|
2 people marked this as FAQ candidate.
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
There is a wizards crossbow called "Mages crossbow" which adds it's enhancement bonus to your ray attacks (to hit and to damage).
If I were gonna use Battering blast as a level 20 wizard which equals to(five balls of force) with a Mages Crossbow +5, would you add this +5 bonus damage on the first battering blast only? or would it add to each subsequent battering blast attack made on that turn?
Mages Crossbow:
This +2 light crossbow is made of silver that never needs to be polished.
A mage’s crossbow is especially effective against creatures with spell resistance. Against such creatures, the weapon’s effective enhancement bonus increases to +3, and it deals an additional 1d6 points of damage. Whenever the wielder casts a spell that requires him to make a ranged touch attack (such as a ray) while he has the crossbow in hand, he gains a bonus on his ranged attack roll equal to the crossbow’s enhancement bonus against the target creature. If the spell hits, the caster also applies this bonus to the caster level check to overcome the target’s spell resistance (if any) and on the spell’s damage roll (if any).
Battering Blast:
You hurl a fist-sized ball of force resembling a sphere of spikes to ram a designated creature or object. You must succeed on a ranged touch attack to strike your target. On a successful hit, you deal 1d6 points of force damage per two caster levels (maximum 5d6). For every 5 caster levels you possess beyond 5th, you gain a second ball of force.
A creature struck by any of these is subject to a bull rush attempt. The force has a Strength modifier equal to your Intelligence, Wisdom, or Charisma modifier (whichever is highest). The CMB for the force’s bull rush uses your caster level as its base attack bonus, adding the force’s Strength modifier and a +10 bonus for each additional blast directed against the same target. Each sphere of force makes its own separate bull rush attempt—if multiple spheres strike one target, you make multiple CMB checks but only take the highest result to determine success. If the bull rush succeeds, the force pushes the creature away from you in a straight line, and the creature must make a Reflex save or fall prone.
This spell pushes an unattended object struck by it 20 feet away from you, provided it weighs no more than 25 pounds per level (maximum 250 pounds). This spell cannot move creatures or objects beyond your range. Used on a door or other obstacle, the spell attempts a Strength check to destroy it if the sheer damage inflicted by the spell doesn’t do the job.
" Whenever the wielder casts a spell that requires him to make a ranged touch attack (such as a ray) while he has the crossbow in hand, he gains a bonus on his ranged attack roll equal to the crossbow’s enhancement bonus against the target creature. If the spell hits, the caster also applies this bonus to the caster level check to overcome the target’s spell resistance (if any) and on the spell’s damage roll (if any)."
The item specifies "ranged touch attack" and "ray" meaning it calls out each individual roll.
So it should work on every iteration of an attack roll that the spell generates and requires. Assuming its directly result of the spell
i.e. scorching ray's are all at once. Or a ranged Shocking graps. These would work
Compared to..
Ranged Chill Touch's free touch attack upon casting would benefit. but the later ones. I don't think would qualify
So, thats how I read it. The specific of the mage's crossbow overrites the usaual "one per effect" ruling that deals with SNeak Attack and Arcane Weapon.
So for battering blast, Each ball requires a ranged touch, each one is instantly done via the spell.
So I think each ball would gain the benefit.
Zwordsman wrote: " Whenever the wielder casts a spell that requires him to make a ranged touch attack (such as a ray) while he has the crossbow in hand, he gains a bonus on his ranged attack roll equal to the crossbow’s enhancement bonus against the target creature. If the spell hits, the caster also applies this bonus to the caster level check to overcome the target’s spell resistance (if any) and on the spell’s damage roll (if any)."
The item specifies "ranged touch attack" and "ray" meaning it calls out each individual roll.
So it should work on every iteration of an attack roll that the spell generates and requires. Assuming its directly result of the spell
i.e. scorching ray's are all at once. Or a ranged Shocking graps. These would work
Compared to..
Ranged Chill Touch's free touch attack upon casting would benefit. but the later ones. I don't think would qualify
So, thats how I read it. The specific of the mage's crossbow overrites the usaual "one per effect" ruling that deals with SNeak Attack and Arcane Weapon.
So for battering blast, Each ball requires a ranged touch, each one is instantly done via the spell.
So I think each ball would gain the benefit.
