Channel Ray


Rules Questions

51 to 100 of 121 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
Azten wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:

I am saying, how do you shift your grip on an unarmed strike?

The feat works with unarmed strikes, and many other weapons you don't grip.

I don't see a "gripped only" restriction.

Yes. Some people cannot look past the fluff at all.

Blows their damn minds.

How is it fluff when it tells you what to do as a swift action? That's a mechanic, not fluff.

So, what about those weapons not "gripped"?

Grand Lodge

Diego, fire is also defined as a type of damage a weapon does, see battle poi.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Force, is a type of damage.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Find a piece of the rules (not a table that use a single heading for simplicity) that say that, please.

I have show a rule source, show yours.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

What, explicitly, is the thing you are looking for?


Damage wrote:


Damage reduces a target's current hit points.
Hit Points wrote:


The most common way that your character gets hurt is to take lethal damage and lose hit points.

So apparently Fireball and Lightning Bolt and Burning Hands can never hurt someone as they never deal damage.

/sarcasm

If it can cause hit point loss it is a form of damage. I'm not following.

We even have spells such as Icicle Dagger

Icicle Dagger wrote:


The dagger deals 1 point of cold damage in addition to normal dagger damage.

Much like the Battle Poi or the Battle Aspergillum.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
blackbloodtroll wrote:
What, explicitly, is the thing you are looking for?

"Type" has a specific meaning when used to define damage. I have shown the rules that say that.

Fire et al. are Energy damage for the definitions of this game, while Type damage are B/P/S. So find a piece of text that define energy damage as a type of damage, something that isn't a a table heading used for simplicity.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

So, when someone asks what type of damage a Battle Poi does, you answer "None. It deals fire damage."?

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Can we agree that energy damage is a thing?

Scarab Sages

For those saying energy damage is not weapon damage, see the Warpriest sacred weapon ability.

Warpriest wrote:
Sacred Weapon (Su): At 1st level, weapons wielded by a warpriest are charged with the power of his faith. In addition to the favored weapon of his deity, the warpriest can designate a weapon as a sacred weapon by selecting that weapon with the Weapon Focus feat; if he has multiple Weapon Focus feats, this ability applies to all of them. Whenever the warpriest hits with his sacred weapon, the weapon damage is based on his level and not the weapon type. The damage for Medium warpriests is given on the table above; see the table below for Small and Large warpriests. The warpriest can decide to use the weapon's base damage instead of the sacred weapon damage—this decision 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 deal only energy damage.

Since Sacred Weapon specifically calls out that it does not apply to weapons that deal only energy damage, that means that without that kind of disclaimer, then any other weapon feat or ability would apply to a weapon that did energy damage unless it also had that disclaimer.


Even "untyped" is a damage type.


Imbicatus wrote:

For those saying energy damage is not weapon damage, see the Warpriest sacred weapon ability.

Warpriest wrote:
Sacred Weapon (Su): At 1st level, weapons wielded by a warpriest are charged with the power of his faith. In addition to the favored weapon of his deity, the warpriest can designate a weapon as a sacred weapon by selecting that weapon with the Weapon Focus feat; if he has multiple Weapon Focus feats, this ability applies to all of them. Whenever the warpriest hits with his sacred weapon, the weapon damage is based on his level and not the weapon type. The damage for Medium warpriests is given on the table above; see the table below for Small and Large warpriests. The warpriest can decide to use the weapon's base damage instead of the sacred weapon damage—this decision 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 deal only energy damage.
Since Sacred Weapon specifically calls out that it does not apply to weapons that deal only energy damage, that means that without that kind of disclaimer, then any other weapon feat or ability would apply to a weapon that did energy damage unless it also had that disclaimer.

Nice catch. Always impressed when people find rules support in strange places

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Well, it seems Negative Energy damage is Untyped now.


You can find "rules support" for some ridiculous things. But if you really think about it...you come back to earth.

This Channel Ray fiasco is an excellent example of ridiculous. Changing positive energy to B/P/S with Weapon Versatility? Perhaps it is possible RAW, but not RAI. There is such thing as "common sense" even in RPGs...

