Hmm
I just had a GM at DragonCon block my Kineticist from using Bardic Music damage and other "weapon damage" bonuses to my attacks. Boo.
Bah! PFS GMs think they know everything. It's been my experience that they are actually FAR less rules savvy than most home-game GMs.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Bah! PFS GMs think they know everything. It's been my experience that they are actually FAR less rules savvy than most home-game GMs.Hmm
I just had a GM at DragonCon block my Kineticist from using Bardic Music damage and other "weapon damage" bonuses to my attacks. Boo.
"Some PFS GMs" or "PFS GMS in my experience", would have been more appropriate statements.
"Some PFS GMs" or "PFS GMS in my experience", would have been more appropriate statements.Bah! PFS GMs think they know everything. It's been my experience that they are actually FAR less rules savvy than most home-game GMs.Hmm
I just had a GM at DragonCon block my Kineticist from using Bardic Music damage and other "weapon damage" bonuses to my attacks. Boo.
"It's been my experience" wasn't enough of a qualifier?
Fair enough, LazarX. I shall tread more carefully in the future.
|
|
"It's been my experience" wasn't enough of a qualifier?"Some PFS GMs" or "PFS GMS in my experience", would have been more appropriate statements.Bah! PFS GMs think they know everything. It's been my experience that they are actually FAR less rules savvy than most home-game GMs.Hmm
I just had a GM at DragonCon block my Kineticist from using Bardic Music damage and other "weapon damage" bonuses to my attacks. Boo.
That qualifier was on a different sentence and therefore does nto grammatically apply, especially as it was on a sentence that came after. At least that is how I read the language. As an alternative, you could have dedicated a sentence somewhere in the post clarifying that you were only speaking of your experience, but I find it is best to lead off with that then.
Note, I am a hypocrite who fails to abide by my own advice in this oftentimes so there is that. :)
...is this a bad time to ask if Kirin Strike can add to spell damage?
|
Kirin Strike works. It only requires a "melee or ranged attack" and
the kinetic blast is definitely a ranged attack.
Hmm
I just had a GM at DragonCon block my Kineticist from using Bardic Music damage and other "weapon damage" bonuses to my attacks. Boo.
Wow, that makes a huge difference to the entire class. Unlike the wizard which can use multiple types of spells, the kineticist basically has the blast as their sole offensive offensive class feature.
So... why don't all Int based arcane blasters take Kirin Strike then?...
|
So... why don't all Int based arcane blasters take Kirin Strike then?...
Because it's still garbage even when you apply it to spells. It wastes two rounds of swift actions to set up for damage on the third round that would have been matched by simply taking arcane strike, never mind if you have better uses for swift actions like quickened spells.
Not to mention it's next to impossible to qualify for as a pure caster without wasting a ton of feats that could be going to useful caster feats, so you will likely need a monk dip, delaying your casting progression.
2 rounds and it happens on the second. Not 3 rounds.
Wizard blasters often take a level of crossblooded sorcerer to get +2/die to damage. By 9th level that is 18 damage with a single target attack spell.
With Kirin Strike a 24 Int gives +14 damage even with crappy first level spells. And a blaster Wizard should definitely have that high of Int by 9th-10th level (when you could get this feat).
It isn't hard to qualify for.
Prerequisite: Int 13, Kirin Style, Improved Unarmed Strike, Knowledge (arcana) 9 ranks, Knowledge (dungeoneering, local, nature, planes, or religion) 3 ranks.
The only things on that list that a blaster Wizard wouldn't normally want to get if he wasn't planning on going with these feats would be Kirin Style and Improved Unarmed Strike. Both could be obtained by taking a single level of Master of Many Styles which brings with it +2 to all Saves and Wis to AC. Or if you waited until later levels to take it you could instead go Zen Archer, spend one of your normal feats on Kirin Style and grab Precise Shot.
I dunno, it seems like something a lot of blasters would want to me. Hell, go with both of them. Your Elemental Rays, Acid Splash and Shocking Grasp will be doing +10 +2/die on each spell. Even your Force Missiles will be +10 damage. You would be a full spell level behind but for blasters that isn't such a big deal.
|
|
2 rounds and it happens on the second. Not 3 rounds.
