What does a ring of fangs actually do?


Rules Questions

101 to 150 of 291 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
Sczarni

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Ascalaphus wrote:
Nefreet wrote:
Lowering it to x1 damage would relegate a lot of characters to the trash bin. The x2 damage boost keeps unarmed strikes competitive with other weapon options.
The thing I really dislike about the ring is that it gives a natural attack that's better than the natural attacks of races for which natural attacks are actually one of their showpieces.

Except it doesn't. You're trying to fix a problem that doesn't exist.

The ring doesn't count you as armed, and your attack is still archaic.

You're focused on the x2 damage. I get that. But that alone doesn't make it "better". You actually have to put resources into building a character around this, and even then you're only trying to keep up with other damage options.

Do you "really" dislike the item, or do you dislike the characters that are being built around it?


Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Yeah, even if allowed to stack with improved unarmed strike, you're still basically playing keep up with many manufactured weapons.


Nefreet wrote:
The ring doesn't count you as armed, and your attack is still archaic.

Even if that's true (i don't think either of them are) , anyone using the ring is going to pick up improved unarmed strike for the extra damage dice and wind up making their attacks threaten. (not that threatening is a big deal for non reach weapon in starfinder)

Sczarni

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Starfinder Charter Superscriber
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Nefreet wrote:
The ring doesn't count you as armed, and your attack is still archaic.
Even if that's true (i don't think either of them are) , anyone using the ring is going to pick up improved unarmed strike for the extra damage dice and wind up making their attacks threaten. (not that threatening is a big deal for non reach weapon in starfinder)

And anyone using the ring is going to pick up Raw Lethality to make it non-archaic.

That's why I'm flabbergasted that people want to nerf this. It's not something you can toss on any character to make them better. It's a niche item that works with a particular build for mediocre results.


Nefreet wrote:
And anyone using the ring is going to pick up Raw Lethality to make it non-archaic.

If that's needed. I don't think it is. The ring is a bite attack. Bite attacks don't have the archaic weapon property. I haven't seen a whole lot of people using the unarmed strike line of thinking for this.

Even IF the ring doesn't do it, Many people use either a vesk or a mormalaw and bite people, that would also get around archaic.

Quote:
That's why I'm flabbergasted that people want to nerf this. It's not something you can toss on any character to make them better. It's a niche item that works with a particular build for mediocre results.

It's the most damaging weapon in the game till level 12 in a game where weapons have an exponentially increasing cost. Being able to not buy a melee weapon for 12 levels (where the vast majority of play is) is amaazing if you're using acash and carry or wealth by level reset system, and really good in a murdermart system to get you in between the loot drops.

Sczarni

Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Where are you getting this "until Level 12" thing?

An Unarmed Strike deals 1d3. Archaic subtracts 5. The Ring adds x2 specialization.

At Level 12 that's 1d3+19.

A Level 12 Vesk is dealing 1d3+18.

You could have spent marginally more on a Level 2 Club and deal 1d10+12 (same max damage).

That's base, unmodified.

Sczarni

Starfinder Charter Superscriber

If your "Level 12" argument includes feats or abilities, which I'm imagining it does, then I'm going to have to hold my hand up and interrupt you. Those options have a cost to them. You might not be spending credits, but you're still focusing non-monetary resources on making your unarmed strikes viable.

Not only that, but such a character still needs to spend their credits on alternative offenses. You're still going to need a ranged weapon. You're still going to need an energy weapon (or multiple). Nothing about a character wielding a Level 2 Club (or wearing a RoF) is going to change that.

Sczarni

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Starfinder Charter Superscriber
BigNorseWolf wrote:
The ring is a bite attack. Bite attacks don't have the archaic weapon property.

I also need to nip this in the bud, because we KNOW this attack is archaic. You don't WANT it to be, but we're told right in the description that it is:

When you wear this ring, your teeth become long and sharp, giving you a powerful bite attack. You can choose to have your unarmed attacks deal lethal piercing damage

The first sentence about the "bite attack" is fluff. The second sentence describes what this fluff means in game terms. We know this to be true. It's the format Pathfinder used. It's the format Starfinder uses. It's the format Paizo uses.

