argue against it working.
Whenever you deal nonlethal damage with a melee weapon
The meele weapon weal non lethal damage? No, it is the spell that deal it.
You say that in your post. so the attack don't meet the feat requirements.Very simple.
Whatever effect separated from the weapon damage that ride on your attack is not relevant for the feat.
It's kinda sad that you will ignore my whole post just to point out a quote and interpret it in your own, fallacious way Diego. If you will not take into account any of the points I'm making and keep on repeating your same false ideas, I will have to ask you to withdraw from this conversation.
I apologize for being a jerk but it also seems from the wordings of your posts that your mastery of the English language isn't good enough to fully comprehend the points every other people in this thread are making.
I will repeat this one more time: the melee weapon attack both deals lethal damage from the weapon and non lethal damage from the spell. So it DOES deal non lethal damage, thus fullfilling the requirements for the feat. There is nothing in the feat that says the attack has to deal NON LETHAL WEAPON DAMAGE, which is an entirely different thing.
Now to answer to Kazaan, the Enforcer feat does NOT require you to deal non lethal weapon damage. It requires you to deal NL damage with a weapon. The difference is small but it is there, which is what I've been trying to explain to the naysayers since the beginning of this post.
With spellstrike the spell effects and the weapon damage will be combined when you make the weapon attack. So what you are doing in the case of a Spellstrike Frostbite is doing an attack that deals 1d6 + X lethal weapon damage + 1d6 + Y non lethal spell damage. This attack is delivered with your weapon, hence you are in fact dealing NL damage with your weapon attack, thus fullfilling the requirements of Enforcer.
This is my way of seeing things, and I agree that it may be controversial which is why I made this FAQ request.
|
|
It's kinda sad that you will ignore my whole post just to point out a quote and interpret it in your own, fallacious way Diego. If you will not take into account any of the points I'm making and keep on repeating your same false ideas, I will have to ask you to withdraw from this conversation.
I apologize for being a jerk but it also seems from the wordings of your posts that your mastery of the English language isn't good enough to fully comprehend the points every other people in this thread are making.I will repeat this one more time: the melee weapon attack both deals lethal damage from the weapon and non lethal damage from the spell. So it DOES deal non lethal damage, thus fullfilling the requirements for the feat. There is nothing in the feat that says the attack has to deal NON LETHAL WEAPON DAMAGE, which is an entirely different thing.
We are totally in disaccord on that.
You are convinced of your opinion, I am convinced of mine. What you can't do is asking someone to stop posting because he don't share your opinion. Your arguments are based on your reading of the meaning of"Whenever you deal nonlethal damage with a melee weapon", mine are based on my reading. simply your argument for me have no basis, so I argue on the basis of what is written on the feat.You have perfectly described yourself in your post.
There is nothing in the feat that says the attack has to deal NON LETHAL WEAPON DAMAGE, which is an entirely different thing.
Exactly, it say: "Whenever you deal nonlethal damage with a melee weapon". Simply you are claiming that the rider is a effect of the weapon, while riders in the rules are treated differently.
The feat don't use the term "attack" anywhere. The feat use the words: "deal nonlethal damage with a melee weapon".
What the attack deal is no the same thing of what the weapon deal.
Perhaps someone could link the rules on "rider effects" from the core rulebook? Its my understanding that this isn't actually a rule. Its just a phrase we as players use to distinguish effect damage from weapon damage...I don't see "rider" in the CRB, do you?
|
I was about to post a half page paper about cause and effect in relation to this situation, but I remebered that most people don't read long posts. So, I'll summarize:
A simple view (which Paizo wants to have as much as possible without sacrificing what realism the game has) is that the cause of the 1d6+cl non-lethal damage is the weapon.
A complicated view is that the cause of the 1d6+cl non-lethal damage is the effects the spell, which is caused by the weapon. Since the effects of this particular spell is 1d6+cl non-lethal damage, this translates to "The weapon deals X damage and delivers 1d6+cl non-lethal damage".
In both cases, the weapon is a cause (either direct or indirect) of the non-lethal damage.
Very well put frodo.
Let me just explain why dealing damage with a weapon =\= as weapon damage: a blade bout magus of 5th level can make is blade blade do elemental damage instead of slash/pierce/bludgeoning damage. No matter how you look at it, he's still dealing damage with his weapon and there is no so called "rider" effect involved. He's simply changing the type of the damage. Because of this, there is a clear cut distinction between weapon damage (slashing/piercing/bludgenoning) and dealing damage with a weapon. They are by no means the same.
At this point I think that all people seriously taking part in this discussion are agreeing that it works. I think it is safe for me to spend skill points in Intimidate ;)
At this point I think that all people seriously taking part in this discussion are agreeing that it works. I think it is safe for me to spend skill points in Intimidate ;)
Your DM could disallow that. Anyway, as suggested from Mathwei, if the DM rules this way, you can, relatively early, afford a +1 merciful weapon, that still adds 1d6 and change into non lethal damage. This can do the trick, just in case.
And about that, a question: let's say I have a flaming greatsword, and I add the merciful enanchement. Now, is the fire damage from the flaming property considered nonlethal? Or it refers only to the weapon damage+the merciful damage?