Thank you for the clarification, sounds very clear to me as well. I just want to make sure Im following the rules correctly.
Anyone else have a different opinion? I would like to hear more!!
All ray spells are ranged touch attacks, but not all ranged touch attack spells are rays. A ray spell has the line "Effect: Ray" in its top level stat block - Scorching Ray, Enervation, and Disintegrate are examples of this.
Battering Blast doesn't have that line, so it's not a ray spell and this wouldn't work at all.
Edit: Nevermind, I looked up the actual rules text and it says it works on ranged touch attacks "(such as a ray)" not just rays.
I believe it would apply to every ranged touch attack from a spell that you make, regardless of whether there are multiple rolls from a single spell or not. However, the sneak attack and arcane weapon precedents do make this uncertain.
"he gains a bonus on his ranged attack roll"
Just to clarify, since I'm not sure of everything you are asking here I don't see how the bonus would apply to the bullrush attempt (or a STR check.)
Xenocrat wrote: All ray spells are ranged touch attacks, but not all ranged touch attack spells are rays. A ray spell has the line "Effect: Ray" in its top level stat block - Scorching Ray, Enervation, and Disintegrate are examples of this.
Battering Blast doesn't have that line, so it's not a ray spell and this wouldn't work at all.
The Mages crossbow is not strictly for "rays" ranged touch attacks, it applies to all "ranged touch attacks".
Dave Justus wrote: I believe it would apply to every ranged touch attack from a spell that you make, regardless of whether there are multiple rolls from a single spell or not. However, the sneak attack and arcane weapon precedents do make this uncertain.
"he gains a bonus on his ranged attack roll"
Just to clarify, since I'm not sure of everything you are asking here I don't see how the bonus would apply to the bullrush attempt (or a STR check.)
I'm asking if the mages crossbow enhancement bonus is applied to all the battering blast balls or just the first one. If it applies yo all the attacks then it will do more damage obviously.
Battering blast can strike several times depending on the caster level so how does the mages crossbow interacts with multiple attacks from battering blast damage?
blahpers wrote: All of them. Are you sure?
criptonic wrote: blahpers wrote: All of them. Are you sure? By RAW, yes. By RAI, yes? As in over 70% confident, but never 100%. Over 70% is a high level of confidence. As in most GMs should be fine with it.
Meirril wrote: criptonic wrote: blahpers wrote: All of them. Are you sure? By RAW, yes. By RAI, yes? As in over 70% confident, but never 100%. Over 70% is a high level of confidence. As in most GMs should be fine with it. Could you elaborate ? why do you believe so. I need a good argument so I can convince my DM lol. He is a bit hard headed but I can probably make him see the truth lol.
He keeps saying that there is an FAQ that talks about Scorching ray and sneak attack, the FAQ says that you can apply sneak attack ONLY ONCE to your scorching ray so he says "then why would the crossbow change this rule" and thats that! lol.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Mage's Crossbow wrote: Mage’s Crossbow
Price 18,335 gp; Slot none; CL 8th; Weight 4 lbs.; Aura moderate transmutation
DESCRIPTION
This +2 light crossbow is made of silver that never needs to be polished.
A mage’s crossbow is especially effective against creatures with spell resistance. Against such creatures, the weapon’s effective enhancement bonus increases to +3, and it deals an additional 1d6 points of damage. Whenever the wielder casts a spell that requires him to make a ranged touch attack (such as a ray) while he has the crossbow in hand, he gains a bonus on his ranged attack roll equal to the crossbow’s enhancement bonus against the target creature. If the spell hits, the caster also applies this bonus to the caster level check to overcome the target’s spell resistance (if any) and on the spell’s damage roll (if any).
CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS
Cost 9,835 gp; Feats Craft Magic Arms and Armor, Spell Penetration; Spells summon monster I, true strike
Not sure why your GM would need a convincing argument. It says so right in the item's description. Battering Blast requires a Ranged Touch Attack per ball of force summoned, and whenever you make a Ranged Touch Attack you apply the Enhancement bonus of the Mage's Crossbow to that attack.
Dave Justus wrote: However, the sneak attack and arcane weapon precedents do make this uncertain.
criptonic wrote:
Could you elaborate ? why do you believe so. I need a good argument so I can convince my DM lol. He is a bit hard headed but I can probably make him see the truth lol.