I feel the need to quote Xenocrat from another similar thread to make my point:

Xenocrat wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Reading the "flavor" text as not being rules has lead to more incorrect interpretations than reading the flavor as rules. I'm trying to think of a single case where the flavor text was misleading as far as rules go.

1. Adaptive Fighting: You can adjust your fighting style to match specific conditions during combat.

Surprisingly, this doesn't have anything to do with Conditions or alter a Soldier's fighting style.

2. Advanced Melee Weapon Proficiency: You know how to use advanced melee weapons.

Unexpectedly, this doesn't help with knowledge checks about using advanced melee weapons.

3. Agile Casting: You can move, cast a spell, and move again before foes react.

Shockingly, this doesn't deny enemies their reactions (such as provoked AOOs) or let you trump the initiative order.

Those are the first three feats in the Core Rulebook.

The Ring of Fangs is no different.


Nefreet wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
The ring is a bite attack. Bite attacks don't have the archaic weapon property.
I also need to nip this in the bud, because we KNOW this attack is archaic. You don't WANT it to be, but we're told right in the description that it is

No. Lets nip the ad homs in the bud because I have had it with them in this thread.

I have one character that uses this item. She uses it, sometimes, on an AOO against people. Alternate thursdays on a full moon when she doesn't bother to AOO people with the sonic frisbee she's holding instead. (because it's funny when "Oh, ysoki operative, they only deal damage when trick attacking, only for CLANG! She's a 20 strength ysoki operative) 90% of the reason it's there is so i can make the literally armed to the teeth joke. The bite attack being archaic would have a negligible effect on my character because she doesn't nom on people with good AC's anyway: she gets her xena on and targets EAC with the sonic frissbee.

Accusing me of munchkinry, dishonesty, or having anything less than a genuine disagreement over the wording of this item is bad argumentation and worse posting. Dismissing something as commonly used as a game term as "bite attack" borders on willful ignorance and insisting that everyone MUST do the same is setting up shop in the capital.

Multiple lines of evidence, wording, and common sense point to it being a bite attack that is armed and not archaic. One argument assuming that an item is as thought through as deeply by the writers as it is by hoards of ravening gamers argues the other way. In so far as dissent is unreasonable it's NOT in the direction of the big picture.

Yes, you can bold part of the text and make an argument from it. That is NOT the same as the text backing your argument to the exclusion of all other possibilities. It is entirely possible for a position to have evidence and a rational argument for it and still be wrong.

Bite attacks are armed unarmed attacks: thats how they work. It's POSSIBLE (but i don't think likely) that that's the wrong reading but armed unarmed attacks aren't a contradiction they're modus operendi for paizo.

Quote:
I feel the need to quote Xenocrat from another similar thread to make my point

Definite sign you're barking up the wrong tree.


Nefreet wrote:

Where are you getting this "until Level 12" thing?

An Unarmed Strike deals 1d3. Archaic subtracts 5. The Ring adds x2 specialization.

You absolutely cannot insist that everyone else accept your paradigm for the discussion.

I do not believe that the bite attack is archaic. My statements will reflect that.


1 1.5
2 1.5
3 7.5 Storm Hammer, Diamagnetic 7.5
4 9.5 Curve Blade 9.5
5 11.5
6 13.5 Meteor Glaive, Tactical 12.5
7 15.5 Devastation Blade, Wrack 16
8 17.5 Frost Maul, Iceberg 21.5
9 19.5 Kishaxe, Assault 19
10 21.5 Curve Blade, Ultrathin 26.5
11 23.5 Storm Hammer, Ferromagnetic 32

Comparing it against two handed advanced melee weapons doing KAC (i was avoiding the unwieldy ones) and the rings pretty competitive until you'd grab a level 10 wepaon


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Starfinder Superscriber

There's a pretty solid spreadsheet running around the various discords that compares the DPR of several melee options/combos from 1-20. It includes things like Soldiers with big unwieldy weapons, 'standard' weapon solarians, weapon solarians + power armor, melee mechanics with overcharge + energy weapon, et cetera.