As far as I know, elemental damage cannot be made nonlethal unless your using a spell/ability that specifically states that that damage is non-lethal. Merciful, only applies to the weapon damage, not its enchantments.
|
I saw this combo for the first time this weekend and see that it's netted 40+ FAQ requests, so it's in a grey area (especially for PFS).
At the moment I lean towards frostbite channeled through a melee weapon that's doing lethal damage as not triggering the demoralize.
Here's why. It's phrased as:
Whenever you deal nonlethal damage with a melee weapon, you can make an Intimidate check to demoralize your target as a free action.
If it was instead phrased as:
Whenever a target takes nonlethal damage from an attack, you can make an Intimidate check to demoralize your target as a free action.
I feel like it would be clearer that it absolutely works.
The current phrasing seems to feel as if you get to use Enforcer when your character makes a decision to do nonlethal damage with their melee weapon. If you're choosing to do do lethal damage with your melee weapon (and the melee weapon in this case is the lethal sword, not the nonlethal spell effect that also joins in), then you're not "dealing nonlethal damage with your melee weapon" (you're dealing lethal damage with it). Mind-bending...
Other options that would make this clearer:
Whenever you deal only nonlethal damage with a melee weapon, you can make an Intimidate check to demoralize your target as a free action.
or
Whenever you deal any nonlethal damage as part of an attack, you can make an Intimidate check to demoralize your target as a free action.
I feel it's fairly clear if the magus just delivers the touch attack with their hand (and doesn't add the complexity of their melee weapon doing lethal damage into the mix), they'd get to trigger the Enforcer ability.
Added +1 to the FAQ requests, and hopefully a developer can clarify. Seems like a quick and easy one for them to weigh in here and of a decent priority since there's a decent number of Enforcer build popping up that use the free demoralize. This also would certainly be less of an issue if the demoralize consumed a swift action as opposed to always being free.
My interpretation of Enforcer is that the damage has to come from the weapon itself. But Spellstrike does couple the weapon and spell together when it comes to threat range, so maybe it couples them for Enforcer.
Knowing the answer would help me decide whether a Staff Magus should get the Bludgeoner feat.
Sorry, I apparently Flagged the opening post. Stupid tiny popups on my stupid tiny phone screen!
Could anybody clarify "for sure" whether the Frostbite spell used by itself as a touch attack could trigger Enforcer? I'd assume that a Magus with Improved Unarmed Strike could choose to do nonlethal damage and trigger Enforcer, but I wonder whether the spell itself counts as "a melee weapon". I'd think the answer should be yes since Inspire Courage boosts the "weapon damage" from rays, but sometimes things are really complicated.
Oops, I had clicked in from another thread and thought this was the FAQ for whether you could use Frostbite to trigger Enforcer via spellstrike with an otherwise lethal weapon - sorry...
Ok, I've gone ahead and clicked FAQ. I probably won't make a PC named Iceberg Slim even if this turns out to be legal, but I might at least make a build for him.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm necroing this thread because even though it says "Answered in FAQ" at the top, I don't see an answer.
According to The Rules FAQ, and How to Use It:
What happens when the design team answers a question in the FAQ queue?
Normal procedure is for the design team to research the question, discuss the possible options, and come to an agreement on the answer. Then a new FAQ is created, and a post is made to the thread with the discussion to alert everyone that a FAQ answer is available. The FAQ-flagged post is then cleared from the queue; when this happens, new text will appear in the upper right corner of the FAQ-flagged post (next to “## people marked this as a FAQ candidate”), saying “Answered in the FAQ.”
I see no such post in this thread. No link, either. And couldn't find anything by manually searching through FAQs. I also tried googling it (since as far as I can tell Paizo for some reason doesn't have a way to search all FAQs), but the consensus seems to be that there is still no answer.
So, if this has indeed been "Answered in the FAQ," could someone please link it? Thanks!
Because this is a 3 year old thread I mostly skimmed the posts. But Diego answered this correctly 3 years ago. The damage from the spell is not part of the melee weapon damage.
Because this is a 3 year old thread I mostly skimmed the posts. But Diego answered this correctly 3 years ago. The damage from the spell is not part of the melee weapon damage.
Weapon damage and spell damage are separate.
If spell damage was bonus dice to weapon damage, it would not multiply on a crit or have it's own crit multiplier.
|
|
Spellstrike (Su): At 2nd level, whenever a magus casts a spell with a range of “touch” from the magus spell list, he can deliver the spell through any weapon he is wielding as part of a melee attack. Instead of the free melee touch attack normally allowed to deliver the spell, a magus can make one free melee attack with his weapon (at his highest base attack bonus) as part of casting this spell. If successful, this melee attack deals its normal damage(1) as well as the effects of the spell(2). If the magus makes this attack in concert with spell combat, this melee attack takes all the penalties accrued by spell combat melee attacks. This attack uses the weapon's critical range (20, 19–20, or 18–20 and modified by the keen weapon property or similar effects), but the spell effect only deals ×2 damage on a successful critical hit, while the weapon damage uses its own critical modifier(3).
So:
(1) the weapon deal its normal damage;(2) the spell effect is separated from the weapon normal damage;
(3) it has its specific multiplier, separated from that of the weapon.