Morningstar question


Rules Questions

101 to 125 of 125 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Scarab Sages

Lilith Knight wrote:
It is piercing and bludgeoning so everything that applies to either applies to it. The rules don't have an exception written in so you don't get an exception.

I like this idea, but it doesn't hold up.

Example, I attack creature DR5/Piercing with the morningstar while underwater. My character has a swim speed.

As a Piercing AND Bludgeoning weapon, I am both attacking normally and attacking with -2 penalty. I am both dealing normal damage and dealing half damage.

I'm not suggesting I deal 1.5x damage, but I am saying that I both deal half and normal damage because applying only the half damage would be apply only the effects of one weapon type, which I cannot do as a weapon of two types.

After successfully hitting the creature, the DR is bypassed with Piercing because I always use the better damage type with regard to DR. This "best" damage type has no effect on the underwater combat rules, as far as I can tell.

Scarab Sages

Though, one solution not suggested, is that the weapon is effectively its own type.

It is a Piercing AND Bludgeoning weapon, and therefore not subject to any rule that limits just piercing or just bludgeoning weapons. Although a pretty lacking solution, it would fit better with regard to the rules.

Alchemic silver would not impose a penalty, Underwater has no effect, and DR is only bypassed if it is DR/bludgeoning AND piercing. Materials and magic enhancements must work for both types to apply to the weapon, as well as with feats or class abilities related to damage type.

Definitely not supported in the rules for DR, but it does fit better.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Let's pretend people really do strictly follow formulaic interpretation of the RAW and look at what they actually say;

CRB weapon 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."

CRB damage reduction;
"If a creature has damage reduction from more than one source, the two forms of damage reduction do not stack. Instead, the creature gets the benefit of the best damage reduction in a given situation."

Bestiary damage reduction;
"A few other creatures require combinations of different types of attacks to overcome their damage reduction, and a weapon must be both types to overcome this type of damage reduction. A weapon that is only one type is still subject to damage reduction."

Note, there is nothing about the effect of dual types on damage penalties (e.g. silver). Nothing about the effect of dual types on to hit adjustments (e.g. underwater). The only rules actually stated have to do with damage reduction and damage type immunity. NOTHING else.

We can certainly extrapolate more, as virtually all respondents in this thread have done, but at that point we have left the supposed end-all RAW behind.

Further, given that damage immunity and damage reduction, the only two situations for which rules exist, both require that all types of damage be reduced/immune I would argue that the logical extension for damage penalties would ALSO require that the penalty apply to ALL types... a silver P & S weapon would take the -1 damage penalty, but a silver B & P weapon would not.

Likewise, per 'RAW extended to uncovered situations' we might conclude that to hit penalties similarly only apply if they would occur for both damage types... so attacking with a morningstar underwater would take no penalty because P type weapons do not.

Not the way I interpret rules... but supposedly the way that many in this thread do. Yet the results do not match.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
CBDunkerson wrote:
The only rules actually stated have to do with damage reduction and damage type immunity. NOTHING else.

Really? Nothing else?

Alchemical Silver wrote:
On a successful attack with a silvered slashing or piercing weapon, the wielder takes a –1 penalty on the damage roll (with a minimum of 1 point of damage).

That rule tells you precisely what happens on a successful attack with a weapon that is piercing. Morningstars are both piercing and bludgeoning. There is no special exception listed for morningstars. Therefore, damage from a morningstar is reduced. That's the only rule you need.


CBDunkerson wrote:
I would argue that the logical extension for damage penalties would ALSO require that the penalty apply to ALL types... a silver P & S weapon would take the -1 damage penalty, but a silver B & P weapon would not.

The only issue with that statement is that it isn't logical. You make a link between two unrelated rules.

CBDunkerson wrote:
Likewise, per 'RAW extended to uncovered situations' we might conclude that to hit penalties similarly only apply if they would occur for both damage types

First is covered above. Second, it's not an "uncovered situation". As Avoron points out, it's covered quite nicely. "a successful attack with a silvered slashing or piercing weapon, the wielder takes a –1 penalty on the damage roll" coveres it no matter how much you'd rather it didn't.

CBDunkerson wrote:
Not the way I interpret rules...

Not the way I think ANYONE would...

CBDunkerson wrote:
Yet the results do not match.

That is do to major flaws in logic.

To come to the right conclusion:
If/then statements are easy, follow them.
Don't read into the rules or make leaps of logic.
Deal with one part of the rules then move to another: deal with damage rolls before you move on to damage reduction. They are different steps and are dealt with separately.