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
Fourshadow wrote:

You can find "rules support" for some ridiculous things. But if you really think about it...you come back to earth.

This Channel Ray fiasco is an excellent example of ridiculous. Changing positive energy to B/P/S with Weapon Versatility? Perhaps it is possible RAW, but not RAI. There is such thing as "common sense" even in RPGs...

Like all damage being P/B/S or Untyped?


I think it's really just an issue of some people looking at rules questions like this from different perspectives. If I, for example, look at the interaction between these two rules elements and decide there is no real game consequence to channeling piercing damage, then fine.

Someone other than myself might think, "You can't channel piercing damage! That doesn't make sense!" Who is right? To some degree, I think both are. There's no real danger in channeling piercing damage, in fact it may cause Dr problems for you, but it is hard to figure out how energy is generating kinetic damage.

I guess it's just up to you whether that is worth whipping out the ban hammer.

Scarab Sages

Energy effects creating physical damage actually has a rules precedent too. Using a flask of liquid ice (cold damage) as an alchemical component for ray of frost (cold damage) changes it to piercing damage.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Well, there is the Battle Poi, Fire Lance, and Flask Thrower.

All are usable with Weapon Versatility, and do not deal B/P/S.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Are we saying there is an unwritten restriction preventing the feat's use with those weapons?

What about "ungripped" weapons, like Unarmed Strikes, Armor Spikes, and the Dwarven Boulder Helmet?


Argument: Weapons have a damage type, either slashing, piercing, or bludgeoning.
Strawman: If it isn't slashing, piercing, or bludgeoning, it can't be damage.

The rules state what damage type is for a weapon; that doesn't mean that lacking a type means it isn't damage. Energy can deal damage, but that isn't a weapon damage type. Resorting to fallacies to "win" arguments is not only unbecoming, but also against the rules of the forum. People are coming here looking, in earnest, for honest, logical interpretations of the rules and deliberately presenting an incorrect interpretation, despite all evidence to the contrary, for the purpose of misleading readers violates the "don't be a jerk" rule and, more importantly, compromises the integrity of the community. So, if you are doing this deliberately, I call to put a stop to it now; I've already reported the pertinent offenders. If you have unintentionally gotten drawn into someone else's argument on account of the "bandwagon" effect, I suggest you fully analyze the facts at hand and come to a more reasonable conclusion. I'll re-present them here for the benefit of anyone interested in the truth.

Weapons have a damage type which is defined by the quality of the damage of the weapon as being either slashing, piercing, or bludgeoning. This can also be considered "physical" damage as it is referred to in the rules. This can be found under the Equipment section of the CRB. Most weapons deal physical damage and any weapon that deals physical damage has a damage type. A marginal number of weapons deal no physical damage but, instead, deal energy-based damage. One example is the Battle Poi. It deals its stated weapon damage not as physical damage but, rather, as energy damage of the energy type "fire". It does not deal physical damage and has no damage type (deals energy damage and has an energy type instead). It still deals damage, but has no damage type. The feat Weapon Versatility allows you to change the damage type of a weapon. It states that, instead of the normal damage type, you may deal your choice of slashing, bludgeoning, or piercing damage. You cannot substitute something you do not have, so, if the weapon in question has no damage type, as defined in CRB\Equipment, there is nothing for which you may deal a selected damage type "instead of". Rays are considered weapons, but this doesn't inherently give them a damage type. Rays are, almost exclusively, energy-based attacks and energy attacks typically have energy types (fire, cold, acid, electricity, positive, negative, sound, force). A Ray that has no damage type, as defined in CRB\Equipment, has nothing to substitute for slashing, piercing, or bludgeoning damage via the Weapon Versatility feat. This is all right there in the rules for anyone who can bother to actually read them. Those are the facts, nothing more and nothing less.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

You are saying that damage that is not B/P/S, is untyped?

I mean, if damage doesn't have a type, then it's untyped.

I don't see how energy damage, which has a type, is also untyped damage.

That seems like a very convoluted way of going about it.


Kazaan: What about this?

