John Murdock wrote: _Ozy_ wrote: A flaming longsword could do damage if a swarm wasn't also immune to effects that only target a specific number of creatures, because a flaming longsword does 1d6 of fire damage along with its weapon damage.
Dude, WTF are you even arguing here? That an alchemical weapon doesn't do fire damage?
no that the immunity of the swarm is very badly worded, since an alchemical fire even if it does fire damage it still a weapon damage since its a splash weapon categorize into simple ranged weapon in the list of alchemical weapon, they should instead use the word immune to all single targeted damage or immune to slashing/bludgeoning/pierce damage instead as i see it No, it really is not. What is the 'size' category of an alchemist fire? How much fire damage does a 'large' alchemist fire do?
John Murdock wrote: _Ozy_ wrote: Is Rend (the monster ability) weapon damage? Is Two-weapon Rend (the feat) weapon damage? yes and yes here why
''If it hits with two or more natural attacks in 1 round, a creature with the rend special attack can cause tremendous damage by latching onto the opponent’s body and tearing flesh. This attack deals an additional amount of damage, but no more than once per round. The type of attacks that must hit and the additional damage are included in the creature’s description. The additional damage is usually equal to the damage caused by one of the attacks plus 1-1/2 times the creature’s Strength bonus.
Format: rend (2 claws, 1d8+9); Location: Special Attacks.''
''Prerequisites: Dex 17, Double Slice, Improved Two-Weapon Fighting, Two-Weapon Fighting, base attack bonus +11.
Benefit: If you hit an opponent with both your primary hand and your off-hand weapon, you deal an additional 1d10 points of damage plus 1-1/2 times your Strength modifier. You can only deal this additional damage once each round.''
one cleary say its an attack and the other cleary say you deal an additional damage from your weapons As usual, you miss some obvious detail that make the whole example invalid: rend hit only 1 creature, so it do nothing to a swarm,even to those that take weapon damage.
Diego Rossi wrote: John Murdock wrote: _Ozy_ wrote: Is Rend (the monster ability) weapon damage? Is Two-weapon Rend (the feat) weapon damage? yes and yes here why
''If it hits with two or more natural attacks in 1 round, a creature with the rend special attack can cause tremendous damage by latching onto the opponent’s body and tearing flesh. This attack deals an additional amount of damage, but no more than once per round. The type of attacks that must hit and the additional damage are included in the creature’s description. The additional damage is usually equal to the damage caused by one of the attacks plus 1-1/2 times the creature’s Strength bonus.
Format: rend (2 claws, 1d8+9); Location: Special Attacks.''
''Prerequisites: Dex 17, Double Slice, Improved Two-Weapon Fighting, Two-Weapon Fighting, base attack bonus +11.
Benefit: If you hit an opponent with both your primary hand and your off-hand weapon, you deal an additional 1d10 points of damage plus 1-1/2 times your Strength modifier. You can only deal this additional damage once each round.''
one cleary say its an attack and the other cleary say you deal an additional damage from your weapons As usual, you miss some obvious detail that make the whole example invalid: rend hit only 1 creature, so it do nothing to a swarm,even to those that take weapon damage. What? A weapon generally only hits 1 creature as well, so the swarm trait that makes it immune to effects that only target 1 creature can't possibly include weapon damage in that statement (though obviously it can be read that way) otherwise swarms that could take weapon damage would only take weapon damage from 'area' weapons.
In any case, that doesn't answer the initial question, whether rend is weapon damage or not. We're trying to figure out if Trample is weapon damage by looking at other special attacks or abilities that have similar wording, like Efreeti Touch, Rend, two-weapon rend, and so on.
_Ozy_ wrote: John Murdock wrote: _Ozy_ wrote: A flaming longsword could do damage if a swarm wasn't also immune to effects that only target a specific number of creatures, because a flaming longsword does 1d6 of fire damage along with its weapon damage.
Dude, WTF are you even arguing here? That an alchemical weapon doesn't do fire damage?
no that the immunity of the swarm is very badly worded, since an alchemical fire even if it does fire damage it still a weapon damage since its a splash weapon categorize into simple ranged weapon in the list of alchemical weapon, they should instead use the word immune to all single targeted damage or immune to slashing/bludgeoning/pierce damage instead as i see it No, it really is not. What is the 'size' category of an alchemist fire? How much fire damage does a 'large' alchemist fire do? you seem to move the goal posts in and out a lot. Post the table that shows weapons do "weapon damage" because i only see ones that do slashing, piercing and bludgeoning. now we can assume that since its "damage" by a "weapon" that it is also considered weapon damage.