He keeps saying that there is an FAQ that talks about Scorching ray and sneak attack, the FAQ says that you can apply sneak attack ONLY ONCE to your scorching ray so he says "then why would the crossbow change this rule" and thats that! lol. in both cases. It is a matter of specific overriding general.
The specific wording of the mage xbow itself, bypasses any and all generalized rulings that conflict with itself.
"Whenever the wielder casts a spell that requires him to make a ranged touch attack (such as a ray) while he has the crossbow in hand, he gains a bonus on his ranged attack roll equal to the crossbow’s enhancement bonus against the target creature. "
Fulfil that and it is a specific rule overriding the normal rule where your weapon can not add to your spell. If its a ranged touch attack. you have the Xbow in hand. you gt the bonus.
Full stop basically. The Item itself specifically calls out the conditions to which it grants its effects
--------
That sneak attack + spell damage faq literally only covers Sneak Attack and no other effect in the game. So, it actually won't effect anything else by RAW that isn't sneak attack--not even other precision damage is effected by this FAQ.
(https://www.paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fm#v5748eaic9qqm faqs in core)
This faq extended to the Surprise Spell FAQ where they state it is valid to add sneak attack to the entire fireball for anyone that is the valid condition. So it isn't like there isn't FAQ showing that that situation can be bypassed via a specific case.
Mage's Crossbow is not sneak attack damage. So those FAQs relate nothing to it by RAW.
They certain can set a RAI precedent for effects giving bonuses. But RAW would actually over ride that precedent.
On that topic of precedents. Unless there was an FAQ I am not aware of, there are already things, such as sorcerer bloodline (draconic i think) that would add damage to each separate ranged attack as well.
So this case isn't very rare nor limited to this item only.
-----------
but regardless. the magical item in questions states its effects, the requirements, and is a specific overriding the general.
So. RAW that is how it operates. GMs and players are of course, free and welcome to interperate as they like. But strick raw it overrides a general rule. and as far as i know, there has been no specific rule overriding that item's parameters.
So. RAW. it works if you fulfil the conditions.
TO do so otherwise is house ruling (which is a valid thing to do. but if possible would best be done as a discussion with all the players and GM rather than a reactionary ruling. but everyone's table is different and thats a good thing~
Sit down and have a talk and point out the various things we have. If they don't want it, ask if they'll explain what it is they do not agree or like about it. Then go from there.
RP is a discussion game, so might as well talk it out peacemeal.
Yeah, did you tell your GM that Wizards don't make Sneak Attacks? So why would a SnA errata/FAQ have anything to do with this? lol :P
Wow. I need to figure out a better way to format my blocks of text. thats ugly!
If anything I wrote is unclear let me know and I"ll try to explain things in smaller chunks
criptonic wrote: Meirril wrote: criptonic wrote: blahpers wrote: All of them. Are you sure? By RAW, yes. By RAI, yes? As in over 70% confident, but never 100%. Over 70% is a high level of confidence. As in most GMs should be fine with it. Could you elaborate ? why do you believe so. I need a good argument so I can convince my DM lol. He is a bit hard headed but I can probably make him see the truth lol.
He keeps saying that there is an FAQ that talks about Scorching ray and sneak attack, the FAQ says that you can apply sneak attack ONLY ONCE to your scorching ray so he says "then why would the crossbow change this rule" and thats that! lol. That faq on sneak attack basically says you can only apply sneak attack once per casting. That would be true for battering blast as well. If you had sneak attack you'd only be able to apply sneak attack to one of the balls of force.
But this is a weapon that gives you a bonus when making touch attacks. Not sneak attack. Just like any other spell, or feat, or ability other than sneak attack when the given situation arises it applies.
Just ask your gm: when a melee class makes a full attack, does their weapon stop giving bonuses after the first attack or do they get to use that bonus on the rest of their attacks? Because that is what the crossbow says it does for touch attacks. It applies its enhancement bonus and it says nothing about restrictions.
And if that doesn't convince him, get over it and play. It is his game and the GM is right, even when he's wrong.
Zwordsman wrote: Dave Justus wrote: However, the sneak attack and arcane weapon precedents do make this uncertain.
criptonic wrote:
Could you elaborate ? why do you believe so. I need a good argument so I can convince my DM lol. He is a bit hard headed but I can probably make him see the truth lol.
