It uses a natural weapon to do the damage, it applies STR to the damage it is doing.
How is this not weapon damage? What is weapon damage in your mind?
If I had a special ability that let me swing around my sword to do automatic damage to everyone in an adjacent square, including adding my STR damage, would that damage cease to be weapon damage?
|
4 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Ozy, his point is that it doesn't say you're using a slam to do damage. It says you do damage in that area = to your slam damage + X.
And you making up hypothetical special abilities doesn't prove your point.
Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber
Throwing one rock is a weapon. Dumping a bunch of rocks on the swarm is an area-of-effect.
Jurassic Pratt wrote: Ozy, his point is that it doesn't say you're using a slam to do damage. It says you do damage in that area = to your slam damage + X exactly i was about to write that thank you
Jurassic Pratt wrote: Ozy, his point is that it doesn't say you're using a slam to do damage. It says you do damage in that area = to your slam damage + X.
And you making up hypothetical special abilities doesn't prove your point.
What are you using to do the damage? Is it, or is it not a weapon? You are acting like this damage is unconnected to a natural weapon, when it is in fact a natural weapon that is actually doing the damage.
I'm interested in the hypothetical because it works exactly the same way as trample, you use a weapon to do damage to an area. In your mind, this is not weapon damage. In my mind it is weapon damage.
Does a catapult do damage to a swarm?
KingOfAnything wrote: Throwing one rock is a weapon. Dumping a bunch of rocks on the swarm is an area-of-effect. The dispute isn't area vs. non-area of effect, the dispute is weapon vs. non-weapon damage.
If I'm immune to fire, it doesn't matter if it's a single-target fire effect or an area of effect fire effect, does it?
Yes, a catapult does not damage swarms because its a siege weapon.
If you can quote me anything saying that a trample is a weapon or is done with a weapon I'll concede my point.
Jurassic Pratt wrote: Yes, a catapult does not damage swarms because its a siege weapon.
If you can quote me anything saying that a trample is a weapon or is done with a weapon I'll concede my point.
What is trample done with, if not a weapon? How is STR added if the damage is not done with a physical weapon?
Sometime, and even the devs say this, you have to add a little bit of common sense to the rules.
If an elephant stomps you with its foot, that's a weapon attack. If the elephant tramples you using that very same foot...calling that not a weapon attack defies that very common sense the devs are talking about.
So, here's a question for you. What does an elephant use to trample, if not a natural weapon?
_Ozy_ wrote: Jurassic Pratt wrote: Ozy, his point is that it doesn't say you're using a slam to do damage. It says you do damage in that area = to your slam damage + X.
And you making up hypothetical special abilities doesn't prove your point.
What are you using to do the damage? Is it, or is it not a weapon? You are acting like this damage is unconnected to a natural weapon, when it is in fact a natural weapon that is actually doing the damage.
I'm interested in the hypothetical because it works exactly the same way as trample, you use a weapon to do damage to an area. In your mind, this is not weapon damage. In my mind it is weapon damage.
Does a catapult do damage to a swarm? the damage for trample use the slam damage as an example for how much damage it does so it is not a weapon damage, if a abilities does the same with a weapon then its not a weapon damage, catapult are weapon and deals no damage to a diminutive swarm because it is weapon damage they deal (which is stupid)
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
It uses the Extraordinary Monster Ability Trample to do that damage over an area by walking over it.
Because that's what the ability says it does.
And you know why you add strength to it? Because the EXTRAORDINARY Ability says to.
John Murdock wrote: _Ozy_ wrote: Snowlilly wrote: _Ozy_ wrote:
How on earth does trample include STR damage if it isn't weapon damage?
Trample uses a natural weapon (hoof).
As such, it uses all the modifiers to damage that would apply to your mounts hoof. It is also subject to most of the limitations, with the exception that the damage is applied to an area when using trample. Yes, it uses a weapon to do damage.