however natural attacks are not listed as weapons. they may be occasional refereed to as "natural weapons" but they are not simply refereed to as "weapons" Similar to "weapons" they deal slashing, bludgeoning and piercing damage, and not "weapon" damage, but an argument could be made that they deal "natural weapon damage"
IF you are going to make the leap that "natural weapons" deal "weapon damage" as opposed do "natural weapon damage" then you cannot stop there. You must assume "siege weapons" deal "weapon damage" and not "siege weapon damage" and that "splash weapons" deal "weapon damage" and not "splash weapon damage" and you have to also assume "alchemical weapons" deal "weapon damage" and not "alchemical weapon damage"
You can't pick some categories of weapons (outside of the category actually labeled "weapons") and say only those count as weapons when it comes to their damage being considered "weapon damage"
Unless it is noted otherwise, either all weapons count as weapons or only the weapons listed as "weapons" count as weapons.
As I said, natural weapons and natural attacks are used interchangeably in the rules. I gave you one example, how many do you need to be convinced?
I'm not moving the goal posts, weapons do damage based on their size.
I'll quote the rule for you:
Quote: Every weapon has a size category. Natural weapons have a size category. A small claw attack does less damage than a large claw attack.
Alchemist fire does not have a size category. Therefore, what does that mean in the context of the above rule?
So no, all 'weapons' don't do weapon damage if you want to try and include alchemical weapons in that category.
But fine, if you want to make swarms immune to alchemical weapons and natural weapons, nobody is going to stop you. Chuckle at you, perhaps, but they won't stop you.
_Ozy_ wrote: As I said, natural weapons and natural attacks are used interchangeably in the rules. I gave you one example, how many do you need to be convinced?
I'm not moving the goal posts, weapons do damage based on their size.
I'll quote the rule for you:
Quote: Every weapon has a size category. Natural weapons have a size category. A small claw attack does less damage than a large claw attack.
Alchemist fire does not have a size category. Therefore, what does that mean in the context of the above rule?
So no, all 'weapons' don't do weapon damage if you want to try and include alchemical weapons in that category.
But fine, if you want to make swarms immune to alchemical weapons and natural weapons, nobody is going to stop you. Chuckle at you, perhaps, but they won't stop you.
i agree that natural attack and weapon are use interchangeably and i agree that you move the goal post
if you want more to prove that alchemical weapons are weapon then in the category of alchemical weapon listed as a simple light melee weapon the liquid blade. price 40gp, DMG 1d6, critical 19-20/x2, weight 2 lbs, type P. now let see alchemist's fire. price 20gp, DMG 1d6, critical x2, range 10ft, weight 1 lbs, type fire. they are listed like a weapon they have a weapon type of damage (fire for alchemist's fire, pierce for liquid blade)and have a category simple melee weapon, simple range weapon so yes they are weapon you cannot just cherry pick what is a weapon and what is not.
that's why i have said that the immunity of swarm are very badly worded, they should instead write that it is immune to non-area attack/effect and/or immune to slashing/pierce/bludgeoning damage
Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber
Weapons do weapon damage.
Effects do effect damage.
Trample is an effect.
QED.
KingOfAnything wrote: Weapons do weapon damage.
Effects do effect damage.
Trample is an effect.
QED.
Efreeti Touch is a special attack that does unarmed attack damage. Unarmed attack damage is weapon damage, therefore Efreeti Touch is weapon damage.
Trample is a special attack that does slam damage. Slam damage is weapon damage, therefore trample is weapon damage.
Where does it define Trample as an 'effect'?
John Murdock wrote: _Ozy_ wrote: As I said, natural weapons and natural attacks are used interchangeably in the rules. I gave you one example, how many do you need to be convinced?
I'm not moving the goal posts, weapons do damage based on their size.
I'll quote the rule for you:
Quote: Every weapon has a size category. Natural weapons have a size category. A small claw attack does less damage than a large claw attack.
Alchemist fire does not have a size category. Therefore, what does that mean in the context of the above rule?
So no, all 'weapons' don't do weapon damage if you want to try and include alchemical weapons in that category.
But fine, if you want to make swarms immune to alchemical weapons and natural weapons, nobody is going to stop you. Chuckle at you, perhaps, but they won't stop you.
i agree that natural attack and weapon are use interchangeably and i agree that you move the goal post
if you want more to prove that alchemical weapons are weapon then in the category of alchemical weapon listed as a simple light melee weapon the liquid blade. price 40gp, DMG 1d6, critical 19-20/x2, weight 2 lbs, type P. now let see alchemist's fire. price 20gp, DMG 1d6, critical x2, range 10ft, weight 1 lbs, type fire. they are listed like a weapon they have a weapon type of damage (fire for alchemist's fire, pierce for liquid blade)and have a category simple melee weapon, simple range weapon so yes they are weapon you cannot just cherry pick what is a weapon and what is not.
that's why i have said that the immunity of swarm are very badly worded, they should instead write that it is immune to non-area attack/effect and/or immune to slashing/pierce/bludgeoning damage *sigh*
Quote: By holding the tube, you can then use the crystalline blade as if it were a Medium short sword with the fragile quality. Dude, are you even trying?
Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber
_Ozy_ wrote: KingOfAnything wrote: Weapons do weapon damage.
Effects do effect damage.
Trample is an effect.
QED.
Efreeti Touch is a special attack that does unarmed attack damage. Unarmed attack damage is weapon damage, therefore Efreeti Touch is weapon damage.
Trample is a special attack that does slam damage. Slam damage is weapon damage, therefore trample is weapon damage.
Where does it define Trample as an 'effect'? No, Efreeti touch is an effect. It does 1.5x to a swarm.
Diego Rossi wrote: A swarm is immune to weapon damage, not physical damage. A trample attack is an attack that deal physical damage but isn't a weapon.... Just wondering, Do swarms get affected by a Blunderbuss (scatter weapon property)? It is weapon damage, but it affects an area.
Seems like a similar situation to the Trample vs swarms.
KingOfAnything wrote: _Ozy_ wrote: KingOfAnything wrote: Weapons do weapon damage.
Effects do effect damage.
Trample is an effect.
QED.
Efreeti Touch is a special attack that does unarmed attack damage. Unarmed attack damage is weapon damage, therefore Efreeti Touch is weapon damage.
Trample is a special attack that does slam damage. Slam damage is weapon damage, therefore trample is weapon damage.
Where does it define Trample as an 'effect'? No, Efreeti touch is an effect. It does 1.5x to a swarm. What are you talking about, Efreeti touch specifically and explicitly does weapon damage (unarmed strike). This is RAW, and quoted previously.
Where on earth are you getting this 'effect damage' classification from? Can you find me a rule in Pathfinder that defines 'effect damage'?
Murdock Mudeater wrote: Diego Rossi wrote: A swarm is immune to weapon damage, not physical damage. A trample attack is an attack that deal physical damage but isn't a weapon.... Just wondering, Do swarms get affected by a Blunderbuss (scatter weapon property)? It is weapon damage, but it affects an area.
Seems like a similar situation to the Trample vs swarms. It may be a weapon but it's a special quality of the weapon. It would affect swarms.
Cavall wrote: Murdock Mudeater wrote: Diego Rossi wrote: A swarm is immune to weapon damage, not physical damage. A trample attack is an attack that deal physical damage but isn't a weapon.... Just wondering, Do swarms get affected by a Blunderbuss (scatter weapon property)? It is weapon damage, but it affects an area.
Seems like a similar situation to the Trample vs swarms. It may be a weapon but it's a special quality of the weapon. It would affect swarms. Where does it say that it overrides swarm weapon immunity?
Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber
_Ozy_ wrote: KingOfAnything wrote: _Ozy_ wrote: KingOfAnything wrote: Weapons do weapon damage.
Effects do effect damage.
Trample is an effect.
QED.
Efreeti Touch is a special attack that does unarmed attack damage. Unarmed attack damage is weapon damage, therefore Efreeti Touch is weapon damage.
Trample is a special attack that does slam damage. Slam damage is weapon damage, therefore trample is weapon damage.
Where does it define Trample as an 'effect'? No, Efreeti touch is an effect. It does 1.5x to a swarm. What are you talking about, Efreeti touch specifically and explicitly does weapon damage (unarmed strike). This is RAW, and quoted previously.
Where on earth are you getting this 'effect damage' classification from? Can you find me a rule in Pathfinder that defines 'effect damage'? It's a gout of elemental fire. Basically, burning hands that advances with your monk level. In no sense would that be considered weapon damage.
KingOfAnything wrote: It's a gout of elemental fire. Basically, burning hands that advances with your monk level. In no sense would that be considered weapon damage. Oh, FFS, read the ability:
Quote: . Creatures caught in the cone take your unarmed strike damage plus the fire damage from your Elemental Fist and catch on fire. Yes, it does fire damage.
It ALSO does weapon damage. Nobody is disputing that a swarm would take the fire damage part of the ability. However, not all of the damage is fire damage.
Would the swarm take the unarmed strike weapon damage that is part of the ability?
Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber
The monk isn't punching everyone in the cone; it's not weapon damage. Just because some of the damage is bludgeoning doesn't make a swarm immune to it.