Only if you have combat Style Master. Otherwise it is three rounds as follows:
- First round: Swift Action enter Kirin Style.
- Second Round: Swift Action Identify as required by Kirin Style.
- Third Round: Swift action apply damage on a hit.
IF you want to waste another style feat so your can qualify for Combat Style Master and skip the starting round, that will reduce it to 2 rounds, but it's an even bigger investment.
Hm. Yeah, 3. Piss.
Also, Combat Style Master would require 2 style feats rather than one. Bleh. There goes that concept.
Wait... can Arcane Strike apply to spell damage?
No that, I did say a dev member said all things that are ranged attacks counted as weapons (like SKR said when a developer in the Sound Striker Bard debates) but it was apparent I wasn't going to get anywhere with that.
I'm sorry that, that happened to you. I recently had a PFS GM tell me I couldn't enter squares with fallen bodies (allied, or enemy, medium or otherwise) as "there's a chance it would cause a rule snafu should they regain consciousness with you in their square."
I briefly countered him on the matter, even citing rules text, but was shot down with the GM in question citing that he had the full support of PFS rules adjudicators behind him on this one. We discussed it further in more detail over dinner, but he held his ground. (To his credit, he mentioned a prior group of players who apparently abused the "illegal square-shunting" rule to essentially daisy chain free movement.)
Wait... can Arcane Strike apply to spell damage?
That's what this thread is hoping to FAQ. It definitely should work for weapon like spells. The question is what makes a weapon like spell.
Wait... can Arcane Strike apply to spell damage?That's what this thread is hoping to FAQ. It definitely should work for weapon like spells. The question is what makes a weapon like spell.
Does it cause harm? Does it break invisibility? Then yes, it is a weapon. Most spells are weapons.
Does it cause harm? Does it break invisibility? Then yes, it is a weapon. Most spells are weapons.Wait... can Arcane Strike apply to spell damage?That's what this thread is hoping to FAQ. It definitely should work for weapon like spells. The question is what makes a weapon like spell.
you think it's that clear, many others don't. This is what this very thread is asking for a FAQ.
And Fireball, it causes harm, and breaks invisibility, but it isn't a weapon.
No that, I did say a dev member said all things that are ranged attacks counted as weapons (like SKR said when a developer in the Sound Striker Bard debates) but it was apparent I wasn't going to get anywhere with that.I'm sorry that, that happened to you. I recently had a PFS GM tell me I couldn't enter squares with fallen bodies (allied, or enemy, medium or otherwise) as "there's a chance it would cause a rule snafu should they regain consciousness with you in their square."
I briefly countered him on the matter, even citing rules text, but was shot down with the GM in question citing that he had the full support of PFS rules adjudicators behind him on this one. We discussed it further in more detail over dinner, but he held his ground. (To his credit, he mentioned a prior group of players who apparently abused the "illegal square-shunting" rule to essentially daisy chain free movement.)
Saying "you can't do this because the rules don't cover what would happen if several other things were to happen later" is incredibly bad GMing. Yes, I'd fully expect some table variance on what would happen, but not letting you enter a square because there happens to be an unconscious or dead body there is ridiculous.
I'm certainly not aware of any "PFS rules adjucators" with posted rulings on this.
If he had this abused in the past then he should have said no to the abuse, not banned entering a square later.
you think it's that clear, many others don't.Does it cause harm? Does it break invisibility? Then yes, it is a weapon. Most spells are weapons.Wait... can Arcane Strike apply to spell damage?That's what this thread is hoping to FAQ. It definitely should work for weapon like spells. The question is what makes a weapon like spell.
Clearly.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Does it require an attack roll? Does it do hit point damage? If yes to both, then it's a weapon.
That isn't officially a rule. It seems like a good answer to this threads question. But I'm hearing about people not allowing the kineticist's blast to be a weapon. So obviously it's not clear at all now.
Alright. Well, is >100 people hitting FAQ enough?
Alright. Well, is >100 people hitting FAQ enough?
It's enough to put it near/at the top of the FAQ list, but they are/were having issues with FAQing right now. And we get one FAQ on Fridays, so if we don't get it this Friday we'll need to wait another week for a chance of an answer.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
group of players who apparently abused the "illegal square-shunting" rule to essentially daisy chain free movement.
Those type of stories are why we can't have nice things!