It's weapon damage. its not a weapon damage
''targets of a trample take an amount of damage equal to the trampling creature’s slam damage + 1-1/2 times its str modifier''
that's what the trample universal monster rule say so its not a weapon damage it use the natural weapon of the creature as a base to say how much damage it does Trample is defined in more than one place.
Trample wrote: While mounted, you can ride down opponents and trample them under your mount.
Prerequisites: Ride 1 rank, Mounted Combat.
Benefit: When you attempt to overrun an opponent while mounted, your target may not choose to avoid you. Your mount may make one hoof attack against any target you knock down, gaining the standard +4 bonus on attack rolls against prone targets.
In this case, it is clear that an attack is being made using the trampler's natural weapon.
In the case of the Univeral Monster Rules, the Slam natural weapon is used instead of a hoof and specific rules are added for success and avoiding damage.
That's a feat called trample that is not related to the Extraordinary Monster Ability Trample. They don't even reference each other or imply that they're related in any way.
_Ozy_ wrote: Jurassic Pratt wrote: Yes, a catapult does not damage swarms because its a siege weapon.
If you can quote me anything saying that a trample is a weapon or is done with a weapon I'll concede my point.
What is trample done with, if not a weapon? How is STR added if the damage is not done with a physical weapon?
Sometime, and even the devs say this, you have to add a little bit of common sense to the rules.
If an elephant stomps you with its foot, that's a weapon attack. If the elephant tramples you using that very same foot...calling that not a weapon attack defies that very common sense the devs are talking about.
So, here's a question for you. What does an elephant use to trample, if not a natural weapon? then a catapult should damage a swarm because common sense, then a swarm should never be immune to anything that squash them like trample, then a long spear which is essentially the same length as a spear since its the name of a danish spear and it should be able to use it in close range like a quarter staff, a lot of thing in pathfinder make totally no sense if we begin to put some common sense then we need to remake a bunch of rule
Jurassic Pratt wrote: It uses the Extraordinary Monster Ability Trample to do that damage over an area by walking over it.
Because that's what the ability says it does.
And you know why you add strength to it? Because the EXTRAORDINARY Ability says to.
Is there a rule somewhere that Ex monster abilities are not treated as weapon damage, even if they are doing damage with a natural weapon?
If damage is being done with a natural weapon, I believe the default is to treat it as weapon damage. If you want to claim otherwise, I think the onus is on you.
You have yet to quote anything saying that it's doing damage with a natural weapon. So I don't need a quote saying that Ex abilities do that.
Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber
Snowlilly wrote: Trample is defined in more than one place. Only one of those was cited in the OP.
John Murdock wrote: _Ozy_ wrote: Jurassic Pratt wrote: Yes, a catapult does not damage swarms because its a siege weapon.
If you can quote me anything saying that a trample is a weapon or is done with a weapon I'll concede my point.
What is trample done with, if not a weapon? How is STR added if the damage is not done with a physical weapon?
Sometime, and even the devs say this, you have to add a little bit of common sense to the rules.
If an elephant stomps you with its foot, that's a weapon attack. If the elephant tramples you using that very same foot...calling that not a weapon attack defies that very common sense the devs are talking about.
So, here's a question for you. What does an elephant use to trample, if not a natural weapon? then a catapult should damage a swarm because common sense, then a swarm should never be immune to anything that squash them like trample, then a long spear which is essentially the same length as a spear since its the name of a danish spear and it should be able to use it in close range like a quarter staff, a lot of thing in pathfinder make totally no sense if we begin to put some common sense then we need to remake a bunch of rule I'm talking about common sense when it comes to applying the rules, not 'common sense' as it pertains to so-called realism.
Since a catapult is a weapon, and does weapon damage, then the swarm is immune to that damage. Even if that weapon damage is applied to all creatures in a square, as in both a catapult and a trample attack.
Again, what does an elephant use to trample if not a natural weapon?
Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber
_Ozy_ wrote: KingOfAnything wrote: Throwing one rock is a weapon. Dumping a bunch of rocks on the swarm is an area-of-effect. The dispute isn't area vs. non-area of effect, the dispute is weapon vs. non-weapon damage.
If I'm immune to fire, it doesn't matter if it's a single-target fire effect or an area of effect fire effect, does it? Are swarms immune to avalanches now? A rock is a weapon.
_Ozy_ wrote: Jurassic Pratt wrote: It uses the Extraordinary Monster Ability Trample to do that damage over an area by walking over it.
Because that's what the ability says it does.
And you know why you add strength to it? Because the EXTRAORDINARY Ability says to.
Is there a rule somewhere that Ex monster abilities are not treated as weapon damage, even if they are doing damage with a natural weapon?
If damage is being done with a natural weapon, I believe the default is to treat it as weapon damage. If you want to claim otherwise, I think the onus is on you. and nowhere in the Ex ability is stated that you deal damage with your natural weapon, instead they refer to the slam damage of how much damage the trample does it never say you deal damage as if you were making a slam attack
Jurassic Pratt wrote: That's a feat called trample that is not related to the Extraordinary Monster Ability Trample. They don't even reference each other. Both were mentioned for completeness and that fact that there are differences in resolution is noted.
Both the feat and the Universal Monster Ability are derivative of the Overrun combat maneuver and are resolved in a similar fashion, save where notated differently.
One of the differences is that the feat resolves as a hoof attack vs. as a slam attack for the UMR.
Both hooves and slams are natural weapons.
Jurassic Pratt wrote: You have yet to quote anything saying that it's doing damage with a natural weapon. So I don't need a quote saying that Ex abilities do that. It's doing damage with a slam, you know that and I know that. It's doing damage with its natural weapon. You know that and I know that.
To try and pretend that this isn't the case is arguing dishonestly. I've already admitted that the rules don't specifically say that a trample is performed with a natural weapon because, like I said, sometimes the devs let people use common sense rather than write every detail into the rules.
Again, what is an elephant using to trample if not a natural weapon?
Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber
Why do you think swarms are immune to weapon damage? If you are going to use 'common sense' to say that trample is weapon damage, you should use your 'common sense' to realize a swarm isn't immune.
Ozy, I'm done arguing with you if you're going to be dishonest and then accuse me of being dishonest when you're the one ignoring what the rules say.
You're pretending that the rules say something that they don't. Nowhere does it say that Trample is done with a natural attack.
And once again, it's using its Trample ability to Trample. What is a dragon breathing fire with? Its Breath Weapon ability.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
_Ozy_ wrote: John Murdock wrote: _Ozy_ wrote: Jurassic Pratt wrote: Yes, a catapult does not damage swarms because its a siege weapon.
If you can quote me anything saying that a trample is a weapon or is done with a weapon I'll concede my point.
What is trample done with, if not a weapon? How is STR added if the damage is not done with a physical weapon?
Sometime, and even the devs say this, you have to add a little bit of common sense to the rules.
If an elephant stomps you with its foot, that's a weapon attack. If the elephant tramples you using that very same foot...calling that not a weapon attack defies that very common sense the devs are talking about.
So, here's a question for you. What does an elephant use to trample, if not a natural weapon? then a catapult should damage a swarm because common sense, then a swarm should never be immune to anything that squash them like trample, then a long spear which is essentially the same length as a spear since its the name of a danish spear and it should be able to use it in close range like a quarter staff, a lot of thing in pathfinder make totally no sense if we begin to put some common sense then we need to remake a bunch of rule I'm talking about common sense when it comes to applying the rules, not 'common sense' as it pertains to so-called realism.
Since a catapult is a weapon, and does weapon damage, then the swarm is immune to that damage. Even if that weapon damage is applied to all creatures in a square, as in both a catapult and a trample attack.