The combination of Vesk (or other natural attack race) + Soldier with Melee Striker + Max Strength + IUS + RoF is in the top tier of DPR from level ~4-12. Adding on Gloom Gunner (for magic attacks) and Raw Lethality (for the bleed) makes it worse. The output of the combo is very similar in output to a Unwieldy Melee Soldier with the best weapon for every level or max Cha weapon solarian in Power Armor. After level 12 it drops off pretty significantly, but for that level range it's between #1 and #3. This is, of course, assuming that all of them stack in a favorable way.

Now I, for one, don't think that's necessarily broken or even a problem, because you're combining multiple things to accomplish that. It's a build, and I like builds. I do wish that the ring was more expensive, higher level, and better worded, but that's opinion based on how valuable I think it is compare to say, solarian weapon crystals or big unwieldy weapons (which are all exponentially more expensive).

But going from one table in OP where that happens to another where the DM says you are suddenly only doing 1d3+x with nothing else added because they don't think any of it stacks *is* broken (or vice versa).

That's too much swing. That's why I keep saying, please, for the love of Talavet, stop arguing about how it works and FAQ this.

EDIT: I'm not sure this will work, but hopefully this link will show at least an image of part of the spreadsheet I was talking about.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I have a Ring of Fangs character. Dragonbot. He's a heavy weapons Shock & Awe soldier. Improved Unarmed Strike lets me use AoO while carrying a Static Arc Caster, but Ring of Fangs lets me theme it in a dragon-y way. Raw Lethality lets me overcome Archaic. I spent all of my 3rd level options achieving this even though it isn't my main schtick. You're saying that your Ysoki is getting identical results despite not applying ANY character development space except for ONE magic item slot. I know you're saying your interest in this isn't munchkinry, but you're up a feat and get a Melee Striker damage bump over me. How is that fair?

BigNorseWolf wrote:

Multiple lines of evidence, wording, and common sense point to it being a bite attack that is armed and not archaic. One argument assuming that an item is as thought through as deeply by the writers as it is by hoards of ravening gamers argues the other way. In so far as dissent is unreasonable it's NOT in the direction of the big picture.

Yes, you can bold part of the text and make an argument from it. That is NOT the same as the text backing your argument to the exclusion of all other possibilities. It is entirely possible for a position to have evidence and a rational argument for it and still be wrong.

I honestly haven't seen very many people argue your position after reading the evidence from my side of the argument, which is one reason your reading mystifies me.

A ruling than only works if you cobble together explicitly unrelated in-game abilities (like monster bite attacks) with an "everything else works this way" argument opposing the textual reading of the rules, which are backed by legitimate game balance concerns (you yourself have labeled the ring "drastically undervalued for what it does") is a bad argument. I don't think it is logic.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Nefreet wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
The ring is a bite attack. Bite attacks don't have the archaic weapon property.
I also need to nip this in the bud, because we KNOW this attack is archaic. You don't WANT it to be, but we're told right in the description that it is
Accusing me of munchkinry, dishonesty, or having anything less than a genuine disagreement over the wording of this item is bad argumentation and worse posting.

I think you're simply being accused of motivated reasoning.

Sczarni

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Starfinder Charter Superscriber
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Nefreet wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
The ring is a bite attack. Bite attacks don't have the archaic weapon property.
I also need to nip this in the bud, because we KNOW this attack is archaic. You don't WANT it to be, but we're told right in the description that it is
No. Lets nip the ad homs in the bud because I have had it with them in this thread.

Where have I done this? You know that's not my style of argumentation.

I've already explained my points, so let's hear yours. I'll quote the item again, and ask some questions that might seem obvious, but I legitimately do not know the answers to:

Quote:
When you wear this ring, your teeth become long...