It should make it much easier to come to the correct answer: that silver morningstars take a -1 damage.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

If a penalty applies to one half of a dual-aspected item, you don't get to bypass that penalty because the other half isn't affected.
With a silvered morningstar you get -1 damage and you are -2 to hit using it underwater.

This is basic stuff here. If a penalty applies, it applies in full.

If I use a human bane arrow against a half-orc, you take the extra damage because you count as both human and orc. You don't not take the damage because orc, or only take half the damage because it averages out as only half human.


dragonhunterq wrote:

If a penalty applies to one half of a dual-aspected item, you don't get to bypass that penalty because the other half isn't affected.

With a silvered morningstar you get -1 damage and you are -2 to hit using it underwater.

This is basic stuff here. If a penalty applies, it applies in full.

If I use a human bane arrow against a half-orc, you take the extra damage because you count as both human and orc. You don't not take the damage because orc, or only take half the damage because it averages out as only half human.

Well said!

(But, as mentioned earlier in the thread, the -2 underwater penalty is a different issue from the penalty for being silvered. It actually has directly conflicting rules, and so can't be resolved without invoking GM fiat.)

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

There are no rules for how silvering affects dual type weapons.

You have chosen to make up a rule that they are treated as the worst case scenario, but this is inconsistent with how dual type weapons are affected by other things which reduce damage (i.e. DR and immunity).


Gisher wrote:
dragonhunterq wrote:

If a penalty applies to one half of a dual-aspected item, you don't get to bypass that penalty because the other half isn't affected.

With a silvered morningstar you get -1 damage and you are -2 to hit using it underwater.

This is basic stuff here. If a penalty applies, it applies in full.

If I use a human bane arrow against a half-orc, you take the extra damage because you count as both human and orc. You don't not take the damage because orc, or only take half the damage because it averages out as only half human.

Well said!

(But, as mentioned earlier in the thread, the -2 underwater penalty is a different issue from the penalty for being silvered. It actually has directly conflicting rules, and so can't be resolved without invoking GM fiat.)

Not really, lets expand on that a bit though, for the doubters.

If the rule said orcs can fight underwater without penalty and humans take a -2 to hit underwater. how would you rule a half-orc is affected?

Half orc counts as both human and orc fully.
Morningstar counts as both piercing and bludgeoning fully.
'No effect' plus '-2 to hit'= -2 to hit.


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.
CBDunkerson wrote:

There are no rules for how silvering affects dual type weapons.

You have chosen to make up a rule that they are treated as the worst case scenario, but this is inconsistent with how dual type weapons are affected by other things which reduce damage (i.e. DR and immunity).

This is getting ridiculous.

Alchemical Silver wrote:
On a successful attack with a silvered slashing or piercing weapon, the wielder takes a –1 penalty on the damage roll (with a minimum of 1 point of damage).
Type wrote:
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.

Rule: If damage from a silver weapon is piercing, it is reduced by one point.

Rule: Damage from a morningstar is piercing. It is also bludgeoning.

Conclusion: Damage from a silver morningstar is lowered by one point.

Which of these two rules do you claim we are "making up," and why?

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Avoron wrote:
Rule: If damage from a silver weapon is piercing, it is reduced by one point.

Missing Rule: If damage from a silver weapon is bludgeoning it is not reduced.

Quote:
Rule: Damage from a morningstar is piercing. It is also bludgeoning.

Made up Rule: If either damage type of a dual type weapon is reduced then total damage is reduced.

Quote:
Conclusion: Damage from a silver morningstar is lowered by one point.

Alternate Rule: Total damage of a dual type weapon is only reduced if both damage types are reduced (as per damage reduction and damage type immunity).

Alternate Conclusion: Damage from a silver morningstar is not reduced (unless bludgeoning damage is somehow separately also reduced 1 point).


dragonhunterq wrote:
Gisher wrote:
dragonhunterq wrote:

If a penalty applies to one half of a dual-aspected item, you don't get to bypass that penalty because the other half isn't affected.

With a silvered morningstar you get -1 damage and you are -2 to hit using it underwater.

This is basic stuff here. If a penalty applies, it applies in full.

If I use a human bane arrow against a half-orc, you take the extra damage because you count as both human and orc. You don't not take the damage because orc, or only take half the damage because it averages out as only half human.

Well said!

(But, as mentioned earlier in the thread, the -2 underwater penalty is a different issue from the penalty for being silvered. It actually has directly conflicting rules, and so can't be resolved without invoking GM fiat.)

Not really, lets expand on that a bit though, for the doubters.