He keeps saying that there is an FAQ that talks about Scorching ray and sneak attack, the FAQ says that you can apply sneak attack ONLY ONCE to your scorching ray so he says "then why would the crossbow change this rule" and thats that! lol. in both cases. It is a matter of specific overriding general.
The specific wording of the mage xbow itself, bypasses any and all generalized rulings that conflict with itself.
"Whenever the wielder casts a spell that requires him to make a ranged touch attack (such as a ray) while he has the crossbow in hand, he gains a bonus on his ranged attack roll equal to the crossbow’s enhancement bonus against the target creature. "
Fulfil that and it is a specific rule overriding the normal rule where your weapon can not add to your spell. If its a ranged touch attack. you have the Xbow in hand. you gt the bonus.
Full stop basically. The Item itself specifically calls out the conditions to which it grants its effects
--------
That sneak attack + spell damage faq literally only covers Sneak Attack and no other effect in the game. So, it actually won't effect anything else by RAW that isn't sneak attack--not even other precision damage is effected by this FAQ.
(https://www.paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fm#v5748eaic9qqm faqs in core)
This faq extended to the Surprise Spell FAQ where they state it is valid to add sneak attack to the entire fireball for anyone that is the valid condition. So it isn't like there isn't FAQ showing that that situation can be bypassed via a specific case.
Mage's Crossbow is not sneak attack damage. So those FAQs relate nothing to it by RAW.
They certain can set a RAI precedent for effects giving bonuses.... Thank you so much for the detailed info, everyone here agrees with this so I feel that I wasn't wrong after all.
Ryze Kuja wrote: Mage's Crossbow wrote: Mage’s Crossbow
Price 18,335 gp; Slot none; CL 8th; Weight 4 lbs.; Aura moderate transmutation
DESCRIPTION
This +2 light crossbow is made of silver that never needs to be polished.
A mage’s crossbow is especially effective against creatures with spell resistance. Against such creatures, the weapon’s effective enhancement bonus increases to +3, and it deals an additional 1d6 points of damage. Whenever the wielder casts a spell that requires him to make a ranged touch attack (such as a ray) while he has the crossbow in hand, he gains a bonus on his ranged attack roll equal to the crossbow’s enhancement bonus against the target creature. If the spell hits, the caster also applies this bonus to the caster level check to overcome the target’s spell resistance (if any) and on the spell’s damage roll (if any).
CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS
Cost 9,835 gp; Feats Craft Magic Arms and Armor, Spell Penetration; Spells summon monster I, true strike
Not sure why your GM would need a convincing argument. It says so right in the item's description. Battering Blast requires a Ranged Touch Attack per ball of force summoned, and whenever you make a Ranged Touch Attack you apply the Enhancement bonus of the Mage's Crossbow to that attack. It's all because of the the FAQ, even tho wizards dosen't have sneak attack he uses this as an example that the damage only applies once.
Meirril wrote: criptonic wrote: Meirril wrote: criptonic wrote: blahpers wrote: All of them. Are you sure? By RAW, yes. By RAI, yes? As in over 70% confident, but never 100%. Over 70% is a high level of confidence. As in most GMs should be fine with it. Could you elaborate ? why do you believe so. I need a good argument so I can convince my DM lol. He is a bit hard headed but I can probably make him see the truth lol.
He keeps saying that there is an FAQ that talks about Scorching ray and sneak attack, the FAQ says that you can apply sneak attack ONLY ONCE to your scorching ray so he says "then why would the crossbow change this rule" and thats that! lol. That faq on sneak attack basically says you can only apply sneak attack once per casting. That would be true for battering blast as well. If you had sneak attack you'd only be able to apply sneak attack to one of the balls of force.
But this is a weapon that gives you a bonus when making touch attacks. Not sneak attack. Just like any other spell, or feat, or ability other than sneak attack when the given situation arises it applies.
Just ask your gm: when a melee class makes a full attack, does their weapon stop giving bonuses after the first attack or do they get to use that bonus on the rest of their attacks? Because that is what the crossbow says it does for touch attacks. It applies its enhancement bonus and it says nothing about restrictions.
And if that doesn't convince him, get over it and play. It is his game and the GM is right, even when he's wrong. He can change his mind if the rules say otherwise, he prefers to go by the rules instead of makingn his own rules so I am trying to get him see how this really works.
