Does the extra damage from the three startoss styles feats apply to melee damage done with a thrown weapon? (e.g. daggers, clubs, short spears, throwing axes etc.)
RAW seems to imply yes, RAI, I'm not so sure.
Thoughts?
No. Just no.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
yes it applies thrown or melee.
author of feat saying it works
yes it applies thrown or melee.
author of feat saying it works
Woot!
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
What the author thinks doesn't mean that is what Paizo thinks. The author isn't on the PDT nor a full time employee.
A simple google can find many examples of "author thinks it does" with "no it doesn't" from PDT/Paizo.
That being said, the Startoss Style feat might work for melee attacks ("Ask your GM") but the other two in the path definitely won't work with melee attacks.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What the author thinks doesn't mean that is what Paizo thinks. The author isn't on the PDT nor a full time employee.
A simple google can find many examples of "author thinks it does" with "no it doesn't" from PDT/Paizo.
The feat itself, however, does not specify melee damage rolls or ranged damage rolls. It just says that you gain a bonus on damage rolls tat you make with the weapon.
So in this case, the author is right.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
So in this case, the author is right.
In some interpretations, yes.
However the second and the third feat in the path only work for ranged attacks and mention requiring you gain the damage from the style feat.
The first feat could be read to be limited to thrown weapons, because it only works for weapons in the thrown weapon group. It doesn't say "when used in melee or ranged", so reading it as melee requires noticing the weapon is also able to be thrown and can be used in melee.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Your third paragraph is reading something into the rule that isn't stated. Your interpretation requires making an assumption rather than simply taking the rule exactly as it was written.
I'm right 99% of the time using my style of interpretation of the rules when it comes to errata compared to much less than 99% when using your "exactly as it is written" concept that ignores context and other hints in the rules.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The author isn't on the PDT nor a full time employee.
And PDT explicitly is unaffiliated with player companion books. So that's kind of a moot point anyways.
I'm right 99% of the time using my style of interpretation of the rules when it comes to errata compared to much less than 99% when using your "exactly as it is written" concept that ignores context and other hints in the rules.
There's no context or 'hint' though. Startoss style gives you bonus to damage rolls with a weapon. That another feat that requires the first as a pre-requisite lets you make a special ranged attack as a standard action is... cool? I guess? But doesn't really have any bearing on the first feat.
You're acting like people are trying to exploit some RAW loophole here or reading into some arcane ambiguity. They aren't. The feat says it does a thing. It's perfectly reasonable for people to assume that the feat does what it says it does, as opposed to doing some other thing entirely for reasons.
Now you can say "I think the feat should be changed" and that'd be fine, but that's another topic entirely.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
You're acting like people are trying to exploit some RAW loophole here
No, actually not.
In fact, I'd allow you to add the damage at my table to a melee attack from the style feat.
I'm pointing out that there will be table variance, and until answered in FAQ people should consider that chance.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
You're acting like people are trying to exploit some RAW loophole hereNo, actually not.
In fact, I'd allow you to add the damage at my table to a melee attack from the style feat.
I'm pointing out that there will be table variance, and until answered in FAQ people should consider that chance.
There is always "table variance" even with 1000 clarifying FAQs on the matter. 1/X tables will always rule differently than the others.
Heck, there are people that believe China is a myth, the world is still flat, that we did or did not go to the moon, etc. Just because a quite small percentage of people don't conform to the norm doesn't mean we downplay the majority answer.
The "expect table variance" answer should be for things that have a good percentage of table variance and very clear supportable views. So things that have a 90+% or something aren't things that you should really answer with "expect table variance" but, "here's the answer"
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Table variance is not the words to use when a GM deviates from rules or FAQ or errata, that is house rule.
Table variance is when a rule has alternate interpretation that can not be satisfied by reading the rules.
This is an example, just in the same way as some people thought you could Sneak Attack from flanking via a ranged weapon because they believed the rules said you could. Some will believe the rules say this is limited to ranged weapons.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Startoss Style: "(...) you gain a bonus on damage rolls made with the weapon equal to 2 (...)."
Weapon Specialization: "You gain a +2 bonus on all damage rolls you make using the selected weapon."
How could you interpret the first one differently from the second one?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
meh, they look strictly identical.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
One of the reasons there is so much stress on the forums after errata/FAQ come out is when some read a line independent of context.
Weapon Spec has only the context of must be Weapon Focus. Weapon Focus requires proficiency. None of that can change how it works.
Startoss Style has a context. The weapon must be a Thrown Weapon. The fact that it could also be melee was by design by the author. But may not be design or even thought of by Paizo. The context is that you are using a thrown weapon.