If the rule said orcs can fight underwater without penalty and humans take a -2 to hit underwater. how would you rule a half-orc is affected?

Half orc counts as both human and orc fully.
Morningstar counts as both piercing and bludgeoning fully.
'No effect' plus '-2 to hit'= -2 to hit.

With all due respect, I think you've overlooked some of the specifics in this case. I think Mark Seifter has the correct interpretation.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
CBDunkerson wrote:
Missing Rule: If damage from a silver weapon is bludgeoning it is not reduced.

This rule does not exist.

CBDunkerson wrote:
Made up Rule: If either damage type of a dual type weapon is reduced then total damage is reduced.

This rule is unnecessary.

All damage from a morningstar is both piercing and bludgeoning. All damage that is piercing is reduced by one point. Therefore, damage from a morningstar is reduced by one point.

CBDunkerson wrote:
Alternate Rule: Total damage of a dual type weapon is only reduced if both damage types are reduced (as per damage reduction and damage type immunity).

This rule does not exist.

CBDunkerson wrote:
Alternate Conclusion: Damage from a silver morningstar is not reduced (unless bludgeoning damage is somehow separately also reduced 1 point).

This conclusion directly contradicts the written rules.

All damage that is piercing must be reduced by one point. All damage from a morningstar must be both piercing and bludgeoning. There are no additional restrictions, so damage from a morningstar must be reduced by one point. You do not get to make up your own exceptions.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
CBDunkerson wrote:
Avoron wrote:
Rule: If damage from a silver weapon is piercing, it is reduced by one point.
Missing Rule: If damage from a silver weapon is bludgeoning it is not reduced.

the statement "is not reduced" or "normal damage" is inaccurate.

This is the problem it would be modified by +0
this if/than statement would be if it is slashing or piercing than -1, if it is bludgeoning than +0 (Not is not reduced or is normal) this is the part of the rule you are making up.

SRD wrote:

Modifier*

This is a number added to a die roll or a number on your character sheet. For example, your attack roll might have a modifier of +5, meaning that when you make an attack, you add 5 to the number you roll on the d20 die to get your result (thus, a 12 on the die would count as a 17, and so on). A bonus is a modifier that is +0 or higher; a penalty is one that's –1 or lower.

Is the damage bludgeoning...yes +0

Is the damage slashing......no +0
Is the damage piercing......yes -1
damage done by this weapon ...= -1
.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Avoron wrote:
CBDunkerson wrote:
Missing Rule: If damage from a silver weapon is bludgeoning it is not reduced.
This rule does not exist.

Really? So in your mind a bludgeoning silver weapon (e.g. mace) does... what? More damage than a non-silver version? Less damage? No damage at all?

Rational people read the text and conclude that bludgeoning silver weapons do normal damage. I have no doubt that you are amongst them. Ergo, pretending that this is 'not the rule' is a nonsensical argument.


CBDunkerson wrote:
Avoron wrote:
CBDunkerson wrote:
Missing Rule: If damage from a silver weapon is bludgeoning it is not reduced.
This rule does not exist.

Really? So in your mind a bludgeoning silver weapon (e.g. mace) does... what? More damage than a non-silver version? Less damage? No damage at all?

Rational people read the text and conclude that bludgeoning silver weapons do normal damage. I have no doubt that you are amongst them. Ergo, pretending that this is 'not the rule' is a nonsensical argument.

A silver bludgeoning weapon deals exactly the same amount of damage as it would if it were not bludgeoning. In other words, having the bludgeoning quality does not alter the damage from what it would otherwise be, for the simple reason that there's no rule saying that it does.

If the damage is piercing, it is reduced.
If the damage is slashing, it is reduced.
If the damage is bludgeoning, it may or may not be reduced, depending on whether it is also piercing or slashing.

Basically, being a bludgeoning weapon isn't a magic pass that says "no effects may influence this weapon's damage." It just leaves the damage alone, to be affected by whatever modifiers are appropriate, whether that be a bonus from Power Attack or a penalty from being a piercing weapon.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Great, you agree that silvered bludgeoning weapons do "not alter the damage from what it would otherwise be".

You also cited the rule on dual damage type weapons, "all damage caused is of both types".

Damage being of "both types" means that it is only reduced by things which reduce both types;

Damage Immunity: Damage only negated if immunity covers BOTH damage types.
Damage Reduction: Damage only reduced if DR covers BOTH damage types.
Damage Penalty: Damage only reduced if penalty covers BOTH damage types.

Bludgeoning damage is not altered by silvering. Bludgeoning is one of the damage types caused by morningstars. Ergo silvering does not penalize BOTH damage types caused by morningstars... and thus the damage is NOT reduced.