Ryze Kuja wrote: Mage's Crossbow wrote: Mage’s Crossbow
Price 18,335 gp; Slot none; CL 8th; Weight 4 lbs.; Aura moderate transmutation
DESCRIPTION
This +2 light crossbow is made of silver that never needs to be polished.
A mage’s crossbow is especially effective against creatures with spell resistance. Against such creatures, the weapon’s effective enhancement bonus increases to +3, and it deals an additional 1d6 points of damage. Whenever the wielder casts a spell that requires him to make a ranged touch attack (such as a ray) while he has the crossbow in hand, he gains a bonus on his ranged attack roll equal to the crossbow’s enhancement bonus against the target creature. If the spell hits, the caster also applies this bonus to the caster level check to overcome the target’s spell resistance (if any) and on the spell’s damage roll (if any).
CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS
Cost 9,835 gp; Feats Craft Magic Arms and Armor, Spell Penetration; Spells summon monster I, true strike
Not sure why your GM would need a convincing argument. It says so right in the item's description. Battering Blast requires a Ranged Touch Attack per ball of force summoned, and whenever you make a Ranged Touch Attack you apply the Enhancement bonus of the Mage's Crossbow to that attack. He agrees on the attack bonus on each bolt but he dosent agree that it adds the bonus damage to each bolt as well.
Mage's Crossbow wrote:
Mages Crossbow:
This +2 light crossbow is made of silver that never needs to be polished.
A mage’s crossbow is especially effective against creatures with spell resistance. Against such creatures, the weapon’s effective enhancement bonus increases to +3, and it deals an additional 1d6 points of damage. Whenever the wielder casts a spell that requires him to make a ranged touch attack (such as a ray) while he has the crossbow in hand, he gains a bonus on his ranged attack roll equal to the crossbow’s enhancement bonus against the target creature. If the spell hits, the caster also applies this bonus to the caster level check to overcome the target’s spell resistance (if any) and on the spell’s damage roll (if any). .-. if it hits the damage applies (assuming it gets past SR if applicable, but it also gain a bonus against that too.)
Alphavoltario wrote: Mage's Crossbow wrote:
Mages Crossbow:
This +2 light crossbow is made of silver that never needs to be polished.
A mage’s crossbow is especially effective against creatures with spell resistance. Against such creatures, the weapon’s effective enhancement bonus increases to +3, and it deals an additional 1d6 points of damage. Whenever the wielder casts a spell that requires him to make a ranged touch attack (such as a ray) while he has the crossbow in hand, he gains a bonus on his ranged attack roll equal to the crossbow’s enhancement bonus against the target creature. If the spell hits, the caster also applies this bonus to the caster level check to overcome the target’s spell resistance (if any) and on the spell’s damage roll (if any). .-. if it hits the damage applies (assuming it gets past SR if applicable, but it also gain a bonus against that too.) Yeah I agree, why would you apply the bonus to hit and the bonus to damage just 1 time? it dosent make sense to me.
To be fair, the condition is:
When you cast a spell that requires a ranged touch attack.
One could argue 1 spell = 1 bonus.
I don't agree agree with that personally, but it does have some logic to it.
criptonic wrote: blahpers wrote: All of them. Are you sure? Never. : ) But there's no rule to the contrary AFAIK.
Dave Justus wrote: To be fair, the condition is:
When you cast a spell that requires a ranged touch attack.
One could argue 1 spell = 1 bonus.
I don't agree agree with that personally, but it does have some logic to it.
That is my DM's point on the whole issue, he says that 1 spell = 1 bonus, but here ia the deal, he agrees that the to hit bonus applies to all ranged touch attacks but the DAMAGE is only applied once ... why would it apply once if the to hit bonus is applied on all battering blast attacks?
blahpers wrote: criptonic wrote: blahpers wrote: All of them. Are you sure? Never. : ) But there's no rule to the contrary AFAIK. XD true, just that stupid FAQ that dosent let sneak attack work with multiple scorching ray attacks
Which.. has absolutely no relation to anything but sneak attack~ It isn't any precedent setting than adding casting stat or level to various things.
or the sorcerer bloodline applying to each. or weapon focus ray applying to each ray.
Zwordsman wrote: Which.. has absolutely no relation to anything but sneak attack~ It isn't any precedent setting than adding casting stat or level to various things.
or the sorcerer bloodline applying to each. or weapon focus ray applying to each ray.
