Specifically, the fact that it reduces weapon damage by 2. It does not specify melee damage, which is where my problem is.
It sets the precedent that physical inability can reduce a ranged weapon's damage, while the opposite (that extraordinary ability, or high Dexterity, can increase the damage) isn't true.
I would suggest that Sickened be altered to specify that melee weapon damage is reduced, but ranged damage is not.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sickened also reduces weapon ranged damage in pathfinder, at long as it comes from a weapon, so that precedent come from a long time.
The diference between shaken and sickened is just the penalty to weapon damage, so if you remove it for ranged attacks (wich can be the majority in the game) you're making 2 different conditions almost identical (albeit stackable).
Specifically, the fact that it reduces weapon damage by 2. It does not specify melee damage, which is where my problem is.
It sets the precedent that physical inability can reduce a ranged weapon's damage, while the opposite (that extraordinary ability, or high Dexterity, can increase the damage) isn't true.
I would suggest that Sickened be altered to specify that melee weapon damage is reduced, but ranged damage is not.
You are less focused and therefore less efficient. The way the game handles weapon attack roll and weapon damage roll is quite abstract anyway.
Rules are not physics.