| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Does impact weapon allow a medium warpriest to use the sacred weapon damage track for a large warpriest?
Does impact weapon allow a medium warpriest to use the sacred weapon damage track for a large warpriest?
Since the warpriest's class feature overrides the weapon's listed damage dice, and Impact only affects the weapon's damage dice, no.
I disagree. Warpriest changes the base weapon damage, while Impact raises your effective size. I believe it absolutely works.
However, Impact in general is absolutely not worth putting on your weapons until you've already got a +5 weapon, because it will almost always add less DPR than its equivalent enhancement bonus.
|
The outside of that "almost always" would be something like if you're a Vital Strike warpriest.
Here's a couple good options that work for this
Weapon:
base -> impact -> vital strike
vs
base -> additional +2 -> vital strike
greatsword
2d6 -> 3d6 -> 6d6
vs
2d6 -> 2d6 + 2 -> 4d6 + 2
earthbreaker
1d10 -> 2d8 -> 4d8
1d10 -> 1d10 + 2 -> 2d10 + 2
As you can see, if you go the vital strike route impact works better impact than increasing the enhancement bonus by an equivalent amount.
This is assuming you're doing other things to maximize your single attack bonuses. Warpriests get a lower bab so Vital Strike works better for them than other classes (because they can get it before they get their first iterative). But it will fall behind later (much later) if you can't keep the single hits maximized.
However, an increase to hit of +2 is the more important factor than the +2 damage. Since it is a 3/4 BAB class, they have a harder time reaching the to-hit cap, thus putting a premium on weapon enchantments.
So yes, on the damage of a successful hit calculation, it is definitely better to do impact, but in the ability to actually get the hit (and for confirming criticals), I believe it is more useful to get the +2 bonus on attack rolls (until you hit your level's target number).
I believe it is an either or proposition.
You can have either the damage of the weapon (whether enhanced by bashing or impact is immaterial) or you can have the dice granted by the Sacred Weapon class feature.
If the weapon's damage dice is greater than the Sacred Weapon damage you're under no obligation to use Sacred Weapon, but the damage provided by SAcred Weapon is due to a divine connection with their god it has nothing to do with the weapon.
I disagree. Warpriest changes the base weapon damage, while Impact raises your effective size. I believe it absolutely works.
However, Impact in general is absolutely not worth putting on your weapons until you've already got a +5 weapon, because it will almost always add less DPR than its equivalent enhancement bonus.
Bringing up the relevant text:
Whenever the warpriest hits with his sacred weapon, the weapon damage is based on his level and not the weapon type. The warpriest can decide to use the weapon's base damage instead of the sacred weapon damage—this must be declared before the attack roll is made. (If the weapon's base damage exceeds the sacred weapon damage, its damage is unchanged.) This increase in damage does not affect any other aspect of the weapon, and doesn't apply to alchemical items, bombs, or other weapons that only deal energy damage.
An impact weapon delivers a potent kinetic jolt when it strikes, dealing damage as if the weapon were one size category larger.
While I can see the argument made for it being applicable to Sacred Weapon damage (the book doesn't specify that it isn't weapon damage, more than it's an alternate form of weapon damage), I'm inclined to think that is not RAI for two reasons. Mainly is that I don't think the devs viewed Sacred Weapon damage as being its own form of weapon damage, merely that it overrides what the weapon previously had. Additionally, I doubt it's RAI for Impact to apply to Sacred Weapon damage in the first place.
Does impact weapon allow a medium warpriest to use the sacred weapon damage track for a large warpriest?Since the warpriest's class feature overrides the weapon's listed damage dice, and Impact only affects the weapon's damage dice, no.
I agree with this. Either weapon damage or sacred weapon damage. Impact is like wielding a large or huge dagger and expecting the sacred weapon damage to go up because of it.
Right but if I cast Enlarge on a warpriest her damage would increase to the Large sized warpriest table for sacred weapon which make me think that Sacred weapon might be devotion to the use of the weapon allowing it to be used beyond its normal limits. And if that is the case I feel the case could me made for impact increasing sacred damage.
Nah, you can become enlarged and use impact at the same time.
|
Would a Zen Archer using their Ki Arrows class feature benefit from Gravity Bow?