Alright. Well, is >100 people hitting FAQ enough?
The problem with something like this is that there isn't enough people having trouble with this to generate enough FAQ clicks.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Alright. Well, is >100 people hitting FAQ enough?The problem with something like this is that there isn't enough people having trouble with this to generate enough FAQ clicks.
We have over 100 FAQs for this. That puts it at one of if not the highest FAQ. So we've had no problem generating FAQ clicks. Heck Bard Masterpieces and Bardic Performance has even more FAQ clicks and I'd imagine even less people actually deal with that issue than this one.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Does it cause harm? Does it break invisibility? Then yes, it is a weapon. Most spells are weapons.Wait... can Arcane Strike apply to spell damage?That's what this thread is hoping to FAQ. It definitely should work for weapon like spells. The question is what makes a weapon like spell.you think it's that clear, many others don't. This is what this very thread is asking for a FAQ.
And Fireball, it causes harm, and breaks invisibility, but it isn't a weapon.
Most of the people who think it doesn't work do not want it to apply to ray spells either.
Most of the people who think it doesn't work do not want it to apply to ray spells either.Does it cause harm? Does it break invisibility? Then yes, it is a weapon. Most spells are weapons.Wait... can Arcane Strike apply to spell damage?That's what this thread is hoping to FAQ. It definitely should work for weapon like spells. The question is what makes a weapon like spell.you think it's that clear, many others don't. This is what this very thread is asking for a FAQ.
And Fireball, it causes harm, and breaks invisibility, but it isn't a weapon.
I'm fine with subjects possessing weapon-like qualities, just like how I'm fine with abilities possessing spell-like qualities. That's the difference between a Spell and a Spell-Like Ability, and that difference had to be created.
What I'm not fine with, is people proposing that we can treat all Spells like Weapons, like the FAQ originally suggests.
|
Did you respond with the fact that Weapon Focus (Kinetic Blast) exists?That only adds to the to hit roll, not damage.
And I made no such claim.
The post I was responding to, immediately before mine, was describing a GM that didn't believe Kinetic Blasts were weapons.
Clearly if you can take Weapon Focus (Kinetic Blast), it's a weapon.
Did you respond with the fact that Weapon Focus (Kinetic Blast) exists?That only adds to the to hit roll, not damage.And I made no such claim.
The post I was responding to, immediately before mine, was describing a GM that didn't believe Kinetic Blasts were weapons.
Clearly if you can take Weapon Focus (Kinetic Blast), it's a weapon.
Kinetic Blast says it counts as a weapon for feats. So it's clear they can take weapon focus. But it doesn't say it counts as a weapon all the time. So we default to, "what does a spell do?" and the answer to that isn't clear. So a bard's inspire courage might not work if it's not a weapon for spells and abilities that effect weapons. Because if it's specified as a weapon for feats, maybe that means it's not a weapon for anything else.
|
|
Except a similar FAQ specified that rays specifically benefit not just from weapon-related feats but all bonuses to weapon attacks and damages, and kinetic blasts are more like rays than they are like pretty much anything else.
Except a similar FAQ specified that rays specifically benefit not just from weapon-related feats but all bonuses to weapon attacks and damages, and kinetic blasts are more like rays than they are like pretty much anything else.
Yes, and while I agree, nothing in the rules says that the are rays or to be treated as rays. This is why we have this thread with 100+ FAQ clicks to find out for sure the answer.
Except a similar FAQ specified that rays specifically benefit not just from weapon-related feats but all bonuses to weapon attacks and damages, and kinetic blasts are more like rays than they are like pretty much anything else.Yes, and while I agree, nothing in the rules says that the are rays or to be treated as rays. This is why we have this thread with 100+ FAQ clicks to find out for sure the answer.
Yep. They are different enough that weapon focus ray doesn't work with them so anything limited to rays, such as that FAQ, can't be said to work with them. I agree spells with attack rolls and hp damage should work like weapons/rays, but even if that where a certainty, it'd still be unclear just how weapon-like a ray is.
Many things fall under 'weapons' but different rules seem to have a different assumption of what that means. Some clear guidelines should be put down so we can figure out what feats works with physical weapons only or 'weapons' as a whole.