1) What is the reach of this bite attack? "Long" must be, what, 10 feet?

Quote:
...and sharp...

2) What type of damage is "sharp"? Piercing? Slashing? Or maybe it has some cool Crit effect?

Quote:
...giving you a powerful bite attack...

3) How much damage is "powerful"? Certainly an impressive number, right? At least d10?

Those are three legitimate questions anyone would have if that was the only description we were given. We'd HAVE to reference the Alien Archive to find out whatever details we could, because the AP this item comes from and the Core Rulebook do not tell us anything about how to handle "bite attacks".

But that's just the first sentence. It's vague and colorful, because that's how Paizo writes. The answers to those three questions are given in, literally, the next sentence:

Quote:
You can choose to have your unarmed attacks deal lethal piercing damage...

*references unarmed strikes*

Cool. There are my answers. Basic Melee. Uses my character's reach. Archaic. Normally bludgeoning, but in this case piercing. Normally Nonlethal, but in this case lethal.

*closes Core Rulebook*

Two sentences really shouldn't cause this much of an argument.

Sczarni

Starfinder Charter Superscriber
pithica42 wrote:
hopefully this link will show at least an image of part of the spreadsheet I was talking about.

Thank you! I had not seen this before.

I am wagering that the creator of this sheet was somewhat liberal with at least a couple interpretations. #2 on that list (after Soul Fire Solarion) is presumably using Plasma Sheath for extra damage, in Photon Mode, with no method of negating the ring's archaic damage penalty.

That's pretty circumstantial.

Even if that's not the case, it's nice to see multiple damage builds remaining pretty even. And some builds will deal more damage than others. But damage isn't the only thing you need in Starfinder. Seeing that the Operative is pretty far down on that list forgets that they're the best skill monkey in the game, for example, or that Vanguards make better tanks than Solarions.


Starfinder Superscriber
Nefreet wrote:
Two sentences really shouldn't cause this much of an argument.

For the most part, my experience has not been with arguments caused by the differences in those two sentences.

BNW is the only one I've seen make the argument he's making. I certainly don't think that even remotely implies he's wrong (or even, necessarily, in the minority, I could just have sample bias). There are things I believe are true based on my reading of the RAW that no one else seems to see and I still think I'm correct even though it feels like I'm the only one making my argument.

But it's not the usual argument I see players and GM's having. Most of the arguments I've seen relate to either...

A-Does "you can choose to have your unarmed attacks" mean it applies to all unarmed attacks?

or B

B-Do "unarmed attacks" count as weapons?

There's a lot of other questions that flow from that based on the answers to those questions. If the answers are binary (either Yes or No) then it completely invalidates certain combinations from working at all. If the answers are non-binary (sometimes yes but sometimes no) then we need explanations for all the possible combinations.

How GM's fall on those questions drastically impacts play-ability for unarmed characters.


I haven't been on here in a while, but I support a FAQ.

In my home game my interpretation of unarmed strikes, natural weapons, and the RoF is an accepted part of playing the game.

For the purposes of readers, we'll call it "house rule" since I lean very much on intent of the language vs strict textual interpretation.

It works for us, but my FAQ support is for all of the others wrestling with this at your tables. I feel for you.


Starfinder Superscriber
Nefreet wrote:
Thank you! I had not seen this before.

No problem. I've requested the full sheet so I can get a link and show all of the things he compared and show all the math.

Sczarni

Starfinder Charter Superscriber
pithica42 wrote:
Do "unarmed attacks" count as weapons?

And see this is the question I don't understand.

If someone told me they weren't, I'd literally just point to the chart in the Core Rulebook that lists them as weapons.

That's like asking, "Do curve blades count as weapons?"

Of course they do.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Starfinder Superscriber

I agree. However, I can't count the number of times I've recommended using say, 'Rune of the Eldritch Knight' on unarmed attacks and been argued that, even though they're on the weapon chart, they aren't 'really' weapons.

