If a player is playing a ranger / alchemist, does the player get the favored enemy bonus to splash damage when using their bombs?
I believe so. I've seen no rule to the contrary, anyway.
Sarrah wrote: If a player is playing a ranger / alchemist, does the player get the favored enemy bonus to splash damage when using their bombs? If FE is considered Precision Damage, then it does not apply to Splash Damage.
N N 959 wrote: Sarrah wrote: If a player is playing a ranger / alchemist, does the player get the favored enemy bonus to splash damage when using their bombs? If FE is considered Precision Damage, then it does not apply to Splash Damage. It's not precision damage.
Jeff Merola wrote: N N 959 wrote: Sarrah wrote: If a player is playing a ranger / alchemist, does the player get the favored enemy bonus to splash damage when using their bombs? If FE is considered Precision Damage, then it does not apply to Splash Damage. It's not precision damage. Has FE been typed by Paizo?
N N 959 wrote:
Has FE been typed by Paizo?
I don't think so, meaning it applies to pretty much any attack I believe.
There are some circumstances where it does not apply, for example targeting Invisible creatures...and I would suspect creatures with Total Concealment.
N N 959 wrote: There are some circumstances where it does not apply, for example targeting Invisible creatures...and I would suspect creatures with Total Concealment. Favored Enemy wrote: At 1st level, a ranger selects a creature type from the ranger favored enemies table. He gains a +2 bonus on Bluff, Knowledge, Perception, Sense Motive, and Survival checks against creatures of his selected type. Likewise, he gets a +2 bonus on weapon attack and damage rolls against them. A ranger may make Knowledge skill checks untrained when attempting to identify these creatures.
At 5th level and every five levels thereafter (10th, 15th, and 20th level), the ranger may select an additional favored enemy. In addition, at each such interval, the bonus against any one favored enemy (including the one just selected, if so desired) increases by +2.
If the ranger chooses humanoids or outsiders as a favored enemy, he must also choose an associated subtype, as indicated on the table below. (Note that there are other types of humanoid to choose from—those called out specifically on the table below are merely the most common.) If a specific creature falls into more than one category of favored enemy, the ranger's bonuses do not stack; he simply uses whichever bonus is higher.
I'm not seeing where it says Invisibility stops it, although that's not an unreasonable houserule.
And FE is untyped damage, meaning it stacks with everything (except for itself), and it applies on all weapon damage rolls that don't otherwise explicitly say it doesn't.
PRD wrote: Invisibility does not, by itself, make a creature immune to critical hits, but it does make the creature immune to extra damage from being a ranger's favored enemy and from sneak attacks.
N N 959 wrote: PRD wrote: Invisibility does not, by itself, make a creature immune to critical hits, but it does make the creature immune to extra damage from being a ranger's favored enemy and from sneak attacks.
Fair enough. You'd think they'd put that in the ability description that you have to be able to see your target, but that's not really how Paizo does things, I guess.
What's really frustrating is that it's not clear if the same restriction applies to Total Concealment.
It seems like such an odd place to include that piece of information of Favored Enemy. I honestly never knew that before.
Was it included the same way in 3.5? Was this a possible change that didn't have the reference eliminated?
It seems odd because a wildshape or otherwise changed creature that retains it's subtype is still affected normally by favored enemy, so I'm not sure it makes sense to remove it for being invisible. It would make more sense that it wouldn't affect a shapechanged creature than an invisisble one.
In 3.5, iirc, you did not get FE damage if you could not recognize that you were attacking your FE. So if a human was using a spell to look like a gnoll...no FE damage. Nor did your gnoll FE count against the disguised human.
I'll wager the inviso thing was there from 3.5.
To the OP, I would assume you do not get FE bonus on a splash weapon's splash. The point of FE damage is that it is based on your knowledge of how to attack the creature. The splash damage on a "splash" weapon does not afford the attacker any type of skill in the attack. I'd apply FE to the direct damage from the throw weapon, but not the splash.
Except in Pathfinder, you get your favored enemy bonus against a monster even if you don't know it's that kind of monster. So that's an argument with no teeth, unless you're just ruling about how you'd run it.
PF has a lot of gaps in the rules. In some cases its hard to know if the rules were left a certain way intentionally or by oversight.
If invisible creatures are immune to FE damage....why? Two possible reasons:
1. It's an arbitrary balance issue i.e. we want inviso to be that good; or
2. It represents some sort of attempt at real world plausibility.
If it's #2, which it may not be, then what are some logical extension? Splash damage getting FE bonus would be counter-indicated if #2 is a design concern. Nevertheless, it might be intended (see #1) simply to make FE better.
blahpers wrote: Except in Pathfinder, you get your favored enemy bonus against a monster even if you don't know it's that kind of monster. So that's an argument with no teeth, unless you're just ruling about how you'd run it. Exactly. That's why I'm willing to bet in reality you should still get your FE bonus against invisible favored enemies.
FE function differently in Pathfinder than it did in 3.5, which required identifying the enemy properly to function. In Pathfinder, it just works.
Claxon wrote: Exactly. That's why I'm willing to bet in reality you should still get your FE bonus against invisible favored enemies.
What do you mean by "in reality"? RAW says you don't and we are dealing with make-believe. Are you trying to argue that it is a mistake and there needs to be an errata on it?
N N 959 wrote: Claxon wrote: Exactly. That's why I'm willing to bet in reality you should still get your FE bonus against invisible favored enemies.
What do you mean by "in reality"? RAW says you don't and we are dealing with make-believe. Are you trying to argue that it is a mistake and there needs to be an errata on it? Yes
Well, I wouldn't complain if they changed it. They seemed to change it for Incorporeal subtype, but not inviso.
Recent threads in Rules Questions
|