Would a Feral Combat Trained Tengu Monk benefit from Improved Natural Attack?
Would a Warpriest of Apsu benefit from Improved Natural Attack (Bite)?
Would a Zen Archer using their Ki Arrows class feature benefit from Gravity Bow?
Would a Feral Combat Trained Tengu Monk benefit from Improved Natural Attack?
Would a Warpriest of Apsu benefit from Improved Natural Attack (Bite)?
In my opinion:
Yes, Gravity Bow would boost Ki Arrows. But anyone using their swift/ki on Ki Arrows instead of an extra attack is a fool anyway.
I'm not really sure what effect Feral Combat Training would have that might interact with Improved Natural Attack. Are you seriously suggesting the natural weapon would be allowed to use the monk unarmed damage progression? No way, that's not how I read that feat at all.
And yes, the warpriest could benefit from Improved Natural Bite.
My stance is that the warpriest (and similar features like the monk/brawler) change the base damage of the weapon in question, so other effects that alter it stack on top of the new base damage. I can see the logic of the other side, I just disagree.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Would a Zen Archer using their Ki Arrows class feature benefit from Gravity Bow?
Would a Feral Combat Trained Tengu Monk benefit from Improved Natural Attack?
Would a Warpriest of Apsu benefit from Improved Natural Attack (Bite)?
I'm not really sure what effect Feral Combat Training would have that might interact with Improved Natural Attack. Are you seriously suggesting the natural weapon would be allowed to use the monk unarmed damage progression? No way, that's not how I read that feat at all.
It's official that you can use the Monk's IUS damage on a natural attack if you have FCT. faq
|
|
It's official that you can use the Monk's IUS damage on a natural attack if you have FCT. faqWould a Zen Archer using their Ki Arrows class feature benefit from Gravity Bow?
Would a Feral Combat Trained Tengu Monk benefit from Improved Natural Attack?
Would a Warpriest of Apsu benefit from Improved Natural Attack (Bite)?
I'm not really sure what effect Feral Combat Training would have that might interact with Improved Natural Attack. Are you seriously suggesting the natural weapon would be allowed to use the monk unarmed damage progression? No way, that's not how I read that feat at all.
The part that isn't official is the part about how whether or not INA interacts with the scaling monk level-based damage.
It's official that you can use the Monk's IUS damage on a natural attack if you have FCT. faqWould a Zen Archer using their Ki Arrows class feature benefit from Gravity Bow?
Would a Feral Combat Trained Tengu Monk benefit from Improved Natural Attack?
Would a Warpriest of Apsu benefit from Improved Natural Attack (Bite)?
I'm not really sure what effect Feral Combat Training would have that might interact with Improved Natural Attack. Are you seriously suggesting the natural weapon would be allowed to use the monk unarmed damage progression? No way, that's not how I read that feat at all.
Wow, that's bonkers--not at all what I thought. Interesting--makes certain lower damage natural attacks much more useful.
Would a Zen Archer using their Ki Arrows class feature benefit from Gravity Bow?
Would a Feral Combat Trained Tengu Monk benefit from Improved Natural Attack?
Would a Warpriest of Apsu benefit from Improved Natural Attack (Bite)?
IMO the answer to all of those is no. In every instance you are given the option of using two different damages. All of the linked effects only work on one of those damages and don't interact in any way with the other.
Now it IS possible that those effects could raise the base weapon damage over the unarmed damage and then it'd have an effect. For instance:
1) a med longbow + spell would deal 2d6, better than a 1d or d8 for a low level monk.
2) a Wyvaran's tail + FCT is better than the base to start then adding INA only makes it longer before the unarmed attack overcomes it.
3) Lets start with a tengu. a d3 to a d4 still means a sacred weapon damage is better than it.
Myself I really don't see the other side of the argument because the damage swap is an option, it's not a permanent change in the damage. So any buff has to go on the base damage since you don't even get the option to swap out the damage until the attack hits and you have to figure out if you want to use the second damage total or not.
Impact increases the weapons damage by one size category.
A warpriest that's one size larger does more damage. Quit it with the "source". Your character swings the weapon.
Will people please stop nick picking the rules with a fine tooth comb. It's getting ridiculous.