There are any number of Rules and/or Logic based arguments that I've heard. They don't take fusions. They don't have an item level. They didn't count as weapons in other 3.x games (unless you were a monk). They are a body part. The entry is an abstraction. Et cetera ad nauseum.

I disagree with them, but that only continues the argument.

It would really help to have a FAQ that says,

"Unarmed Strikes count as melee weapons with an item level 0 for all class abilities, feats, spells, et cetera that work on weapons."

Or

"Unarmed Strikes do not count as weapons for any ability that works on weapons unless it specifies that it works on Unarmed Strikes."

Sovereign Court

Rune of the Eldritch Knight cares if it is a weapon. Since it's in the weapons table, I'm cautiously going with Yes. You can draw creepy little runes on your teeth if you want to.

Fusions: these seem to be very item-oriented. You place a fusion on an item with at least sufficient level. So putting a fusion on your teeth is not possible right now, since they don't have an item level. I'm not sure what to think of any creature that happens to have an item level because it's intended to be a purchase limit...

Actually a feat that gives your body an item level for the purpose of adding fusions would be pretty neat.

--- Fair enough, that's all pretty murky.


Nefreet wrote:
pithica42 wrote:
Do "unarmed attacks" count as weapons?

And see this is the question I don't understand.

If someone told me they weren't, I'd literally just point to the chart in the Core Rulebook that lists them as weapons.

That's like asking, "Do curve blades count as weapons?"

Of course they do.

This is actually a minor point of interpretation I wanted to pull out. If you ignore the fluff sentence, this means that hand and foot attacks can be used in place of bites with nothing changed. - which is how I let my group's soldier run it, with her having long fingertip claws instead of Sharp Pointy Teeth. I do lean towards requiring the feat/ability tax on the build though. With imp. unarmed, raw lethality, and arcane assault, she's by far the heaviest hitter in the group.

... item level of your hands isn't an issue that's come up yet. Permissively, I could just make it character level, but I'll have to think it over.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nefreet wrote:
Where have I done this? You know that's not my style of argumentation.
this is an ad hom wrote:
You don't WANT it to be, but we're told right in the description that it is:

Acusing me of saying that I'm only reading what I want in the sentence completely ignores the very straightforward explanations of why I'm reading the sentence that way.

Again, I don't have a dog in this fight. The one character that uses it is still armed at least once even if she throws all of her weapons that round

Quote:
1) What is the reach of this bite attack? "Long" must be, what, 10 feet?

You are being ridiculous. That fluff text exists does not prove that any particular sentence is fluff text. Long isn't even a game term (pathfinder dropped it) and it applies to a creature.

Paizo writes fluff sentences
Therefore that sentence is a fluff sentence

Does not follow.

What you need for your argument to work is "that sentence is fluff" when the absolute best you can get is "is that sentence fluff?"

Bite attack is a very specific game term. It also fits directly into what the item does. The bite specifies piercing damage because starfinder bites do that (and pathfinder bites did BPS)

Lets turn this around and say that unarmed is the fluff part, you're not using your arms at all to bite people are you?

as to the opposite reading that it says the attacks are unarmed and therefore archaic

Quote:
Vesk are always considered armed. They can deal 1d3 lethal damage with unarmed strikes and the attack doesn’t count as archaic.

What vesk do is outright called an unarmed strike that is armed and not archaic. That is how natural weapons work in starfinder. That the bite modifies your unarmed strikes does not mean that the attack is still archaic, it just means the bite will work with things that modify your unarmed strikes.

Quote:
Those are three legitimate questions anyone would have if that was the only description we were given. We'd HAVE to reference the Alien Archive to find out whatever details we could, because the AP this item comes from and the Core Rulebook do not tell us anything about how to handle "bite attacks".

OR you could use common sense about how a mouth full of big sharp pointy teeth work as a weapon. Far more likely in a loosely worded sentence that that's what they meant than expecting the author to be looking at the chart going - okay, a natural attack is by default an unarmed strike, an unarmed strike has these qualities i'll change.. hmmm this one this one and this one but leave this one alone...-


pithica42 wrote:


BNW is the only one I've seen make the argument he's making.