Avoron wrote:
CBDunkerson wrote:
Avoron wrote:
CBDunkerson wrote:
Missing Rule: If damage from a silver weapon is bludgeoning it is not reduced.
This rule does not exist.

Really? So in your mind a bludgeoning silver weapon (e.g. mace) does... what? More damage than a non-silver version? Less damage? No damage at all?

Rational people read the text and conclude that bludgeoning silver weapons do normal damage. I have no doubt that you are amongst them. Ergo, pretending that this is 'not the rule' is a nonsensical argument.

A silver bludgeoning weapon deals exactly the same amount of damage as it would if it were not bludgeoning. In other words, having the bludgeoning quality does not alter the damage from what it would otherwise be, for the simple reason that there's no rule saying that it does.

So you are saying a mace that is silver does -1 dam even though it is blunt?

Because we never said Morningstar (which is piercing and blunt). Having the blunt quality does alter the damage because the base damage types are in 3 types.

If the silver mace was not blunt it would have a damage penalty since normal weapons are slashing, blunt, or piercing.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
CBDunkerson wrote:
Great, you agree that silvered bludgeoning weapons do "not alter the damage from what it would otherwise be".

Deliberately taken out of context. I specifically stated that "having the bludgeoning quality" does not alter the damage from what it would otherwise be; that it would deal "the same amount of damage as it would if it were not bludgeoning." Being made out of silver will definitely affect the amount of damage dealt by a weapon, if that weapon is piercing or slashing.

CBDunkerson wrote:
Damage Immunity: Damage only negated if immunity covers BOTH damage types.

True, because of a specific rule for damage immunity.

CBDunkerson wrote:
Damage Reduction: Damage only reduced if DR covers BOTH damage types.

Damage reduction doesn't "cover" any damage types. It is broadly applied to all physical damage, except for those that fall into a specified category of exception. Morningstars bypass DR/bludgeoning, not because their damage isn't specified as being blocked, but because it is explicitly stated to bypass it.

CBDunkerson wrote:
Damage Penalty: Damage only reduced if penalty covers BOTH damage types.

This rule does not exist.

CBDunkerson wrote:
Bludgeoning damage is not altered by silvering.

Wrong.

Bludgeoning damage is sometimes altered by silvering: if it is also piercing or slashing.
Rather, barring additional factors, silver weapon damage is never altered by having the bludgeoning quality.
There's a big difference. Damage from a small weapon is not altered by being purple, but damage from a purple weapon is definitely altered by being small.
Whether or not the weapon is bludgeoning doesn't matter, because there are no specific rules in play that modify the damage of a bludgeoning weapon. But whether or not the weapon is silver and piercing does, and a a silver morningstar is both silver and piercing. Therefore, the damage is reduced.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Starbuck_II wrote:

So you are saying a mace that is silver does -1 dam even though it is blunt?

Because we never said Morningstar (which is piercing and blunt). Having the blunt quality does alter the damage because the base damage types are in 3 types.

If the silver mace was not blunt it would have a damage penalty since normal weapons are slashing, blunt, or piercing.

I get your point, but I think you're misinterpreting what I'm saying a bit.

There are no special rules for a bludgeoning silver weapon. Because of this, it is simply treated according to whatever other qualities it possesses. If it is also slashing or piercing, it is affected according to the rules for slashing and piercing weapons. If it is not slashing or piercing, then it is not. You don't need to treat it as equivalent to a different type of weapon damage, just don't apply any special rules to alter it for being bludgeoning.

A silver heavy mace deals 1d8 damage before other modifiers, because it is not slashing or piercing. It has the bludgeoning quality, but that does not modify its damage.
A silver morningstar deals 1d8-1 damage before other modifiers, because it is piercing. It has the bludgeoning quality, but that does not modify its damage.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

There is no rule that states a bludgeoning silver weapon does full damage. It does not exist. Do not pretend that it does.

The rule is that silver piercing/slashing weapons do -1 damage.

Ask yourself is this weapon piercing/slashing? if the answer is yes it does -1 damage. That is the only question you ask.


Actually I think I have the rules that give the answers to at least some of the questions being asked here.

Weapons are classified according to the 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 believe that this is correct but if someone thinks it is something different please do ring it up.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Got some thread necro here... :P


It's pretty amaceing that we can't understand a spiked ball.


That's always a backup weapon when I make a martial. You've got a greatsword or axe or whatever, and a morningstar for when slashing isn't doing the job.

101 to 125 of 125 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Morningstar question All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.