Damage Reduction FAQ wrote:
Although the Bestiary definition of Damage Reduction (page 299) says "The creature takes normal damage from energy attacks (even nonmagical ones), spells, spell-like abilities, and supernatural abilities," that's actually just referring to damage that isn't specifically called out as being of a particular type, such as fire damage or piercing damage. In other words, DR doesn't protect against "typeless damage" from magical attacks.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Imbicatus wrote:

For those saying energy damage is not weapon damage, see the Warpriest sacred weapon ability.

Warpriest wrote:
Sacred Weapon (Su): At 1st level, weapons wielded by a warpriest are charged with the power of his faith. In addition to the favored weapon of his deity, the warpriest can designate a weapon as a sacred weapon by selecting that weapon with the Weapon Focus feat; if he has multiple Weapon Focus feats, this ability applies to all of them. Whenever the warpriest hits with his sacred weapon, the weapon damage is based on his level and not the weapon type. The damage for Medium warpriests is given on the table above; see the table below for Small and Large warpriests. The warpriest can decide to use the weapon's base damage instead of the sacred weapon damage—this decision 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 deal only energy damage.
Since Sacred Weapon specifically calls out that it does not apply to weapons that deal only energy damage, that means that without that kind of disclaimer, then any other weapon feat or ability would apply to a weapon that did energy damage unless it also had that disclaimer.

Again this confusion.

We are speaking fo the damage type, a SPECIFIC term in the game.
That rule don't say anything about the damage type, it speak of damage dealt.

Those are different things.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
blackbloodtroll wrote:

Well, there is the Battle Poi, Fire Lance, and Flask Thrower.

All are usable with Weapon Versatility, and do not deal B/P/S.

And here you fail:

Fire lance Type P

Fire Lance: This primitive firearm is nothing more than a long tube that, when ignited, propels a short gout of flame and a javelin. Unlike other firearms, the fire lance is wildly imprecise, and targets AC rather than touch AC. A fire lance is always treated as having the broken condition for the purpose of determining the effects of a misfire. A fire lances uses a javelin and 2 doses of black powder as ammunition.

Flask Thrower - see text
Benefit: A flask thrower significantly extends the range of thrown substances that deal splash damage, such as acid, alchemist’s fire, or holy water, as well as that of tools such as tanglefoot bags, thunderstones, or caltrops.

It throw splash weapons, that do their kind of damage, but don't have a damage type.

You guys are unable to differentiate damage type, a definition used in the game for B/P/S damage, and type of damage, a colloquial term.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Avoron wrote:

Kazaan: What about this?

Damage Reduction FAQ wrote:
Although the Bestiary definition of Damage Reduction (page 299) says "The creature takes normal damage from energy attacks (even nonmagical ones), spells, spell-like abilities, and supernatural abilities," that's actually just referring to damage that isn't specifically called out as being of a particular type, such as fire damage or piercing damage. In other words, DR doesn't protect against "typeless damage" from magical attacks.

Half citations, the way to victory ...

FAQ wrote:

How does DR interact with magical effects that deal bludgeoning, piercing, or slashing damage?

Although the Bestiary definition of Damage Reduction (page 299) says "The creature takes normal damage from energy attacks (even nonmagical ones), spells, spell-like abilities, and supernatural abilities," that's actually just referring to damage that isn't specifically called out as being of a particular type, such as fire damage or piercing damage. In other words, DR doesn't protect against "typeless damage" from magical attacks.
However, if a magical attack specifically mentions that it deals bludgeoning, piercing, or slashing damage, DR affects that damage normally, as if it were from a physical weapon. (Otherwise the magical attack might as well not have a damage type, as it would only interface with B/P/S damage in a very few corner cases, such as whether or not an ooze splits from that attack.)
For example, the ice storm spell deals 3d6 points of bludgeoning damage and 2d6 points of cold damage. If you cast ice storm at a group of zombies, the zombie's DR 5/slashing protects them against 5 points of the spell's bludgeoning damage. Their DR doesn't help them against the spell's cold damage because DR doesn't apply to energy attacks.