By peoples rational a warpriest can never benefit from Impact in any way.
Seriously? This is the game you want to play? Go be lawyers.
Impact increases the weapons damage by one size category.
A warpriest that's one size larger does more damage. Quit it with the "source". Your character swings the weapon.
Will people please stop nick picking the rules with a fine tooth comb. It's getting ridiculous.
By peoples rational a warpriest can never benefit from Impact in any way.
Seriously? This is the game you want to play? Go be lawyers.
Yes, a warpriest that gets a few levels doesn't get any use out of Impact. Your weapon's size doesn't affect your characters size. Wielding a large dagger doesn't change your size or your sacred weapon dice. Why would impact? It's making the weapon 'bigger' and that just doesn't matter for the sacred weapon ability as it checks your CHARACTER's size.
If you want impact for your warpriest, I suggest using it on a dwarven longhammer. That way it's 3d6 damage beats your sacred weapon damage and you can get your effect that way.
Not my point.
A warpriest has an oversized dagger and an undersized dagger. They do the same damage even though they're different sizes.
That is just obnoxious. This is clearly a bug and not a feature.
Sacred weapon alters the base weapons damage. By some "interpretation" the wording seems to not allow for impact, because the warpriest's size is what dictates the damage, not the size of the weapon? I understand the wording can be read that way, but c'mon. This is a ridiculously strict interpretation.
Thanks for the suggestion though. I guess if I wanted to ignore a class feature that clearly doesn't work as intended I could go that route.
Impact increases the weapons damage by one size category.
A warpriest that's one size larger does more damage. Quit it with the "source". Your character swings the weapon.
Will people please stop nick picking the rules with a fine tooth comb. It's getting ridiculous.
By peoples rational a warpriest can never benefit from Impact in any way.
Seriously? This is the game you want to play? Go be lawyers.
You act though as if splitting hairs is a silly thing to do when it comes to this game. It's not. Saying 'he did it,' when there's no male creature around, makes no sense. Saying 'she did it,' when not specifying which woman we're talking about, in a group of women, also isn't clear enough. (It's only through the pointing of fingers and/or singling out of the multiples that the proper meaning gets across.)
Whether you like it or not, specifics are important, if it's legal documents, or the rules of a game, and failing to properly define those specifics, and the subjects related to those specifics, leads to problems. Problems that, if not addressed, leads to consequences several people don't want to deal with.
Additionally, parsing what the rules mean and what a legal document entails are, fundamentally speaking, the same paradigm. There are several reasons that people play this game, and quite frankly, several of those who make a career of dissecting legal documents and other business paraphernalia are also people who play Pathfinder. And by the way you treat those who 'play legalese' with Pathfinder, I'm sure you'd say the opposite is also true. (That is, those who play Pathfinder are also great at reading legal documents and such.)
Lastly, who are you to tell us what we want to play? I didn't realize my parents actually gave a damn about this game and are telling me "Timmy, if you don't select a level of Wizard right now, I'm going to ground you from playing Pathfinder." If we want to play "Pathfinder: Suits and Lawyers Edition," we can do that all we want with those who share that likeness. We'd also play "Pathfinder: Monopoly Edition" (AKA How to cheese the game) and "Pathfinder: Houseruled to be a Completely Different Game Edition" if we felt like it.
Not my point.
A warpriest has an oversized dagger and an undersized dagger. They do the same damage even though they're different sizes.
That is just obnoxious. This is clearly a bug and not a feature.
You and I disagree then. The feature SHOULD work the same no matter what the weapon size or damage IMO. Why should a large or impact dagger do more damage than a normal one when the dagger doesn't do more damage than brass knuckles, blowguna or the mancatchera. For me, a set damage IS a feature and not a bug.
Sacred weapon alters the base weapons damage. By some "interpretation" the wording seems to not allow for impact, because the warpriest's size is what dictates the damage, not the size of the weapon? I understand the wording can be read that way, but c'mon. This is a ridiculously strict interpretation.This is where you start going wrong. It NEVER alters the base. You only get the option of using sacred OR base damage. "The warpriest can decide to use the weapon’s base damage instead of the sacred weapon damage—this must be declared before the attack roll is made." The weapons base damage stays the same but at the time of attack you may use sacred weapon damage instead. I honestly can't see the "interpretation" that would allow impact to do anything to the sacred weapon damage.