KingOfAnything wrote: The monk isn't punching everyone in the cone; it's not weapon damage. Just because some of the damage is bludgeoning doesn't make a swarm immune to it. I would like you to explain just exactly, by the rules, how unarmed strike damage is NOT weapon damage.
Can you go through the steps that lead you to that conclusion?
Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber
Quote: Creatures caught in the cone take your unarmed strike damage plus the fire damage from your Elemental Fist and catch on fire. What does 'your unarmed strike damage' mean?
*looks at monk table*
Quote: The unarmed damage values listed on Table: Monk are for Medium monks. Oh look! Unarmed strike damage is based on size and levels.
*looks at ability again*
Quote: Your knowledge of the secrets of the burning wind and blazing sun allows you to collect flames into your hands and unleash them in a gout of elemental fire. In no way are you using a weapon to do damage. Hence, not weapon damage.
KingOfAnything wrote: Quote: Creatures caught in the cone take your unarmed strike damage plus the fire damage from your Elemental Fist and catch on fire. What does 'your unarmed strike damage' mean?
*looks at monk table*
Quote: The unarmed damage values listed on Table: Monk are for Medium monks. Oh look! Unarmed strike damage is based on size and levels.
*looks at ability again*
Quote: Your knowledge of the secrets of the burning wind and blazing sun allows you to collect flames into your hands and unleash them in a gout of elemental fire. In no way are you using a weapon to do damage. Hence, not weapon damage. You've lost me. Is it your claim, now, that unarmed strike damage does not count as weapon damage? And why are you quoting the fluff of the ability to try and support your argument?
Let's simplify:
1) Is a monk's unarmed strike considered weapon damage, yes or no?
Trample doesn't deal weapon damage, it deals damage based on the damage that a specific natural attack would deal. Just like how spell effects differ sometimes based on caster level, the effect of trample differs depending on the slam attack for a creature of that size.
If you can point out to me where trample has an attack roll, I'll agree that it deals weapon damage, otherwise it is the effect of a special ability (just as the damage from attacking burning creature is an effect of that ability, not something that needs to be rolled for).
willuwontu wrote: Trample doesn't deal weapon damage, it deals damage based on the damage that a specific natural attack would deal. Just like how spell effects differ sometimes based on caster level, the effect of trample differs depending on the slam attack for a creature of that size.
If you can point out to me where trample has an attack roll, I'll agree that it deals weapon damage, otherwise it is the effect of a special ability (just as the damage from attacking burning creature is an effect of that ability, not something that needs to be rolled for).
Efreeti touch doesn't have an attack roll, and yet does weapon damage.
Where in the rules is it mandated that weapon damage can only be applied with an attack roll?
_Ozy_ wrote:
1) Is a monk's unarmed strike considered weapon damage, yes or no?
Did they make an attack roll? It's considered weapon damage if so (unless otherwise specified)
willuwontu wrote: _Ozy_ wrote:
1) Is a monk's unarmed strike considered weapon damage, yes or no?
Did they make an attack roll? It's considered weapon damage if so (unless otherwise specified) Great, point that out in the rules, please.
Also, is a coup d'grace weapon damage?
Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber
Simple test here. Not sure why you have trouble following.
Did you use a weapon to do damage? It's weapon damage.
KingOfAnything wrote: Simple test here. Not sure why you have trouble following.
Did you use a weapon to do damage? It's weapon damage.
Yes, you used your unarmed strike to do damage. It's weapon damage.
_Ozy_ wrote: willuwontu wrote: _Ozy_ wrote:
1) Is a monk's unarmed strike considered weapon damage, yes or no?
Did they make an attack roll? It's considered weapon damage if so (unless otherwise specified) Great, point that out in the rules, please.
Also, is a coup d'grace weapon damage? Sure thing, just as soon as you point out in the rules where trample damage is specifically stated to be weapon damage
Edit: Also for the record
PRD wrote: As a full-round action, you can use a melee weapon to deliver a coup de grace (pronounced “coo day grahs”) to a helpless opponent. You can also use a bow or crossbow, provided you are adjacent to the target. No duh it's weapon damage for a coup de grace, they use a weapon for it.
Show me where in efreeti touch it states you use you unarmed strike to deal damage.
willuwontu wrote: _Ozy_ wrote: willuwontu wrote: _Ozy_ wrote:
1) Is a monk's unarmed strike considered weapon damage, yes or no?
Did they make an attack roll? It's considered weapon damage if so (unless otherwise specified) Great, point that out in the rules, please.