While not making a rules argument, every person but one I;ve seen using this item has used it under the paradigm that it either wasn't archaic or that it combined with a natural species ability to consider natural weapons not archaic (like a mormalaw's chompy tusks or a vesks.. whatever the heck it is vesk do)

Quote:
There's a pretty solid spreadsheet running around the various discords that compares the DPR of several melee options/combos from 1-20. It includes things like Soldiers with big unwieldy weapons, 'standard' weapon solarians, weapon solarians + power armor, melee mechanics with overcharge + energy weapon, et cetera.

Maybe that was pre armory but i have the ring winning out till about 8 and dropping off after 10.

Is there something in the build that makes the comparison shopping besides the average damage of the weapon necessary ?


BigNorseWolf wrote:
pithica42 wrote:


BNW is the only one I've seen make the argument he's making.

While not making a rules argument, every person but one I;ve seen using this item has used it under the paradigm that it either wasn't archaic or that it combined with a natural species ability to consider natural weapons not archaic (like a mormalaw's chompy tusks or a vesks.. whatever the heck it is vesk do)

Natural Weapons explicitly makes unarmed strikes not Archaic. Ring of Fangs is an Unarmed Strike.

That has no bearing on what RoF gives you, which is not ignoring Archaic.


BigNorseWolf wrote:

Is there something in the build that makes the comparison shopping besides the average damage of the weapon necessary ?

I think the special version of the Weapon Specialization feat is unique? Or is there some other way to get 2X level added to damage on other weapons


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

There is nothing else at 2xlevel for specialization.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Starfinder Superscriber
BigNorseWolf wrote:
While not making a rules argument, every person but one I;ve seen using this item has used it under the paradigm that it either wasn't archaic or that it combined with a natural species ability to consider natural weapons not archaic (like a mormalaw's chompy tusks or a vesks.. whatever the heck it is vesk do)

Other than you, I've honestly only ever seen either the latter or that they don't work together at all (you either get Vesk non-archaic with 1.5x Spec Damage or the RoF as Archaic with 2x, never both).

(Again, though, I'm not attempting to imply anything about that. I have a limited sample size and even if you were literally the only one making that claim, it wouldn't mean you were wrong. I don't know, that's why I want a FAQ.)

Quote:

Maybe that was pre armory but i have the ring winning out till about 8 and dropping off after 10.

Is there something in the build that makes the comparison shopping besides the average damage of the weapon necessary ?

Andis/Bumfuzzle from Cosmic Crit is the one that did the spreadsheet with all the math that I was referring to. It was well after Armory (because it includes Soulfire for all the Solarian calculations). But there have been a number of others floating on the various discords/reddit.

Average DPR certainly isn't an end-all/be-all for the 'power' or 'utility' of a build, but it's something to consider when comparing things. I always look at it as a datapoint and nothing more.

Liberty's Edge

BigNorseWolf wrote:
If that's needed. I don't think it is. The ring is a bite attack. Bite attacks don't have the archaic weapon property. I haven't seen a whole lot of people using the unarmed strike line of

I'd not like to start an argument that you've been waging for weeks since I left my note at the top of the thread but please, show me ONE mechanical statement anywhere in any of the rules or on these forums that state or clarifies that this ring grants a bite attack. The entire first sentence of the item description is 100% fluff-period. There ARE no rules anywhere that universally state what a "powerful bite attack" actually is or how it works, it's not on any weapon tables for PC use, it's not listed in the AP, it's not on the SRD or anywhere in print.

The remainder of the item describes exactly what the item does, and that's all it does.

I'll wait.... because it doesn't. It doesn't grant a bite attack. It simply improves Unarmed Strike Attacks, that's what it does.

It's really not that hard, and you're interpreting fluff and the name of the item to indicate that the equipment does something that the description of the item does not say that it does.

