Studied Combat says:
"(...) Upon doing so, he adds 1/2 his investigator level as an insight bonus on melee attack rolls and as a bonus on damage rolls against the creature."
To me that sounds as if you receive the bonus on damage even on non-melee damage rolls. I'd say it was not intended that way (?), but then why was it not phrased more clearly and shorter, like e.g.:
"(...) Upon doing so, he adds 1/2 his investigator level as an insight bonus on melee attack and damage rolls against the creature."
Maybe it's because I am not a native speaker, but it seems someone used an unnecessarily complicated language for a simple rule (IF he wanted the bonus only to apply to melee damage, that is).
What do you say?
That does certainly seem to be the case--even ranged damage rolls should be affected. I can't think of any other reason to word it that way.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This question came up in the discussion of the blog post for the iconic Investigator.
Stephen Radney-MacFarland addressed the phrasing here
The attack and damage rolls are for melee attacks. The bonus to damage is not an insight bonus (it is just a bonus) that is why the sentence is parsed like that.
There are ways that you can get studied strike with ranged attacks, so no worries about that for the folk who want it.
So I'm afraid it is melee only without something extra like the Ranged Study feat.
Then it would be a good idea to correct the text, as that isn't what the rule says. Good to know the intent, though.
Thanks blaphers, Gisher an EvilPaladin for your answers. Could you imagine a reason for the damage bonus not to be an insight bonus, like are there possible issues with stacking bonuses? Because there are obviously no problems with an insight bonus on attack rolls.
This question came up in the discussion of the blog post for the iconic Investigator.
Stephen Radney-MacFarland addressed the phrasing here
So I'm afraid it is melee only without something extra like the Ranged Study feat.The attack and damage rolls are for melee attacks. The bonus to damage is not an insight bonus (it is just a bonus) that is why the sentence is parsed like that.
There are ways that you can get studied strike with ranged attacks, so no worries about that for the folk who want it.
Well now we know RAI. Who knows when/if they'll get around to changing the RAW to match the RAI.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thanks blaphers, Gisher an EvilPaladin for your answers. Could you imagine a reason for the damage bonus not to be an insight bonus, like are there possible issues with stacking bonuses? Because there are obviously no problems with an insight bonus on attack rolls.
They try to avoid too many "typed" bonuses to damage. I'm not sure if this is an official policy but types more frequently come into attack rolls than they do in damage rolls.
I'm not happy with the phrasing either, but the intent is clear from Stephen's comments. It is also clarified in the description of the Ranged Study feat.
Ranged Study
You can use a limited form of studied combat and studied strike with a weapon of your choice.
Prerequisites: Weapon Focus with the chosen weapon, studied combat† class feature.
Benefit: Choose one kind of ranged weapon. You gain the bonuses for studied combat with your chosen weapon and can use studied strike with your chosen weapon as long as the target of your studied strike is within 30 feet of you.
Normal: You gain the bonuses for studied combat and can use studied strike only with melee weapons.
Thanks blaphers, Gisher an EvilPaladin for your answers. Could you imagine a reason for the damage bonus not to be an insight bonus, like are there possible issues with stacking bonuses? Because there are obviously no problems with an insight bonus on attack rolls.
The damage is already identified as precision damage. My guess is that they didn't want to muddy the waters by creating a category called "insight precision damage" which works just like every other kind of precision damage.