Also, is a coup d'grace weapon damage? Sure thing, just as soon as you point out in the rules where trample damage is specifically stated to be weapon damage You first, then I'll comply. Point out where the rules say that weapon damage requires an attack roll, and then somehow make it work with coup d'grace.
Then, after you manage that, I'll provide my evidence regarding trample.
Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber
_Ozy_ wrote: KingOfAnything wrote: Simple test here. Not sure why you have trouble following.
Did you use a weapon to do damage? It's weapon damage.
Yes, you used your unarmed strike to do damage. It's weapon damage. Lol. You're gonna have to show me where it says you punch all the things with your fiery fist, then.
_Ozy_ wrote: willuwontu wrote: _Ozy_ wrote:
1) Is a monk's unarmed strike considered weapon damage, yes or no?
Did they make an attack roll? It's considered weapon damage if so (unless otherwise specified) Great, point that out in the rules, please.
Also, is a coup de grace weapon damage? Coup de grace is a full-round attack that automatically hits and explicitly states that you use a weapon. I don't think it's relevant to this conversation.
Efreeti Touch states that you do the damage of an unarmed strike, but does not state anywhere that you are attacking everything in the cone using unarmed strikes. As such, you are not using a weapon when you use Efreeti Touch, and any damage that results is not weapon damage.
An eidolon with Swallow Whole (Ex) deals bite damage to anything it has swallowed. It's not physically attacking the creature inside its stomach with a bite attack. I don't consider this weapon damage (although one wouldn't use this ability to damage swarms, given they're immune to the original grapple checks).
KingOfAnything wrote: _Ozy_ wrote: KingOfAnything wrote: Simple test here. Not sure why you have trouble following.
Did you use a weapon to do damage? It's weapon damage.
Yes, you used your unarmed strike to do damage. It's weapon damage. Lol. You're gonna have to show me where it says you punch all the things with your fiery fist, then. Dude, I'm not even sure what your problem is here. Have you ever watched mystical martial arts movies? Ranged 'punches', area of attack 'punches', firey 'punches' are all part of the genre.
I already showed you where it says you do unarmed damage to everything in the area, it's in the description of the ability. I'll quote it once again for you:
Quote: Creatures caught in the cone take your unarmed strike damage plus the fire damage from your Elemental Fist and catch on fire. Now, if you want to fluff that as 'punching everything in the area', feel free. If you want to fluff it as something else, fine. That's irrelevant to the actual RAW.
If you don't like the implications of the way you think it has to be fluffed to work, then don't allow the ability in your game.
_Ozy_ wrote: willuwontu wrote: _Ozy_ wrote: willuwontu wrote: _Ozy_ wrote:
1) Is a monk's unarmed strike considered weapon damage, yes or no?
Did they make an attack roll? It's considered weapon damage if so (unless otherwise specified) Great, point that out in the rules, please.
Also, is a coup d'grace weapon damage? Sure thing, just as soon as you point out in the rules where trample damage is specifically stated to be weapon damage You first, then I'll comply. Point out where the rules say that weapon damage requires an attack roll, and then somehow make it work with coup d'grace.
Then, after you manage that, I'll provide my evidence regarding trample. Sure here you go, now show me the specific trample example
PRD wrote: These columns give the damage dealt by the weapon on a successful hit.
Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber
That's part of the genre, but not a part of the specific ability. It says exactly what it does: a gout of flame. No punches.
You're trying really hard to insist it works the way you think it does. To the point of picking out random words in the mechanics to reinforce a point. I'm sorry, but that's not how the rules work.
There is a difference between 'your unarmed damage' and 'unarmed damage' that you insist on ignoring.
Serum wrote: _Ozy_ wrote: willuwontu wrote: _Ozy_ wrote:
1) Is a monk's unarmed strike considered weapon damage, yes or no?
Did they make an attack roll? It's considered weapon damage if so (unless otherwise specified) Great, point that out in the rules, please.
Also, is a coup d'grace weapon damage? Coup d'grace is a full-round attack that automatically hits and explicitly states that you use a weapon. I don't think it's relevant to this conversation. It's relevant insofar as it proves you can do weapon damage without an attack roll. Therefore, the lack of an attack roll is not prima facie evidence that damage done is not weapon damage.
Quote: Efreeti Touch states that you do the damage of an unarmed strike, but does not state anywhere that you are attacking everything in the cone using unarmed strikes. As such, you are not using a weapon when you use Efreeti Touch, and any damage that results is not weapon damage. If the rules say that unarmed strike damage is done, then unarmed strike damage is done. There is no mechanism in the rules to convert unarmed strike damage into damage that isn't unarmed strike damage, attack roll or no.