This entire thing would be much easier to understand for people if they simply didn't include the fluff text as that's clearly what's causing your confusion and misinterpretation here.

That said, there are PLENTY of other things that could probably use clarification, but don't let that stop you from obsessing over the issue and blasting countless folks with walls of text filled with meaningless interpretations and balance discussions.


pithica42 wrote:


Other than you, I've honestly only ever seen either the latter or that they don't work together at all (you either get Vesk non-archaic with 1.5x Spec Damage or the RoF as Archaic with 2x, never both).

If they don't work together, why do so many vesk buy one? I've never seen a game stop for the natural weapon fighter to ask if someone was using archaic armor so they could use a different weapon/macro.

Quote:
Average DPR certainly isn't an end-all/be-all for the 'power' or 'utility' of a build, but it's something to consider when comparing things. I always look at it as a datapoint and nothing more.

What I mean is up above (this is your spreadsheet on paizo.) i figured out the average weapon damage for a bunch of level x weapons and compared the ring. The ring is beating advanced melee weapons at 6, stays competative till 8, and drops off sharply after 10.

Is there something that boosts the damage of 1 handed melee weapons that doesn't work with two handed melee weapons that I don't know about, or is straight average weapon damage all you need to comparison shop?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Themetricsystem wrote:
show me ONE mechanical statement anywhere in any of the rules or on these forums that state or clarifies that this ring grants a bite attack.

When you wear this ring, your teeth become long and sharp, giving you a powerful bite attack

You can call anything you don't like fluff or "not mechanical" or "not the rules" but that not the rules doing that.

Thats you.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Themetricsystem wrote:
show me ONE mechanical statement anywhere in any of the rules or on these forums that state or clarifies that this ring grants a bite attack.

When you wear this ring, your teeth become long and sharp, giving you a powerful bite attack

You can call anything you don't like fluff or "not mechanical" or "not the rules" but that not the rules doing that.

Thats you.

No dude, that's fluff, find me a table that lists "Bite Attack" anywhere in print and I'll back down from my point. Your bold text does nothing to support your weak argument.


HammerJack wrote:
There is nothing else at 2xlevel for specialization.

Right, but there are weapons with more dice. And while people may have a preference, mathematically the average dice roll on the teeny tiny d3 and the static damage from the ring is pretty much the same as the static damage from the lower specizalization plus the higher average of the dice... ....

edit: oh nope, 1.5 + 2x level.... ring still loses around 10


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Themetricsystem wrote:

Your bold text does nothing to support your weak argument.

Yes. The printed words "giving you a powerful bite attack" does absolutely nothing to provide ANY evidence of the sort that the thing gives you a bite attack...

Dude...seriously? If you can't be sensible be polite or entertaining. Pick at least one or I have NO reason to listen to you. Declaring something fluff... isn't an argument that it's fluff and insulting an argument doesn't refute it. You can call any argument weak.

Sczarni

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Starfinder Charter Superscriber
pithica42 wrote:
I can't count the number of times I've recommended using say, 'Rune of the Eldritch Knight' on unarmed attacks and been argued that, even though they're on the weapon chart, they aren't 'really' weapons.

Okay, I'll admit that up until now that probably would have been me as well, but I spent the whole last hour mulling this over, attempting to see it from different perspectives, and I think you're right.

Mostly because, when I try to imagine it from the PoV of someone brand new to RPGs, or even just with no experience of Pathfinder, they would only have the Core Rulebook to go off of. They could only read the Eldritch Knight thing, and the Unarmed Strike section, and conclude it must be allowed.

I think years of unarmed strikes "not being weapons" has also colored my perception of them in Starfinder thus far.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Themetricsystem wrote:

Your bold text does nothing to support your weak argument.

Yes. The printed words "giving you a powerful bite attack" does absolutely nothing to provide ANY evidence of the sort that the thing gives you a bite attack...

Still waiting for you to show me a page number or FAQ that lists what a "Bite" attack for a PC does. I'll help you out and copy the relevant text... again. This time I'll remove the fluff that's confusing you.