He asks me this question ''Is battering blast extra balls considered simultaneous just like scorching ray or hellfire ray?''
IMO in battering blast description you can't ready the word ''simultaneous'' just like in scorching ray spell or hellfire ray, I believe that battering blast fires multiples attacks each round but are not fired simultaneously, otherwise it would be stated in the description.
Zwordsman wrote: Which.. has absolutely no relation to anything but sneak attack~ It isn't any precedent setting than adding casting stat or level to various things.
or the sorcerer bloodline applying to each. or weapon focus ray applying to each ray.
So in your opinnion sneak attack could work with the extra battering blast attacks?
Battering Blast is an instantanous spell.
Range close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)
Target one creature or unattended object
Duration instantaneous
Saving Throw Reflex partial (see text); Spell Resistance yes
Nothing in its verbage would states that the spheres presist after the instant casting. So. they, like magic missle, scorching ray, ablasting ray and others, are all simulations in that instant.
There is no way for it to be "instant" and not "simultaneous within that instant"
====================================
Now. Hold the Charge rules might let you hold and fire 1 ball/ray each round, which would gain sneak attack. It specifies touch attack, not melee or ranged. so it covers both from a spell. IF you touch anything or hold anything (such as the mage xbow).
IF you cast the spell, hold the charge, you could then on round 2, fire ray/blasts as separate BAB based attack iterations as per normal bow/sword/ etc NOT the total amount of the spell gives you.
i.e. a lv X wizard with 10 Bab who would normally fire 3 scorching rays instantly/simultaneously. If he held and fired next round, he could only fire 2 per his Bab (with the negatives for second attack etc). and then have 1 more for round 3. but they would be valid for sneak attack.
Rather certain that is technically how that works although I've never seen anyone do so because it puts you at a disadvantage.. But it might be good for an "opening strike" for an arcane trickster who values sneak attack.
YOU. ARE. NOT. SNEAK. ATTACKING. The only time SnA rules would apply to Battering Blast AT ALL would be if you PrC'ed into Arcane Trickster. Tell your GM this is a red herring argument. That FAQ is meaningless to a Wizard who doesn't SnA.
Battering Blast requires 1 attack roll per ball of force conjured, and the Mage's Crossbow allows you to add it's Enhancement bonus TO EVERY RANGED TOUCH ATTACK.
Ryze Kuja wrote: YOU. ARE. NOT. SNEAK. ATTACKING. The only time SnA rules would apply to Battering Blast AT ALL would be if you PrC'ed into Arcane Trickster. Tell your GM this is a red herring argument. That FAQ is meaningless to a Wizard who doesn't SnA.
Battering Blast requires 1 attack roll per ball of force conjured, and the Mage's Crossbow allows you to add it's Enhancement bonus TO EVERY RANGED TOUCH ATTACK.
I agree with you and btw he is not throwing me the GM hammer on me, he just thinks and deeply believes that that's how mages crossbow works on most pathfinder tables just because of that damn FAQ .... he keeps telling me that the ranged touch attack is just a requirement of the spell and that you should apply the enhancement bonus to damage ONCE (even if I attack multiple times with battering blast). I know he is wrong, I just need to make him see the truth by winning the argument unanimously on the forums and to make him see that I am not the only one who believes the same.
Probably not the best mindset. Be careful about that. Or it was snark, its hard to tell online haha.
I would recommend asking him why he thinks an FAQ on sneak attack relates to any other mechanic on the game. I mean really ask him why it relates.
Nothing about the touch attacks, nothing else. specifically why a sneak attack faq has bearing on anything other than sneak attack.
If they say it sets the precedent. Ask them for another example of something doing that without calling it out. work through their chain of thought.
Also be aware. if they just don't want the "power creep" that is a valid answer as a GM. And they should state as such, and you as a player and them as the GM can talk about the mechanics of it and accept it.
Also, bringing up how Sorcerer's bloodlines apply to every attack. As does the Occultist's evocation focus. and other things in a similar veing apply to all is not a bad idea.
Basically instead of focusing purely on the argument and winning. Work to find the foundation of the choices. and if its a GM call, accept it or amicably find a different game for you. If it isn't a gm call and there is a foundational misunderstanding discuss that.