Thanks for the suggestion though. I guess if I wanted to ignore a class feature that clearly doesn't work as intended I could go that route.
That is the choice that ALL warpriests have to weigh. Do you use a smaller die weapon and get the most out of sacred weapon or use a high dice weapon and know that you'll ignore the feature at least part of your levels.
Actually, Impact wouldn't work on a Dagger to begin with. A dagger is a light weapon and Impact can't be applied to light weapons :)
And that actually makes sense as a light weapons weigh very little. Is kinda sad that few Weapon Finesse capable weapons will be able to take advantage of it. On another note: Impact weapon + Effortless Lace= weapon finesse + impact?
Not my point.
A warpriest has an oversized dagger and an undersized dagger. They do the same damage even though they're different sizes.
That is just obnoxious. This is clearly a bug and not a feature.
um! That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Back to basics use a normal dagger and a normal greatsword and sacred weapon does exactly the same damage. It could be a small dagger or a large greatsword even and sacred weapon still does exactly the same damage. That is exactly how sacred weapon is supposed to work. The size of the weapon is irrelevant. It is not a bug.
And that actually makes sense as a light weapons weigh very little.
IMO it makes little sense. It weigh enough to get full strength damage, what possible reason shouldn't impact work on them? It was for an arbitrary or meta-game reason not a logical one.
Lets look at weapons:
Dwarven boulder helmet 10 lbs.
Dwarven maulaxe 5 lbs.
Light mace 4 lbs.
Pata 3 lbs.
Boarding axe 3 lbs.
Gladius 3 lbs.
Handaxe 3 lbs.
Mere club 2 lbs.
Rapier 2 lbs.
Sibat 2 lbs.
Sawtooth sabre 2 lbs.
Terbutje 2 lbs.
Whip 2 lbs.
Now pick the out the light weapons from the one handed ones by weight. Hint, if you pick the lighter 2 lb weapons as light, you're wrong.
The damage is the same no matter what weapon you wield, but, for whatever bizarre reason, size matters. It would have made perfect sense to me if a halfling Warpriest and an ogre Warpriest of the same level did the same damage because it's magic faith damage or whatever, but it's not. It works just like a Monk's Unarmed Strike, or the Brawler's ability--you can use the Sacred Weapon damage, or the base weapon damage as your weapon damage. Everything else about the weapon stays the same.
This is why I believe Impact would affect it. Enlarge Person matters, why not Lead Blades? Both spells affect the person, not the weapon, after all.
To me, an 5th level Warpriest with a scimitar is dealing 1d8 damage (or, if they choose, 1d6). If it is an Impact Scimitar, it'd be treated as on size larger, so it would be 2d6 (or, if they choose, 1d8). I don't see how it's any different from a Flaming Scimitar. Would you suggest the warpriest would need to choose between 1d8 and 1d6 + 1d6(fire)?
All that said, though, this should never come up. Impact is, 90% of the time, a trap. It's a terrible weapon enchant that adds much less dpr than a simple +2 hit/damage would in the vast majority of cases. It's a bad idea, so, stop worrying about it and leave it to the silly Timmy types that want to roll big handfuls of dice without really caring what those dice average.
The classification also has to do with ease of use and how the weight is distributed. Of course there are weird exceptions, there are one handed weapons that Impact can apply to that it really shouldn't. If you can think of a good way to apply the Impact quality to a Rapier without bludgeoning someone to death with the hilt, I'd like to hear it. Oh, and none(?), lightx6, one handed x6.
Impact and lead blades both explicitly increase the effective size of the weapon. Sacred Weapon explicitly ignores the size of the weapon, and solely cares about the size of the wielder.
Whether we would prefer that it worked differently, or feel that it makes no sense as written, is irrelevant (or maybe a matter for a different forum) the rules are clear with little room for ambiguity (or at least far less room than normal).
It works just like a Monk's Unarmed Strike, or the Brawler's ability--you can use the Sacred Weapon damage, or the base weapon damage as your weapon damage. Everything else about the weapon stays the same.
I agree. However, impact is added to base weapon damage. Sacred weapon isn't a 'weapon' you can upgrade, you can only upgrade your size.