Unarmed strike damage is always unarmed strike damage. It is never not unarmed strike damage. Somehow you seem to think that unless unarmed strike damage is applied with a single unarmed strike attack roll, that it is somehow not unarmed strike damage.
And I can't, for the life of me, figure out where in the rules you are getting that idea.
So, where is it?
Quote: A creature with Swallow Whole (Ex) deals slam damage to anything it has swallowed. It's not physically attacking the creature inside its stomach with a slam attack. I don't consider this weapon damage (although one wouldn't use this ability to damage swarms, given they're immune to the original grapple checks). Huh? The Swallow Whole ability does not specify slam damage, but says the damage can vary based on the creature. This
willuwontu wrote: _Ozy_ wrote: willuwontu wrote: _Ozy_ wrote: willuwontu wrote: _Ozy_ wrote:
1) Is a monk's unarmed strike considered weapon damage, yes or no?
Did they make an attack roll? It's considered weapon damage if so (unless otherwise specified) Great, point that out in the rules, please.
Also, is a coup d'grace weapon damage? Sure thing, just as soon as you point out in the rules where trample damage is specifically stated to be weapon damage You first, then I'll comply. Point out where the rules say that weapon damage requires an attack roll, and then somehow make it work with coup d'grace.
Then, after you manage that, I'll provide my evidence regarding trample. Sure here you go, now show me the specific trample example
PRD wrote: These columns give the damage dealt by the weapon on a successful hit. *facepalm* Logic, dude. First of all, successful hit != attack roll. You can hit something with a magic missle, no?
secondly
"Weapon Damage can be dealt with an attack roll"
!=
"Weapon Damage can ONLY be dealt with an attack roll."
Please, find in the rules anything that says weapon damage, such as, you know, a coup d'grace, can only be applied with an attack roll.
Hint, there ain't no such rule.
_Ozy_ wrote: willuwontu wrote: _Ozy_ wrote: willuwontu wrote: _Ozy_ wrote: willuwontu wrote: _Ozy_ wrote:
1) Is a monk's unarmed strike considered weapon damage, yes or no?
Did they make an attack roll? It's considered weapon damage if so (unless otherwise specified) Great, point that out in the rules, please.
Also, is a coup d'grace weapon damage? Sure thing, just as soon as you point out in the rules where trample damage is specifically stated to be weapon damage You first, then I'll comply. Point out where the rules say that weapon damage requires an attack roll, and then somehow make it work with coup d'grace.
Then, after you manage that, I'll provide my evidence regarding trample. Sure here you go, now show me the specific trample example
PRD wrote: These columns give the damage dealt by the weapon on a successful hit. *facepalm* Logic, dude. First of all, successful hit != attack roll. You can hit something with a magic missle, no?
secondly
"Weapon Damage can be dealt with an attack roll"
!=
"Weapon Damage can ONLY be dealt with an attack roll."
Please, find in the rules anything that says weapon damage, such as, you know, a coup d'grace, can only be applied with an attack roll.
Hint, there ain't no such rule. Show me where I said it could only be dealt with an attack roll, or that all attack rolls deal weapon damage. I only said that trample doesn't make attack roll and therefore doesn't deal weapon damage. Attack rolls with a weapon are not the only way of dealing weapon damage, but any other times weapons are used to deal damage it is clearly stated in the ability.
One of the very clear-cut cases where weapon damage is dealt without an attack roll is coup de gras, where they specific that they use the weapon to damage foes. (also you can't coup de gras a swarm anyways)
PRD wrote: As a full-round action, you can use a melee weapon to deliver a coup de grace (pronounced “coo day grahs”) to a helpless opponent. You can also use a bow or crossbow, provided you are adjacent to the target. (oh look they use a weapon to deal weapon damage)
Other abilities such as efreeti's touch deal damage based on weapon damage, but are not attacks made using a weapon (nowhere in it does it say a monk uses their unarmed strike to deal unarmed damage plus fire damage). Saying that efreeti touch deals weapon damage is the same as saying that cone of cold deals weapon damage.
_Ozy_ wrote: Serum wrote: A creature with Swallow Whole (Ex) deals slam damage to anything it has swallowed. It's not physically attacking the creature inside its stomach with a slam attack. I don't consider this weapon damage (although one wouldn't use this ability to damage swarms, given they're immune to the original grapple checks). Huh? The Swallow Whole ability does not specify slam damage, but says the damage can vary based on the creature....
Sorry Ozy, I edited my post after you started typing your reply but before you finished submitting. The Swallow Whole ability I was thinking of was for the summoner's eidolon, which deals damage equal to its bite.