Zwordsman wrote: Probably not the best mindset. Be careful about that. Or it was snark, its hard to tell online haha.
I would recommend asking him why he thinks an FAQ on sneak attack relates to any other mechanic on the game. I mean really ask him why it relates.
Nothing about the touch attacks, nothing else. specifically why a sneak attack faq has bearing on anything other than sneak attack.
If they say it sets the precedent. Ask them for another example of something doing that without calling it out. work through their chain of thought.
Also be aware. if they just don't want the "power creep" that is a valid answer as a GM. And they should state as such, and you as a player and them as the GM can talk about the mechanics of it and accept it.
Also, bringing up how Sorcerer's bloodlines apply to every attack. As does the Occultist's evocation focus. and other things in a similar veing apply to all is not a bad idea.
Basically instead of focusing purely on the argument and winning. Work to find the foundation of the choices. and if its a GM call, accept it or amicably find a different game for you. If it isn't a gm call and there is a foundational misunderstanding discuss that.
It is just a minsunderstanding and he is an oldschool DM so its hard to prove him wrong when an idea roams on his head lol. But if a game developer would say otherwise then it would probably change his mind ...... I asked him why he thinks that the FAQ on sneak attack relates on any other mechanic on the game and he stated that the sneak attack is a clear example that any extra damage you would add to battering blast or scorching ray is only applied to the FIRST ranged touch attack and not the rest because is just a single spell, the ranged touch attack is just a requirement so you are not hitting the target with multiple spells, just a single spell and it is why the extra damage is applied ONCE, because its just one spell.. He is taking the sneak attack as an example.
He tells me that the draconic or orc bloodlines work on each extra attack just because is 1 point of damage per dice and that is the only reason why it works on each scorching ray or each battering blast attack.
So the GM is uncomfortable with that extra 15 points of damage n a 3rd level spell cast at 15th level. Even with the knock back/down not terribly overpowered considering the casting burns a spell slot. Still it is the GM call.
Daw wrote: So the GM is uncomfortable with that extra 15 points of damage n a 3rd level spell cast at 15th level. Even with the knock back/down not terribly overpowered considering the casting burns a spell slot. Still it is the GM call. I respect that, but he is not just ''ruling' it and throwing the GM hammer on the face, he just believes it works like this because he misunderstood the whole thing and used an FAQ to back up something that dosen't have anything to do with sneak attack!.
I can almost guarantee a random Dev wont' chime in here.. as it quite literally is a "this should have no bearing" situation.
The few folks still around here is probably the best you'll get here. Could get lucky. but I'm sorta doubting they'll read something along these lines--the content here is Core and a Companion booklet. Core is long since passed and I don't think I've seen many companion book mentions or faqs that I can think of.
====
I will add again, as a final sorta "point this out." Ask if "Specific trumps general" is a rule he believes in for pathfinder. (I don't remember where its called out but I think it is somewhere in core as the backbone of feats overriding general rules)
Then. Ask where the specific of the magical item (mage xbow) is specifically disallowed. The whole faq for sneak attack is a general rules change to Sneak attack.
So. Where is the specific that trumps the Mage xbow's specific wording?
===========
So.. If your GM simply won't take anything less than that--despite the rather clear (mostly) explainations and conversations in this thread. There is nothing for you to do but accept that or move on to a new group. (amicably).
We've all laid out exactly why multiples of us say it should work fine with battering blast (and any similar situation) specific overrides general. And why that FAQ is 1000% unrelated to the situation at hand. And listed several other examples of "effects adding to every beam" to show normal precedent.
It sounds to me more that the GM doesn't want that in their game but also doesn't want to declare ita house rule, so is using that to grasp at straws so they do not have to declare it their own ruling. For their own reasons I assume.
But. we are only hearing your side, so we're only hearing one side.
and that means we're likely getting a partially biased take on the situation.
So... feel free to offer your GM to come express their thoughts, reasoning and opinions if they so wish.
As this is the rules forum, you are the most technically correct. In a vacuum. What is your level of lethality compared to you tables desires? Your GMs desires? Are you known for pushing hard for your rights? I admit to smacking the more pushy rules lawyers around a bit in game if they annoy me too often. The more you push, the more you get push-back. Do your protests disrupt the game?
All these make a difference, more of a difference than being right.
