Weapon type and damage type


Rules Questions

101 to 121 of 121 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
seebs wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:

Well, Transformative, is, weird.

You can put it on a Shield, or Armor Spikes, and that's a whole other thread, or two.

Option 1: 17-level wizard "dip" to pick up shapechange.

Option 2: Amulet of Mighty Fists with Transformative.

Well, Transformative is a flat cost enchantment, so it cannot be added to an Amulet of Mighty Fists.

Paizo Employee Organized Play Developer

Jay the Madman wrote:
graystone said wrote:
If you think so, once again either use a citation or please don't give your opinions as RAW fact in a rules question thread. It sound like that how you'd house-rule it, which is fine but i can't see how it'd RAW.
Can you cite the rule that says a non slashing weapon can be used as a Vorpal weapon?

That's really the crux of the question though. Did the dagger stop being a slashing weapon just because it is currently being used to deal piercing damage? Is it only whatever type it's being used as, or does a dagger always meet the description "slashin weapon" and the description "piercing weapon", with the or property allowing you to decide what you're dealing with a given attack?


blackbloodtroll wrote:
seebs wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:

Well, Transformative, is, weird.

You can put it on a Shield, or Armor Spikes, and that's a whole other thread, or two.

Option 1: 17-level wizard "dip" to pick up shapechange.

Option 2: Amulet of Mighty Fists with Transformative.
Well, Transformative is a flat cost enchantment, so it cannot be added to an Amulet of Mighty Fists.

See, this is just Paizo's famous anti-monk bias showing again.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ssalarn wrote:
Jay the Madman wrote:
graystone said wrote:
If you think so, once again either use a citation or please don't give your opinions as RAW fact in a rules question thread. It sound like that how you'd house-rule it, which is fine but i can't see how it'd RAW.
Can you cite the rule that says a non slashing weapon can be used as a Vorpal weapon?
That's really the crux of the question though. Did the dagger stop being a slashing weapon just because it is currently being used to deal piercing damage? Is it only whatever type it's being used as, or does a dagger always meet the description "slashin weapon" and the description "piercing weapon", with the or property allowing you to decide what you're dealing with a given attack?

For me, I looked at both ways it could be done and one just makes more sense to me and has less odd rules interactions. That's that weapons are always the type of weapon they are listed as on the chart. A dagger is still able to slash even if you're stabbing someone. Keeping track of enchantments and class abilities blinking on and off round to round is very messy.

To be honest I'm more interested in finding out if dealing a damage type will allow you to treat the weapon as that type. (add to it's weapon type not replace it.)


So graystone you think that a duelist can use a dagger as a one handed/light piercing weapon to add precise strike to his attacks while also being able to crit with a 20 and get a vorpal instant kill off is the way the rules work? That is obviously wrong, unless you have a different idea of how that situation works?

Shadow Lodge

Redneckdevil wrote:
EvilPaladin wrote:
Slightly off-topic, but does anyone else think its weird that Vorpal weapons only work on slashing weapons? Because I think if my magical dagger with a blade that is barely as long as my enemy's neck is thick can chop off his head with one chop if I'm lucky, then my Earthbreaker the size of his entire head could lop it off with one lucky blow to the side of the head.

Eh i always viewed vorpal weapons being able to cut anything no matter the size head off withvery powerful magic. Like a magical force or a magical shockwave or something, i mean its a +5 enchant lol.

As far as the earthbreaker u are correct if it was a medium or large npc, but think of that dagger cutting off a gargaunat npc head weilding by a halfling. Does the size of ur eathbreaker which would be like a toothpick really seem like it could knotch a head off on its own? Best way to explain why a small vorpal dagger (IF u can have a vorpal dagger) can cut off the head of a npc the size of a mountain is......very powerful magic :-)

So, very very powerful magic can make a dagger the size of a toothpick chop off the head of a Colossal creature, but no amount of magic can make a hammer so big it is literally called the EARTHBREAKER lop the head off? Even with the magical shock wave theory, I can't see a reason a big magic hammer can't create just as big of a magical shock wave as a small magic dagger.


Ghostwasp wrote:
So graystone you think that a duelist can use a dagger as a one handed/light piercing weapon to add precise strike to his attacks while also being able to crit with a 20 and get a vorpal instant kill off is the way the rules work? That is obviously wrong, unless you have a different idea of how that situation works?