Again, what does an elephant use to trample if not a natural weapon? oh so you apply your ''common sense'' when its conveniant then the ''so-called realism'' like you said is common sense, a spear can be used like a quarter staff and a catapult should damage a swarm like you said about a dev that said we should add common sense to the rule and that's what i was doing
Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber
A sovereign dragon breathes bludgeoning damage. Is that weapon damage now, too?
KingOfAnything wrote: Why do you think swarms are immune to weapon damage? If you are going to use 'common sense' to say that trample is weapon damage, you should use your 'common sense' to realize a swarm isn't immune. If "common sense" were common, threads on this forum would be very short.
Most responses here are heavily biased with even basic rules of English rewritten or ignored to support arguments when standard readings fail to support the championed position.
Forget anything that required linking together two or more rules and having anyone agree on the correct interaction. It's not going to happen. Most people are only capable of focusing on a single rule or paragraph at a time, to the exclusion of everything else. Try using three or more rules or effects to reach a conclusion and the thread typically melts down as people violently reject anything they are incapable of following.
King, he actually is right about swarms of fine or diminutive size being immune to weapon damage.
Pratt, he is saying that why should we let a swarm be immune to weapon damage if we take common sense since its easy to squash multiple insect with a bludgeoning weapon especially if there are thousand in one square
John Murdock wrote: Pratt, he is saying that why should we let a swarm be immune to weapon damage if we take common sense since its easy to squash multiple insect with a bludgeoning weapon especially if there are thousand in one square Real world physics are not modeled in this game system.
Snowlilly wrote: Jurassic Pratt wrote: That's a feat called trample that is not related to the Extraordinary Monster Ability Trample. They don't even reference each other. Both were mentioned for completeness and that fact that there are differences in resolution is noted.
Both the feat and the Universal Monster Ability are derivative of the Overrun combat maneuver and are resolved in a similar fashion, save where notated differently.
One of the differences is that the feat resolves as a hoof attack vs. as a slam attack for the UMR.
Both hooves and slams are natural weapons. One does not resolve as a slam attack actually. One does damage equal to a slam attack. There is no attack roll or mention of it actually being a slam attack.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Snowlilly wrote: John Murdock wrote: Pratt, he is saying that why should we let a swarm be immune to weapon damage if we take common sense since its easy to squash multiple insect with a bludgeoning weapon especially if there are thousand in one square Real world physics are not modeled in this game system. i know but it was a response to ozy since he want to use common sense on the rule and when we do it now it is not applicable but only when it is convenient for him (the trample case)
Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber
Jurassic Pratt wrote: King, he actually is right about swarms of fine or diminutive size being immune to weapon damage. I understand that swarms are immune to normal weapon damage. I'm pointing out that trample does not involve normal weapon damage. If it is even weapon damage, it is not normal.
Jurassic Pratt wrote: Snowlilly wrote: Jurassic Pratt wrote: That's a feat called trample that is not related to the Extraordinary Monster Ability Trample. They don't even reference each other. Both were mentioned for completeness and that fact that there are differences in resolution is noted.
Both the feat and the Universal Monster Ability are derivative of the Overrun combat maneuver and are resolved in a similar fashion, save where notated differently.
One of the differences is that the feat resolves as a hoof attack vs. as a slam attack for the UMR.
Both hooves and slams are natural weapons. One does not resolve as a slam attack actually. One does damage equal to a slam attack. There is no attack roll or mention of it actually being a slam attack. I believe most of the quotes in this post are relevant to your position.
I could literally apply that to everything. The rules don't say that I can't make my sword out of cheese and have it do normal damage.
What we have here is an Ex ability that is not called out as a weapon. So its not a weapon unless something says otherwise. It's an Extraordinary ability that does damage. Plain and Simple.
And I think I'll be leaving this thread now. Because apparently what the rules say no longer matters in the rules forum. Just baseless opinions on how things work.
Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber
Quote: One of the differences is that the feat resolves as a hoof attack vs. as a slam attack for the UMR. This is the broken link in your chain of logic. Trample(Ex) does not resolve as a slam attack.