Quote: It's relevant insofar as it proves you can do weapon damage without an attack roll. Therefore, the lack of an attack roll is not prima facie evidence that damage done is not weapon damage. A coup de grace is an attack that automatically hits. A magic missile doesn't hit, it instead affects a target. Note the difference between it and scorching ray. Scorching ray requires an attack roll and must hit the target in order to deal damage. I'm not saying that scorching ray is weapon damage, just that in order to hit, one must first attack. Coup de grace is an attack that automatically hits. From here, I state that weapon damage must come from a weapon, and that in order to deal damage with weapons one must make an attack roll with them.
Quote: Quote: Efreeti Touch states that you do the damage of an unarmed strike, but does not state anywhere that you are attacking everything in the cone using unarmed strikes. As such, you are not using a weapon when you use Efreeti Touch, and any damage that results is not weapon damage. If the rules say that unarmed strike damage is done, then unarmed strike damage is done. There is no mechanism in the rules to convert unarmed strike damage into damage that isn't unarmed strike damage, attack roll or no.
Unarmed strike damage is always unarmed strike damage. It is never not unarmed strike damage. Somehow you seem to think that unless unarmed strike damage is applied with a single unarmed strike attack roll, that it is somehow not unarmed strike damage.
And I can't, for the life of me, figure out where in the rules you are getting that idea.
So, where is it?
I guess I'm saying that unarmed strike/bite/etc damage coming from an attack with a weapon is weapon damage. Unarmed strike/bite/etc damage not coming from an attack with a weapon is not weapon damage, generally because it is used to scale a different, separate ability.
Serum wrote: _Ozy_ wrote: willuwontu wrote: _Ozy_ wrote:
1) Is a monk's unarmed strike considered weapon damage, yes or no?
Did they make an attack roll? It's considered weapon damage if so (unless otherwise specified) Great, point that out in the rules, please.
Also, is a coup de grace weapon damage? Coup de grace is a full-round attack that automatically hits and explicitly states that you use a weapon. I don't think it's relevant to this conversation.
Efreeti Touch states that you do the damage of an unarmed strike, but does not state anywhere that you are attacking everything in the cone using unarmed strikes. As such, you are not using a weapon when you use Efreeti Touch, and any damage that results is not weapon damage.
An eidolon with Swallow Whole (Ex) deals bite damage to anything it has swallowed. It's not physically attacking the creature inside its stomach with a bite attack. I don't consider this weapon damage (although one wouldn't use this ability to damage swarms, given they're immune to the original grapple checks). Absolutely not RAW, but at my table I would allow a large enough creature to swallow a swarm and deal damage to it.
That's how whales eat, after all.
The main problem here in my modest opinion is not the weapon type damage, it's the size of the damage source.
Swarm Traits wrote: A swarm made up of Tiny creatures takes half damage from slashing and piercing weapons inferior to Large size. A swarm composed of Fine or Diminutive creatures is immune to all weapon damage below Large size, take half damage from Large or bigger slashing and piercing weapons, and full damage from Large or bigger blunt weapons. Bolded my aditional content.
For convenient abstraction the size of a natural attack is as big as the creature's size.
There you go, simple (house)rules.
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? Even though Dragon Roar bases damage off the user's unarmed strike, damage is specified as coming from the roar itself. It is no more a weapon based attack than the spell Stone Call. The same is true of Efreeti Touch. Unarmed Strike damage is used as a baseline, but the actual damage is dealt by an AoE energy attack. Unlike trample, you don't physically strike the opponent with your natural weapon(or unarmed strike). You are using the scaling stat as a gauge for how potent the energy unleashed by the monks alternate usage of is.
Whirlwind attack definitely involves striking your opponents with the wielded weapon.
Jurassic Pratt wrote: 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.
While providing an entire page of developer comments stating this is exactly what is both intended and required for the rules to function.
we talk about whirlwind special attack of the air elemental, not the feat, which say you do damage equal to your slam damage like trample
John Murdock wrote: we talk about whirlwind special attack of the air elemental, not the feat, which say you do damage equal to your slam damage like trample The whirlwind special attack is a different matter.
Ask yourself:
1. Would an enhancement bonus to a creatures slam attack grant a damage bonus to that creatures whirlwind attack?
2. Is the air elemental making AoE slam attacks or using slamming as a proxy to gauge the strength of an unrelated ability?
3. Is a tornado a weapon?
Answering these questions is another exercise in common sense (refer to linked developer posts stating common sense is both assumed and required). Arguments can be made either way for #1 and #2, #3 is definitely a no. (At least in context. Alchemists fire is, technically, used as a weapon, but is not considered such in context.)