Obviously we have different definitions of 'obviously'. IMO it's obvious that the dagger is a slashing weapon because the weapon chart says it is. As such it's a viable weapon for the vorpal enchant. The enchant NEVER says it only activates on slashing damage so it works as written.

Unless you can find a quote, FAQ or rule that states the enchantment requirement translates into a damage requirement, I'm going to follow what's actually printed in the book.

"Upon a roll of natural 20 (followed by a successful roll to confirm the critical hit), the weapon severs the opponent's head (if it has one) from its body." NOT
'Upon a roll of natural 20 while dealing slashing damage (followed by a successful roll to confirm the critical hit), the weapon severs the opponent's head (if it has one) from its body.'


graystone, the relevant text is obvious: "A weapon with two types is both types if the entry specifies “and,” or either type (wielder’s choice) if the entry specifies “or.”" Since vorpal can only be used on slashing weapons (daggers can count as such) then when it is used as a piercing weapon it is no longer slashing and can longer use the vorpal enchantment. Your also saying that a duelist can use a dagger as a slashing weapon and still get the precise strike bonus which is again obviously wrong. When commenting in the "rules questions" section of the message boards please use the actual rules and not your house rules.


Dude. Please point out the text where a weapon EVER loses it's weapon type. 'Or' weapons can pick what damage type they deal but where does it say the type changes? I'm still waiting for you to show that RULE.

Before preaching about how to act in a rules thread, maybe bring a ruling that's on point?

Please point to a rule that 'or' weapons lose one weapon type when dealing the other damage.
Please show me the rule where Vorpal activates from slashing damage only.
Without those two rulings, I'm seeing "obviously wrong" but it's not in MY posts.

I agree with the quotes you posted. They just don't say what you think they do.


Graystone: That's the footnote to the weapon table.

PRD wrote:
2 A weapon with two types is both types if the entry specifies “and,” or either type (wielder's choice) if the entry specifies “or.”

So that says that the weapon is either type. But not both types.

This does, however, contradict other text, which is why I started the thread.


graystone, no rule spells out this exact situation. It is ludicrous to expect the pathfinder writers/developers to do so for everything.
The simple fact is if an enchantment can only be placed on a slashing weapon that implies that it can only be used while slashing. To believe/argue otherwise is willful misinterpretation and simply wrong, sounding solely like "it doesn't say I can't" rules twisting.
Without a developer chiming in or this getting FAQ how ever there is no convincing you, so I'll just be ignoring your post in all message boards from now on.


Yes, I know what it says. I'm noting that it doesn't say you lose a type or that slashing damage is required to activate vorpal.

I find this to be a MUCH more accurate PRD quote about it. "In other cases, a weapon can deal either of two types of damage. In a situation where the damage type is significant, the wielder can choose which type of damage to deal with such a weapon." I believe that if there is a difference between the text and a chart, the text is considered right.

Taking that quote, it's clear that it means damage dealt changes not what weapon type it is. The first quote IMO is mixing weapon type and damage type because they tries to condense text for footnote.


Ghostwasp wrote:


The simple fact is if an enchantment can only be placed on a slashing weapon that implies that it can only be used while slashing. To believe/argue otherwise is willful misinterpretation and simply wrong, sounding solely like "it doesn't say I can't" rules twisting.

Implies means that it's NOT stated in the rules. Where you not the person chiding me on what not to do in a rules thread? :P

#1 I'm arguing RAW.
#2 I don't agree with your logic that a requirement for enchantment makes a requirement in damage type. You don't seem to understand that some people just might not think the same way as you.


I thought a dagger couldnt be enchanted with vorpal because the chart with vorpal enchant states (slashing weapons only) since a dagger can be slashing or piercing?

I would like to know for certain if a longsword enchanted with vorpal and has the feat that lets the player make the weapon do any type of weapon damage and goes against something with a DR bludgeoning and decides to use bludgeoning instead of slashing and rolls a natural 20...would vorpal proc?

Ive already stated my case but i will also admit the things i have that go in favor of it not was written before new abilities and feats let u use a weapon a different way and will since theybwere written after do they override what was before?


If it was ONLY slashing damage you couldn't have a vorpal Scythe. That seems very odd. Myself, I figured that slashing just meant that slashing damage had to be in the type column.

Myself, even before the new stuff, I played it as the weapon itself had to have slashing in it's types and damage dealt didn't matter. Never had anyone make an issue of it. Note this was mostly with keen and blunt damage as vorpal is high level.


graystone wrote:

If it was ONLY slashing damage you couldn't have a vorpal Scythe. That seems very odd. Myself, I figured that slashing just meant that slashing damage had to be in the type column.