Some guidelines/definition of what makes a "weapon-like spells" would help too. An official post/blog/FAQ that spells with attack rolls that deal hp damage are weapon-like would solve a lot of problems. Really a whole blog post on 'spells and weapon rules' would be the best thing by tackling the whole thing at once.
|
|
I'm well aware that there's room for interpretation. That's why I hit FAQ and a few posts back pointed out that the kineticist in particular suffers from table variation in this respect.
However I think it's also valid to point out where the understanding is coming from that magical effects requiring damage and dealing hit point damage are probably weapon-like. It's notable that the clarification for rays was needed because there wasn't, initially, a rule stating that they were considered weapons for things other than feats (exactly as is currently the case for kinetic blasts). The FAQ I linked even mentioned weapon-like spells that aren't rays, though admittedly the spells mentioned are even more weapon-like than rays in that they use words like "blade" or specify particular weapons that they mimic.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
FAQ'd simply because I'm tired of seeing it come up.
Bah! PFS GMs think they know everything. It's been my experience that they are actually FAR less rules savvy than most home-game GMs.Hmm
I just had a GM at DragonCon block my Kineticist from using Bardic Music damage and other "weapon damage" bonuses to my attacks. Boo.
How many home game dms would you ever meet?
Most of the people who think it doesn't work do not want it to apply to ray spells either.Does it cause harm? Does it break invisibility? Then yes, it is a weapon. Most spells are weapons.Wait... can Arcane Strike apply to spell damage?That's what this thread is hoping to FAQ. It definitely should work for weapon like spells. The question is what makes a weapon like spell.you think it's that clear, many others don't. This is what this very thread is asking for a FAQ.
And Fireball, it causes harm, and breaks invisibility, but it isn't a weapon.I'm fine with subjects possessing weapon-like qualities, just like how I'm fine with abilities possessing spell-like qualities. That's the difference between a Spell and a Spell-Like Ability, and that difference had to be created.
What I'm not fine with, is people proposing that we can treat all Spells like Weapons, like the FAQ originally suggests.
I will agree with all spells. But there is no difference between a Ray of Frost as a spell or a SLA. The issue is since Ray of Frost and Acid Orb use the exact same mechanics (to hit roll and HP damage) why should one get to benefit from Bardic Performance, among other things, and one not?
Did you respond with the fact that Weapon Focus (Kinetic Blast) exists?That only adds to the to hit roll, not damage.And I made no such claim.
The post I was responding to, immediately before mine, was describing a GM that didn't believe Kinetic Blasts were weapons.
Clearly if you can take Weapon Focus (Kinetic Blast), it's a weapon.
Then you must allow Spell-Like Abilities to fulfill the pre-requisites set forth for PrC qualifications and the like, because that's exactly what you're suggesting. And Paizo said no after all the "cheese" the PFS GMs had to go through.
Weapon-Like Spells/Abilities does not make them in and of itself Weapons. They have certain aspects of Weapons, and can be affected by certain effects, but you keep forgetting the only reason you can take Weapon Focus (Kinetic Blast) is because it counts as a weapon for the purposes of the feat, and that's via the feat text. It also takes a FAQ to expunge the given examples to expand to subjects such as Kinetic Blast.
I don't see Kinetic Blasts on the Weapons table, nor am I able to craft and enchant Kinetic Blasts with Weapon Enhancements. They're Weapon-Like, not Weapons.
Alright. Well, is >100 people hitting FAQ enough?The problem with something like this is that there isn't enough people having trouble with this to generate enough FAQ clicks.
Remember when I said there was >100 FAQs? Man, that was great. ;)
I think the magic number is 123, though. Thats what I had on my Scorpion Whip FAQ before it was answered. So, c'mon guys. Push! We can get there!
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
I think the magic number is 123, though. Thats what I had on my Scorpion Whip FAQ before it was answered. So, c'mon guys. Push! We can get there!
I didn't realize we had 100+ when I post, but I can tell you there is no magic number. I've seen FAQ on things with less than 20 posts that I don't recall ever being asked previously.
I think it goes something like:
- Fact in how angry each side gets about the subject.
- How many threads are created about it.
- How many FAQ clicks per thread.
- How easy it is to answer.
- How much blowback the other side will return.
All of that goes into a mesh, and likely returns the best FAQ to answer.