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Random and amusing thought:
A few weeks ago there was an extensive argument where people argued at great length that improvised weapons were not "weapons".
Does that mean you can kill swarms with improvised weapons? Or do we use whichever rules interpretation is least favorable, reversing position whenever the previously used argument suddenly offers an unintended advantage?
Snowlilly wrote: John Murdock wrote: we talk about whirlwind special attack of the air elemental, not the feat, which say you do damage equal to your slam damage like trample The whirlwind special attack is a different matter.
Ask yourself:
1. Would an enhancement bonus to a creatures slam attack grant a damage bonus to that creatures whirlwind attack?
2. Is the air elemental making AoE slam attacks or using slamming as a proxy to gauge the strength of an unrelated ability?
3. Is a tornado a weapon?
Answering these questions is another exercise in common sense (refer to linked developer posts stating common sense is both assumed and required). Arguments can be made either way for #1 and #2, #3 is definitely a no. (At least in context. Alchemists fire is, technically, used as a weapon, but is not considered such in context.) 1. no same for trample since it use its body.
2. its using slamming as a proxy to gauge the strenght of an unrelated ability same for trample.
3. no same for body or else AoMF should apply to grapple since its either a natural attack or an unarmed attack but the dev say no. so using your body is not a weapon
Fyi, in case you're wondering. Improvised weapons aren't weapons.
Never give up!
So, the problems seems to be the damage type: energy AoE is ok, a physical one is not.
What about a very large creature whose foot is larger than the entire area occupied by the swarm? If it tramples, every single creature of the swarm will be squashed, but you are arguing that they are immune.
What about a giant metal press going down on the swarm? Is it immune because the press is doing bludgeoning damage?
Megistone wrote: So, the problems seems to be the damage type: energy AoE is ok, a physical one is not.
What about a very large creature whose foot is larger than the entire area occupied by the swarm? If it tramples, every single creature of the swarm will be squashed, but you are arguing that they are immune.
What about a giant metal press going down on the swarm? Is it immune because the press is doing bludgeoning damage?
for me if its a weapon damage it deals no damage even if the damage is an energy damage (like alchemist's fire) since nowhere in the swarm trait say that alchemist's fire can deal damage as an exception, in 3.5 yes, in 3.5 splash weapon, torch (who deal 1 point of fire damage) and energy damage from a weapon (like flaming or frost) deal damage to a swarm normally immune to weapon damage, but in pathfinder i did not see any of those exception, so they need to reintroduce those exception or change the immunity to swarm then
John Murdock wrote: Megistone wrote: So, the problems seems to be the damage type: energy AoE is ok, a physical one is not.
What about a very large creature whose foot is larger than the entire area occupied by the swarm? If it tramples, every single creature of the swarm will be squashed, but you are arguing that they are immune.
What about a giant metal press going down on the swarm? Is it immune because the press is doing bludgeoning damage?
for me if its a weapon damage it deals no damage even if the damage is an energy damage (like alchemist's fire) since nowhere in the swarm trait say that alchemist's fire can deal damage as an exception, in 3.5 yes, in 3.5 splash weapon, torch (who deal 1 point of fire damage) and energy damage from a weapon (like flaming or frost) deal damage to a swarm normally immune to weapon damage, but in pathfinder i did not see any of those exception, so they need to reintroduce those exception or change the immunity to swarm then Swarms take increased damage from alchemist fire.
PRD wrote: A swarm takes half again as much damage (+50%) from spells or effects that affect an area, such as splash weapons and many evocation spells.
Cavall wrote: Fyi, in case you're wondering. Improvised weapons aren't weapons.
Never give up!
Improvised weapons are weapons and you can enhance them to boot (AA2).
Just because they're situational weapons, does not mean they aren't considered weapons at that point in time. It's similar to how brawlers are only considered to have TWF during flurry. An improvised weapon is only considered a weapon during the time it is being wielded.
Edit: Could I get a link to the discussion being mentioned?
willuwontu wrote: Swarms take increased damage from alchemist fire.
PRD wrote: A swarm takes half again as much damage (+50%) from spells or effects that affect an area, such as splash weapons and many evocation spells.
and a swarm is immune to all weapon damage
''A swarm composed of Fine or Diminutive creatures is immune to all weapon damage.''
so 0 x 1.5 = 0 wow, much damage, very useful, so dangerous
the splash weapons was an example and a poorly one since its a weapon and thus immune, nowhere it say that splash weapon bypass the immunity, at least in 3.5 they say it was an exception to the immunities same with torche who deal 1 fire damage and energy damage from weapon like flaming or frost
|