A parallel example is Flanking required a melee attack to get the +2. It went on to describe how to know if you are flanking. Sneak attack requires flanking. Some too that to mean if you were in flanking position you could do Sneak Attack with a ranged. In their logic they wouldn't get the +2 for melee.
This requires understanding the context that you can't sneak with a ranged weapon in flanking position because it isn't a melee weapon.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Usually, I'm with you James. But, I think you are over-applying context to this one. The style is about improving thrown weapons, which are less powerful than many weapons, but capable of being used in both melee and at range. The context for this feat chain includes that. Normally, you either specialize in melee or ranged damage, but this chain allows thrown weapon wielders to generalize somewhat.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Flanking said you can only flank with melee. Then it described flanking position more. clear that the description of flanking position was clarifying flanking with melee.
But hey we had the rules say that on a acrobatics roll of 10 you jumped 10 feat and people saying you needed 10, 11, 15, or 20 ft of jumping to jump a 10ft wide pit. people can read any rule wrong.
Nothing in here is saying or structurally implying the bonus to damage is for ranged only.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Like I'd agree if it was a projectile weapon, if you had a way to melee with said projectile weapon maybe the bonus damage doesn't apply.
But thrown weapons do both melee and ranged for sure, the feat doesn't say when thrown it only requires its in that group is all.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The style feat itself doesn't care about if the weapon is thrown. It requires a weapon in the theown weapon fighter group, which includes some weapons that can be used in melee or ranged, some weapons such as the shuriken which are ranged only, and some weapons that aren't even thrown, but instead are projectile weapons like slings.
If you are in the style stance, and the weapon Is in the thrown fighter weapon group, the bonus damage applies. The bouncing attack allowed by later feats in the chain are more specific.
So in this case, the author is right.In some interpretations, yes.
However the second and the third feat in the path only work for ranged attacks and mention requiring you gain the damage from the style feat.
The first feat could be read to be limited to thrown weapons, because it only works for weapons in the thrown weapon group. It doesn't say "when used in melee or ranged", so reading it as melee requires noticing the weapon is also able to be thrown and can be used in melee.
James, I believe you're overthinking this one. The first feat (Startoss Style) limits itself to weapons from the Thrown fighter group. It specifies "damage rolls made with the weapon," which is inclusive of both ranged and melee damage, and further clarifies the limitations on that damage (no weapon or shield in the off-hand). Thus, when using a Spear (two-handed weapon) as a melee weapon, you would not gain the bonus from Startoss Style, unless you threw it. The feat is also clearly-written enough to clarify that it's bonus damage "with that weapon," so I'm not worried about someone trying to get bonus damage on their unarmed strikes, or ray spells, or something silly like that (which you know people would argue for).
Later feats in a feat chain don't change the meaning of the original feat though. As an example, every feat that I know of the requires Spell Focus (conjuration) is a Summoning spell. No one would argue though, that this means that the increased save DC from Spell Focus (conjuration) should only apply to Summoning spells, and rightly so since they don't normally have DCs.
I would personally not expect table variance on this particular feat, and I tend to give a lot of credence to the ambiguity of the rules and the multiple possible interpretations you can have.
Spears are one-handed melee weapons, not two, but +1.
Spears are one-handed melee weapons, not two, but +1.
Spears are two-handed melee weapons. Shortspears are one-handed melee weapons. (source) Both are part of the Thrown weapon group for Fighters.
My bad! I was thinking shortspear.
My bad! I was thinking shortspear.
I suspected as much, which is why I mentioned both in my response. It's an easy one to get mixed up on.
There are people who don't believe in China? First I've heard that!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There are people who don't believe in China? First I've heard that!
There are people who don't believe airplanes fly, so nothing would surprise me.
The PFS campaign clarifications addressed this:
Page 15—The Startoss Style feat’s bonus on damage rolls applies when making ranged weapon attacks with thrown weapons, not when making melee weapon attacks with them.
The PFS campaign clarifications addressed this:
Where do these clarifications live?
The PFS campaign clarifications addressed this:Where do these clarifications live?
Here.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's an unfortunate houserule, shame but oh well.
Here.The PFS campaign clarifications addressed this:Where do these clarifications live?
Thanks!
I realize they're not official outside PFS but it's still nice to know what the Society rules people think of things.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I suspect this is the case of the author turning over something (ranged and melee works) that Paizo design team changed (ranged only), because most of the PFS clarifications come from discussions with PDT.
We don't have purview over the Player Companions or Campaign Settings. This was a clarification from Owen, the developer of that book.