Myself, even before the new stuff, I played it as the weapon itself had to have slashing in it's types and damage dealt didn't matter. Never had anyone make an issue of it. Note this was mostly with keen and blunt damage as vorpal is high level.

Ahh the scythe, one of my biggest disappointments from my dm when he showed me the scythes that were used in battle didnt look as badass as most of the ones we see based of the farmers tool.when he showed me what scythes thatbwere used as weapons looked like u can understand why vorpal doesnt work on them since they were mainly used to stab the opponent from far away and the slashing part of the blade was there as a secondary effect to bleed out the opponent as a bonus :-(

Scythes still look badass in my mind if i ever get to play one as a character. Sadly i stay away feom them as a gm.
Also for the record in my games i have no problem with a scythe or a dagger being enchanted with vorpal (which i think is against RAW but i dont care for my home games) but will only have vorpal go off of they are doing slashing type damage. Weither a dev says what im doing ir right or wrong wont change that for my home games, i am merely here outta curiosity sake if what i am doing is raw or not. If that makes sense :-)


I think the answer is simply that different authors meant different things when writing different rules. It is a common issue considering that different rules are written at different times by different people.

Some instances where probably conceived "must be an XXX weapon, where the weapon itself must have the XXX type," while others were "using a XXX weapon means a weapon dealing XXX damage."


Well if ANY normal weapon was going to lop off the head of a moving target I'd say it was the scythe. ;)

As to the rest, yeah I understand. The Dev's might end up ruling in a way I think is different than the way I'm reading it. They've done it in the past and have been doing it more often by bringing up 'unwritten rules' that only they know.

For me a ruling MIGHT change things since I play games online. But as I said above, I really haven't had anyone looking twice at keen weapons dealing blunt damage...


Samasboy1 wrote:

I think the answer is simply that different authors meant different things when writing different rules. It is a common issue considering that different rules are written at different times by different people.

Some instances where probably conceived "must be an XXX weapon, where the weapon itself must have the XXX type," while others were "using a XXX weapon means a weapon dealing XXX damage."

Word. All you have to do is look at all the different ways 'wield' is used. Hold, ready to attack, actually currently attacking,... They run into a lot of issue with words that don't have a real description or are overused. For instance type and level are used a LOT all over the rules when they aren't the same thing.


graystone wrote:

Well if ANY normal weapon was going to lop off the head of a moving target I'd say it was the scythe. ;)

As to the rest, yeah I understand. The Dev's might end up ruling in a way I think is different than the way I'm reading it. They've done it in the past and have been doing it more often by bringing up 'unwritten rules' that only they know.

For me a ruling MIGHT change things since I play games online. But as I said above, I really haven't had anyone looking twice at keen weapons dealing blunt damage...

Totally agree about the scythe :-)

Yeah its happened with me as well, ive been wrong more times than ive been right.
ahh yeah the ruling would or might have a bigger impact on u than for me.
tbh like i stated i was merely here outta curiosity sake. To me im gonna bow out and say that i would be happy if this wasnt answered with an official response. Since it can impact on "fun" in the game id say leave it up for what works best for fun in that group. Since its not offcial cut and dry, the people who want vorpal to go off no matter what type damage they are doing if they feel they met the requirements for the enchant and those who want it to go off and be enchanted another way are both on equal grounds meaning u can be following the rules no matter which way u do depending on what the group wants.
and since thats how i feel about the subject and we are in the rules section im gonna bow out.
because i have something to lose as well........(cradles future vorpal scythe in my arms)

Lantern Lodge

I take dagger.

I PIERCE my enemy's body.

I then SLASH left removing the weapon from opponent's body.

I rolled max dmg.

The enemy has DR vs Piercing then the dagger did not go in very deep but the slash was wider so the player was using it as a slashing weapon.

or

The enemy has DR vs Slashing then the dagger went in very deep but the slash was shorter so the player was using it as a piercing weapon.

Exception: On the first attack the GM asks the question,
"Are you poking it or slashing it?"

Which is a valid question on the first attack. If the player realizes that the initial type of damage was not as effective as she thought and on the follow up attack she realizes that Attack style B works better than Attack style A then the problem is solved no?

101 to 121 of 121 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Weapon type and damage type All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.