To me, an 5th level Warpriest with a scimitar is dealing 1d8 damage (or, if they choose, 1d6).
And right at the start is why size of the weapon doesn't matter. Replace scimitar with dagger, fist, wooden stake, longsword, ect and sacred damage STILL does 1d8. Take a large or small dagger and it STILL does 1d8. How big or small the weapon is doesn't alter the chart as your based damage damage stays the same.
This is why I believe Impact would affect it. Enlarge Person matters, why not Lead Blades? Both spells affect the person, not the weapon, after all.
Because one affects the person and the other affects the weapons of said person.
I would let Warpriest sacred damage and Impact stack. For me the only question is if I'd advance the weapon die in accordance to the Impact table or the small/large warpriest table. I'd personally go with the impact table.
And this is what ends the conversation.
It all comes down to whether or not you're playing Society or a home game. In society the parsing of rules matters. In home games you'll have table variance.
For me, the fact that the physical size of the wielder is what matters is absolutely ridiculous. It should contribute to the final result, not be the end all be all.
Peel away at the rules all you want. Argue the point to death so you can feel right about something trivial. Go ahead and call it house ruling. I say it's the kind of thing that pulls me out of the story and makes it too much like a game.
Story first, game second.
Never thought I'd be in the minority on this.
The deity can only bless to fit the size of a character. Bigger characters can have more blessing. Smaller character can't have as much. That's why it's based on size ;)
I would let Warpriest sacred damage and Impact stack. For me the only question is if I'd advance the weapon die in accordance to the Impact table or the small/large warpriest table. I'd personally go with the impact table.And this is what ends the conversation.
It all comes down to whether or not you're playing Society or a home game. In society the parsing of rules matters. In home games you'll have table variance.
For me, the fact that the physical size of the wielder is what matters is absolutely ridiculous. It should contribute to the final result, not be the end all be all.
Peel away at the rules all you want. Argue the point to death so you can feel right about something trivial. Go ahead and call it house ruling. I say it's the kind of thing that pulls me out of the story and makes it too much like a game.
Story first, game second.
Never thought I'd be in the minority on this.
You seems to think that those that disagree with you are no good rules lawyers twisting the rules JUST to make you wrong. That isn't the case. To ME it makes sense the way I described it. I'm not in PFS and don't have a current character that uses this. I just read the rules, and it was clear to me how to it read. Once I did, it sounded right.
To be clear, it's a magic ability given to you be your god. It could be based on shoe, hat or waist size but the DEV's based it on your characters size. Character size isn't weapon size. As always, if you find it silly, you don't have to follow the rules but expect other in the RULES section of the forum to repeatedly point out that it isn't RAW. In the RAW section, story comes last and the game comes first.
I am an asshat.
I took this way too far and apologize. Rules are rules and they're there for a reason. Attacking people just because they disagree with me makes me the kind of person I hate. Sorry.
I may disagree with what the intention is, but that doesn't change the wording. Peacing out.
|
This is why I just ask GMs how they rule it when I move from table to table.
Currently my Sacred Weapon damage is 1d8, and the base weapon damage is 1d6.
With Bashing that either translates to 3d6 or 2d6.
But he's gotten to the point where he's pumping out so much damage anyways that I'm fine either way.
Would a Zen Archer using their Ki Arrows class feature benefit from Gravity Bow?
Would a Feral Combat Trained Tengu Monk benefit from Improved Natural Attack?
Would a Warpriest of Apsu benefit from Improved Natural Attack (Bite)?
IMO the answer to all of those is no. In every instance you are given the option of using two different damages. All of the linked effects only work on one of those damages and don't interact in any way with the other.
Now it IS possible that those effects could raise the base weapon damage over the unarmed damage and then it'd have an effect. For instance:
1) a med longbow + spell would deal 2d6, better than a 1d or d8 for a low level monk.
2) a Wyvaran's tail + FCT is better than the base to start then adding INA only makes it longer before the unarmed attack overcomes it.
3) Lets start with a tengu. a d3 to a d4 still means a sacred weapon damage is better than it.