And again, you are mixing the damage type with type of damage.


Okay, that's nonsense. "Type of damage" is the exact same wording used to define bludgeoning, piercing and slashing, in the rule that you yourself quoted.

PRD wrote:

Type: Weapons are classified according to the a type of damage they deal: B for bludgeoning, P for piercing, or S for slashing. Some monsters may be resistant or immune to attacks from certain types of weapons.

Some weapons deal damage of multiple types. If a weapon causes two types of damage, the type it deals is not half one type and half another; all damage caused is of both types. Therefore, a creature would have to be immune to both types of damage to ignore any of the damage caused by such a weapon.
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'm not exactly sure why the rest of the DR FAQ is relevant to the issue at hand. That rule specifically refers to "fire damage" as an example of a type of damage. And when "type of damage" is used in a direct quote describing the way types of damage work under the rules, it is definitely a rules term and not just "colloquial" as you describe it.


Avoron wrote:

Okay, that's nonsense. "Type of damage" is the exact same wording used to define bludgeoning, piercing and slashing, in the rule that you yourself quoted.

PRD wrote:

Type: Weapons are classified according to the a type of damage they deal: B for bludgeoning, P for piercing, or S for slashing. Some monsters may be resistant or immune to attacks from certain types of weapons.

Some weapons deal damage of multiple types. If a weapon causes two types of damage, the type it deals is not half one type and half another; all damage caused is of both types. Therefore, a creature would have to be immune to both types of damage to ignore any of the damage caused by such a weapon.
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'm not exactly sure why the rest of the DR FAQ is relevant to the issue at hand. That rule specifically refers to "fire damage" as an example of a type of damage. And when "type of damage" is used in a direct quote describing the way types of damage work under the rules, it is definitely a rules term and not just "colloquial" as you describe it.

Cats are animals. Dogs are animals. Therefore, cats are dogs. That is a syllogistic fallacy. A weapon's Damage Type is a type of damage. A spell can deal fire as a type of damage. Therefore, fire can be a weapon's Damage Type. This is, likewise, a syllogistic fallacy; more specifically the "fallacy of the undistributed middle".

"Type: Weapons are classified according to the type of damage they deal: B for bludgeoning, P for piercing, or S for slashing."
Those are the types of damage that a weapon can have as its Damage Type. That does not exclude the possibility of having additional effects such as a Flaming weapon dealing Fire damage in addition to its weapon damage. But the Fire on the Flaming Weapon is not part of the weapon's Damage Type. The Fire on a Battle Poi is not part of the weapon's Damage Type. The Fire on a Ray is not part of the weapon's Damage Type. Type of damage, yes, but not Damage Type.

Scarab Sages

Kazaan wrote:


"Type: Weapons are classified according to the type of damage they deal: B for bludgeoning, P for piercing, or S for slashing."
Those are the types of damage that a weapon can have as its Damage Type.

That is completely ignoring the Technology Guide, which clearly states energy types as Damage Type, as I have quoted above.

"Damage Type" and "Type of Damage" are synonymous and can be used interchangeably.


Exactly. There is no evidence anywhere of a distinction between those two terms as used in the rules.


Hmmm, with this Feat, you can use channel energy as a ray, which can crit.
So, if using this to heal an ally, and you roll a 20 on your ranged touch attack and confirm, do you double your healing dice?

Scarab Sages

Swashbucklersdc wrote:

Hmmm, with this Feat, you can use channel energy as a ray, which can crit.

So, if using this to heal an ally, and you roll a 20 on your ranged touch attack and confirm, do you double your healing dice?

No, because you do not roll to hit on a heal with the feat.


It states: "You need not make an attack roll to affect a willing creature with the ray."

By that wording, you could choose to make an attack roll.

Also, a target you are attempting to heal may not be willing; they may be in a combat and do not know you are attempting to heal them, they just see a ray of energy coming at them and attempt to move out of the way...

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

I don't understand how you can say, a damage has no type, but is not untyped.

This really sounds like some hard rule-lawyering, just to get one feat combination not to work.