Snowlilly wrote: Jurassic Pratt wrote: Snowlilly wrote: Jurassic Pratt wrote: That's a feat called trample that is not related to the Extraordinary Monster Ability Trample. They don't even reference each other. Both were mentioned for completeness and that fact that there are differences in resolution is noted.
Both the feat and the Universal Monster Ability are derivative of the Overrun combat maneuver and are resolved in a similar fashion, save where notated differently.
One of the differences is that the feat resolves as a hoof attack vs. as a slam attack for the UMR.
Both hooves and slams are natural weapons. One does not resolve as a slam attack actually. One does damage equal to a slam attack. There is no attack roll or mention of it actually being a slam attack. I believe most of the quotes in this post are relevant to your position. and in a way it show the failure of the team to understand human being, even the rule of life is to always consider someone as stupid so to be careful with them, even irl law try to be as precise as possible because of the average people being stupid, having no common sense and no logic
Jurassic Pratt wrote: I could literally apply that to everything. The rules don't say that I can't make my sword out of cheese and have it do normal damage. Thus the parts about applying common sense.
If you're trying to make your sword out of cheese, it is something you most likely lack even a passing acquaintance with.
Quote: What we have here is an Ex ability that is not called out as a weapon. So its not a weapon unless something says otherwise. It's an Extraordinary ability that does damage. Plain and Simple.[/quote[What we have is an EX ability that references a natural weapon for damage resolution.
In other, very similar rules, it is explicitly called out that an attack is made using the named natural weapon.
While it is not explicitly stated as a natural weapon, the point of the thread I linked was:
fretgod99 wrote: There is a trend in a lot of this commentary. And that trend is that the rules are not written as explicitly and all-encompassing as you seem to think. There is grey area. There is room for ambiguity. There is room for inference. And not only is there room for inference, but the designers of the game expect us to do so. The rules are written expecting us to sometimes have to draw conclusions about rules that aren't explicitly stated. Obviously, that's not always ideal. Despite that, the alternative is far worse And I think I'll be leaving this thread now. Because apparently we're not allowed to use rules in the rule sforums. Just our own opinions on how things work.
We are using rules.
We are also expected, per the many developer posts I linked to a few minutes ago, use common sense.
Common sense would seem to dictate that an extraordinary ability that doesn't say it is a weapon, or that it is using a weapon, is not a weapon.
And that perhaps the reason that it does damage EQUAL TO a slam attack is because it's easier for both balance and wordcount to just reference something already in the creature's statblock.
Would this not count as common sense to you?
the dev want us to use common sense, which mean a catapult by common sense should deal damage to a swarm same for trample and a any sword should be able to deal either slashing damage or piercing damage not just pierce for the short one and only slash for the long one, but at the same time they do not want us to use common sense but to follow the rule, you can only choose one since they are contradictory, you either follow the rule or use common sense
Jurassic Pratt wrote: Common sense would seem to dictate that an extraordinary ability that doesn't say it is a weapon, or that it is using a weapon, is not a weapon. SKR wrote: Because the game doesn't have a rule for everything, because it assumes the players have common sense to know that you don't need rules for everything. 1. Trample specifically calls out to use slam damage.
2. Slam is a natural weapon.
3. Similar abilities, also named Trample and derived from the same combat maneuver, specify the damage dealt comes directly from a natural weapon.
Common sense: A natural weapon is named in the ability. Similar abilities specify the damage is dealt directly by the natural weapon. Lacking a statement specifying otherwise, we infer that the natural weapon named as the source of damage is being used to inflict the damage.
Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber
That is a very shaky inference.
Of the sort that often turns out wrong in FAQ answers.
Snowlilly wrote: Jurassic Pratt wrote: Common sense would seem to dictate that an extraordinary ability that doesn't say it is a weapon, or that it is using a weapon, is not a weapon. SKR wrote: Because the game doesn't have a rule for everything, because it assumes the players have common sense to know that you don't need rules for everything. 1. Trample specifically calls out to use slam damage.