Myself I really don't see the other side of the argument because the damage swap is an option, it's not a permanent change in the damage. So any buff has to go on the base damage since you don't even get the option to swap out the damage until the attack hits and you have to figure out if you want to use the second damage total or not.
And yet there's a table for both the monk and the warpriest for their specific damage types as large or small creatures...
And yet there's a table for both the monk and the warpriest for their specific damage types as large or small creatures...Would a Zen Archer using their Ki Arrows class feature benefit from Gravity Bow?
Would a Feral Combat Trained Tengu Monk benefit from Improved Natural Attack?
Would a Warpriest of Apsu benefit from Improved Natural Attack (Bite)?
IMO the answer to all of those is no. In every instance you are given the option of using two different damages. All of the linked effects only work on one of those damages and don't interact in any way with the other.
Now it IS possible that those effects could raise the base weapon damage over the unarmed damage and then it'd have an effect. For instance:
1) a med longbow + spell would deal 2d6, better than a 1d or d8 for a low level monk.
2) a Wyvaran's tail + FCT is better than the base to start then adding INA only makes it longer before the unarmed attack overcomes it.
3) Lets start with a tengu. a d3 to a d4 still means a sacred weapon damage is better than it.
Myself I really don't see the other side of the argument because the damage swap is an option, it's not a permanent change in the damage. So any buff has to go on the base damage since you don't even get the option to swap out the damage until the attack hits and you have to figure out if you want to use the second damage total or not.
You're misunderstanding the point he's making. It's about the size of the creature, not the effective size of the weapon, which alters the damage dice involved for Sacred Weapon/Monk IUS. In such cases, spells like Enlarge Person would adjust the damage dice, whereas Lead Blades would not. An Impact weapon's effective damage dice could make it go beyond what the weapon is normally capable of, but that's it. Unless that damage increase becomes superior to Sacred Weapon, it won't override it.
if he activates the ability to use his US damage for bows, yes Enlarger person works to up his arrows damage. And yes it's odd.
It's still a ranged attack, so the arrow would still be treated as if shot from a medium creature, not a large creature, so no, it wouldn't scale up.
So, normally, Enlarge Person is of no use to an archer, because the arrows shrink down the moment they leave your person, but you're saying that it still works for a Zen Archer?Why is this? If I look in the weapon table the damage is based off of the bow, not the arrows.
it's in the spell enlarger person.
"All equipment worn or carried by a creature is similarly enlarged by the spell. Melee weapons affected by this spell deal more damage (see Table: Medium/Large Weapon Damage). Other magical properties are not affected by this spell. Any enlarged item that leaves an enlarged creature's possession (including a projectile or thrown weapon) instantly returns to its normal size. This means that thrown and projectile weapons deal their normal damage. Magical properties of enlarged items are not increased by this spell."
|
|
So, normally, Enlarge Person is of no use to an archer, because the arrows shrink down the moment they leave your person, but you're saying that it still works for a Zen Archer?Why is this? If I look in the weapon table the damage is based off of the bow, not the arrows.it's in the spell enlarger person.
"All equipment worn or carried by a creature is similarly enlarged by the spell. Melee weapons affected by this spell deal more damage (see Table: Medium/Large Weapon Damage). Other magical properties are not affected by this spell. Any enlarged item that leaves an enlarged creature's possession (including a projectile or thrown weapon) instantly returns to its normal size. This means that thrown and projectile weapons deal their normal damage. Magical properties of enlarged items are not increased by this spell."
Ah, there it is, I'd forgotten about that line.
It's still a ranged attack, so the arrow would still be treated as if shot from a medium creature, not a large creature, so no, it wouldn't scale up.
Yes and no. Yes, this is correct as a general rule, but the Zen Archer archetype for the Monk has a Ki Power that states...
Ki Arrows (Su)
At 5th level, a zen archer may spend 1 point from his ki pool as a swift action to change the damage dice of arrows he shoots to that of his unarmed strikes. This lasts until the start of his next turn. For example, a Medium zen archer’s short bow normally deals 1d6 damage; using this ability, his arrows deal 1d8 damage until the start of his next turn.
This ability replaces purity of body.
So on the above case, a Zen Archer's arrows would benefit from such spells as enlarge person, since the damage dice is changed to reflect the unarmed damage dice table for a monk of his size.