Back it up with moans, groans, and "like, oh my gawd, like, so obvi", and boy, does make it hard to see the other viewpoint here without prejudice.


I think what the point was is simple. Weapons have one of three types, of its not one of those types it's not weapon damage it's another kind, such as energy or what have you.

The feat would change weapon types from one to another but not change energy types into a weapon type.

So a long sword would work, a fireball would not.

If we allow rays to be changed we have to allow wands of fireball to be changed.

While we can be sarcastic and shout "all damage is untyped then" it's really not. It just shouldn't belong in the weapon damage category.

Where do battle poi fall into? Well they don't seem to do weapon damage. Just fire. So changing weapon damage from nothing to nothing leaves still the "not weapon damage type" damage of fire. So it can't be changed.

I realize the feats a little silly. But rather than run with that I at my table would have it defined.

Basically two camps. One which would allow it to make sticks on fire be able to cut through a door and those that say no matter how you "grip" fire it's just going to burn things.

I'm of the latter.


no we don't. rays are weapons, fireballs aren't


Ah well my point was we are ignoring part of the feat to make something happen. Gripping a ray of light. Nothing about channeling says you grip the channeled energy, so it's ignoring something t make it happen. Just expanding on that. Should have make that clear.

However all this talk has made me realize one thing. This channel ray feat would make a decent one for a kobold cleric. Boost the dice by 2d6 with some items, and use the kobold cleric alternative leveling, ltitle quickened channel too. Could do at level 5 about 5d6 plus 5 twice a round with a chance to crit both. Then up your DC and take as many feats into extra channel. Maybe with one to control undead just in case later on.

Not terrible, actually.


Sorry in advance if I missed it in the post. But how do you crit on a ray attack ? Is a ray a weapon with a 2x multiplier ?


Lastoutkast wrote:
Sorry in advance if I missed it in the post. But how do you crit on a ray attack ? Is a ray a weapon with a 2x multiplier ?

Yes, under ray:

If a ray spell deals damage, you can score a critical hit just as if it were a weapon. A ray spell threatens a critical hit on a natural roll of 20 and deals double damage on a successful critical hit.

Which answers my own question above, since the heal isn't doing damage, it cannot crit, sigh...


True but it could against undead and negative against the living.


Pathfinder Maps Subscriber

I see it like this:

Physical Damage comes in three varieties; Bludgeoning, Piercing and Slashing

Energy Damage comes in quite a few varieties. Among these are Fire, Cold, Electricity, Acid, Positive Energy, Negative Energy.

A flaming longsword normally does slashing physical damage and some additional fire energy damage. Using the weapon versatility feat with the weapon allows one to change the slashing physical damage into one of the other two varieties (bludgeoning or Piercing) but does NOT allow you to change the fire energy damage to another sort.


How I read it too. Funny how far we got from the original feat topic though.


Yeah, it is. Just one last note, for those who still believe that fire is not a damage type.

Here:

Dragon Ferocity wrote:
If you do not meet that feat’s prerequisites, you must choose one of the damage types that feat offers, and you can use only that damage type with your Elemental Fist attacks until you meet the feat’s normal prerequisites.
Dragonmaw wrote:
The damage type depends on your scale color: acid damage for black or green, electricity for blue, fire for red, or cold for white.
Elemental Metamagic Rod wrote:
The wielder can cast up to three spells per day that deal damage of the rod’s energy type instead of the spell’s normal damage type, as though using the Elemental Spell feat (Advanced Player’s Guide).
Fire Music wrote:
When you cast a bard spell that deals damage, you may replace the spell’s normal damage with fire damage or split the spell’s damage so that half of it is the normal damage type and half is fire damage.
Scaled Sash wrote:
Three times per day, the wearer may convert all the damage dealt by a single attack with a melee, ranged, or natural weapon into the matching dragon’s breath weapon damage type.


No one is saying fire isn't a damage type. Just not a physical weapon damage type such as slashing. The argument is that weapon damage types are one category and the others are another, not "untyped" or nonexistent. No one is saying that.
None of your examples work with that feat, I don't think.

51 to 100 of 121 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Channel Ray All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.