Zwordsman wrote: I can almost guarantee a random Dev wont' chime in here.. as it quite literally is a "this should have no bearing" situation.
The few folks still around here is probably the best you'll get here. Could get lucky. but I'm sorta doubting they'll read something along these lines--the content here is Core and a Companion booklet. Core is long since passed and I don't think I've seen many companion book mentions or faqs that I can think of.
====
I will add again, as a final sorta "point this out." Ask if "Specific trumps general" is a rule he believes in for pathfinder. (I don't remember where its called out but I think it is somewhere in core as the backbone of feats overriding general rules)
Then. Ask where the specific of the magical item (mage xbow) is specifically disallowed. The whole faq for sneak attack is a general rules change to Sneak attack.
So. Where is the specific that trumps the Mage xbow's specific wording?
===========
So.. If your GM simply won't take anything less than that--despite the rather clear (mostly) explainations and conversations in this thread. There is nothing for you to do but accept that or move on to a new group. (amicably).
We've all laid out exactly why multiples of us say it should work fine with battering blast (and any similar situation) specific overrides general. And why that FAQ is 1000% unrelated to the situation at hand. And listed several other examples of "effects adding to every beam" to show normal precedent.
It sounds to me more that the GM doesn't want that in their game but also doesn't want to declare ita house rule, so is using that to grasp at straws so they do not have to declare it their own ruling. For their own reasons I assume.
But. we are only hearing your side, so we're only hearing one side.
and that means we're likely getting a partially biased take on the situation.
So... feel free to offer your GM to come express their thoughts, reasoning and opinions if they so wish.
I will bring him to these forums, he is kinda busy but he will jump in soon enough. He tells me that its a waste of time arguing something like this because "its obvious" and that the rules are clear about this lol.
Daw wrote: As this is the rules forum, you are the most technically correct. In a vacuum. What is your level of lethality compared to you tables desires? Your GMs desires? Are you known for pushing hard for your rights? I admit to smacking the more pushy rules lawyers around a bit in game if they annoy me too often. The more you push, the more you get push-back. Do your protests disrupt the game?
All these make a difference, more of a difference than being right.
Not at all, he knows that the item wont make me much more powerful, is not even for balancing issues nor he is trying to tone me down. He is just interpreting the rules in a different way and he believes that I am the one who is wrong in this argument, I'm just trying to tell him that there are lots of people who believe the same I do but he says "many guys in those forums doesn't know the rules that well to trust their judgement", thats what he says : /
I will try to bring him in, his nickname is "Karse", ill tell him to explain his point of view as clear as possible.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
The crossbow references a bonus to a singular attack and damage roll, and does not use plural pronouns; ergo, I'm not the least bit certain it would apply to all of the rays in a scorching ray, or to all the blasts from a battering blast.
Ravingdork wrote: The crossbow references a bonus to a singular attack and damage roll, and does not use plural pronouns; ergo, I'm not the least bit certain it would apply to all of the rays in a scorching ray, or to all the blasts from a battering blast. I wish we could get the rules team on this item and fix the miss understanding once and for all.
criptonic wrote: Ravingdork wrote: The crossbow references a bonus to a singular attack and damage roll, and does not use plural pronouns; ergo, I'm not the least bit certain it would apply to all of the rays in a scorching ray, or to all the blasts from a battering blast. I wish we could get the rules team on this item and fix the miss understanding once and for all. Not to be facetious, really, but isn't it more entertaining with some of the grey areas staying grey. The system is unlikely to crash around our ears if our tables disagree on this issue.
Daw wrote: criptonic wrote: Ravingdork wrote: The crossbow references a bonus to a singular attack and damage roll, and does not use plural pronouns; ergo, I'm not the least bit certain it would apply to all of the rays in a scorching ray, or to all the blasts from a battering blast. I wish we could get the rules team on this item and fix the miss understanding once and for all. Not to be facetious, really, but isn't it more entertaining with some of the grey areas staying grey. The system is unlikely to crash around our ears if our tables disagree on this issue. Why wouldn't we need that? lol. You know how much time is wasted everytime there are misunderstandings on how rules are applied to the game? I mean I wish everything was 100% clear on how it works, that way a DM can just say "hey the rules are clear but I want it to work this way" and thats it.
Anyone else wants to say anything about this topic? I still feel that we dont have a concrete answer : /
Recent threads in Rules Questions
|