2. Slam is a natural weapon.
3. Similar abilities, also named Trample and derived from the same combat maneuver, specify the damage dealt comes directly from a natural weapon.
Common sense: A natural weapon is named in the ability. Similar abilities specify the damage is dealt directly by the natural weapon. Lacking a statement specifying otherwise, we infer that the natural weapon named as the source of damage is being used to inflict the damage. I guess the same holds true for Dragon Roar and Whirlwind then as well?
This is the problem with your common sense over what the rules actually say argument. Your common sense and my common sense are apparently different. Which is why we should adhere to the rules in the rules forum.
But I'm done for real this time. No point in arguing with people who claim that the rules say things that they quite literally don't.
Brain_in_a_Jar wrote: Snowlilly wrote: Jurassic Pratt wrote: Common sense would seem to dictate that an extraordinary ability that doesn't say it is a weapon, or that it is using a weapon, is not a weapon. SKR wrote: Because the game doesn't have a rule for everything, because it assumes the players have common sense to know that you don't need rules for everything. 1. Trample specifically calls out to use slam damage.
2. Slam is a natural weapon.
3. Similar abilities, also named Trample and derived from the same combat maneuver, specify the damage dealt comes directly from a natural weapon.
Common sense: A natural weapon is named in the ability. Similar abilities specify the damage is dealt directly by the natural weapon. Lacking a statement specifying otherwise, we infer that the natural weapon named as the source of damage is being used to inflict the damage. I guess the same holds true for Dragon Roar and Whirlwind then as well? whirlwind specifically say you make an attack roll so you make a weapon damage, and the roar use the same language as the trample so its not a weapon damage, especially since you roar to make a cone attack (15foot) which by logic is impossible to do with a weapon
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
John Murdock wrote: Brain_in_a_Jar wrote: Snowlilly wrote: Jurassic Pratt wrote: Common sense would seem to dictate that an extraordinary ability that doesn't say it is a weapon, or that it is using a weapon, is not a weapon. SKR wrote: Because the game doesn't have a rule for everything, because it assumes the players have common sense to know that you don't need rules for everything. 1. Trample specifically calls out to use slam damage.
2. Slam is a natural weapon.
3. Similar abilities, also named Trample and derived from the same combat maneuver, specify the damage dealt comes directly from a natural weapon.
Common sense: A natural weapon is named in the ability. Similar abilities specify the damage is dealt directly by the natural weapon. Lacking a statement specifying otherwise, we infer that the natural weapon named as the source of damage is being used to inflict the damage. I guess the same holds true for Dragon Roar and Whirlwind then as well? whirlwind specifically say you make an attack roll so you make a weapon damage, and the roar use the same language as the trample so its not a weapon damage, especially since you roar to make a cone attack (15foot) which by logic is impossible to do with a weapon Whirlwind doesn't make an attack roll. (I was talking about the Whirlwind ability from Universal Monster Rules.)
Mainly I was using Whirlwind and Dragon Roar as examples of why the logic used was faulty.
So, my sahuagin barbarian's shark mount gains a slam attack now? A pixie wearing Boots of the Mastodon gains a 2d8 natural weapon?
No. When you make a grapple check to deal damage, you deal damage equal to your unarmed strike damage. But that is not an unarmed strike. And trample is not a slam.
(If you have the ability to grapple multiple targets in an area, could you grapple a swarm?)
John Murdock wrote: , especially since you roar to make a cone attack (15foot) which by logic is impossible to do with a weapon Sand Tubes and certain guns disagree...
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Please calm down everyone. Just because someone holds a different interpretation of the rules does not necessarily mean they are being dishonest.
Agreed. Both sides have decent points. FAQ it and let the team give an answer.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Cavall wrote: Agreed. Both sides have decent points. FAQ it and let the team give an answer. What? I was hoping for 99 more posts of "Yes!" "No!" "Yes!" "No!"
|