Starfinder #2: Temple of the Twelve pg. 53 wrote:
You can choose to have your unarmed attacks deal lethal piercing damage, and if you are 3rd level or higher, you automatically gain a special version of the Weapon Specialization feat that adds double your level to the damage of these unarmed attacks (rather than adding your level).

That's what the item does, and that's all it does... I don't understand why this is the hill you're willing to stubbornly die on. It's not that hard to understand.

The first part mechanically does zippo, zilch, nada, nothing. It is mechanically meaningless and you're inferring your perspective on what you think it should do instead of actually reading the RAW. Mechanically any unarmed attack you make can benefit, that's how its worded that's how it works.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Themetricsystem wrote:


The first part mechanically does zippo, zilch, nada, nothing. It is mechanically meaningless and you're inferring your perspective on what you think it should do instead of actually reading the RAW. Mechanically any unarmed attack you make can benefit, that's how its worded that's how it works.

Kinda like how Nuar do Piercing damage with their unarmed attacks. Nothing explicitly states that they are using their horns. They could be using Thousand Needles Space Kung Fu or they could be using their pointy elbows. Doesn't matter; mechanically it all works the same.

Fluff is just fluff; it doesn't matter and players have license to change it. What they can't change as easily is game mechanics.


AHah. I forgot improved unarmed strike and how that scales up. With unarmed strike and the ring of fangs...

Going
to
push
chart
past
pretty picture

Spoiler:

Level_ROF Damage_Item___________Weapon damage
1_______1.5_
2_______1.5
3_______7.5_____Storm Hammer Diamagnetic 7.5
4______11.5_____Curve Blade 9.5
5______13.5
6______15.5_____Meteor Glaive, Tactical 12.5
7______17.5_____Devastation Blade, Wrack 16
8______23.0_____Frost Maul, Iceberg 21.5
9______25.0_____Kishaxe, Assault 19
10_____27.0_____Curve Blade, Ultrathin 26.5
11_____29.0_____Storm Hammer, Ferromagnetic 32
12_____34.5_____Trident (Levaloch), Ultrathin 30
13_____36.5_____Devastation Blade, Ruin 35.5
14_____38.5_____Kishaxe, Havoc 36
15_____47.5_____Pike, Eli 46.5
16_____49.5_____Curvesaw, buzzblade 60
17_____51.5_____Molecular rift trident 62
18_____53.5_____Apocolypse Devestation blade 72
19_____55.5_____Kish Axe 59.5
20_____64.5_____Curve blade dimensional slice 86


Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

I agree with BigNorseWolf. Looking at the rules in a vacuum is likely to lead to some really weird situations--scenarios like having a bite attack that can't easily get through modern armor, even though every single other bite attack in the whole of the game can.

You gotta look at the big picture. It really helps to find the most sensible, and the most likely correct answer.

People who nitpick the rules in a vacuum are usually doing it to try and get away with something.


Usually diagramming the sentence leads to more power but this time it leads to less (although far wonkier things)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I don't have a horse in the RoF race, I just wanted to pop in and say:

Hey, BNW, good job maintaining a chart format. Was getting past the wolf head the thing, or putting it in spoilers? Or both?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pantshandshake wrote:

I don't have a horse in the RoF race, I just wanted to pop in and say:

Hey, BNW, good job maintaining a chart format. Was getting past the wolf head the thing, or putting it in spoilers? Or both?

I think the spoiler is irrelevant it's the picture that makes them go all wonky even when you use ___ to stop paizo's site from collapsing the spaces...

Sczarni

Starfinder Charter Superscriber
BigNorseWolf wrote:
AHah. I forgot improved unarmed strike and how that scales up. With unarmed strike and the ring of fangs...

You must have slipped over this post, then.


Nefreet wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
AHah. I forgot improved unarmed strike and how that scales up. With unarmed strike and the ring of fangs...
You must have slipped over this post, then.

as a feat it's a very minor investment.

Although I suppose if you've gone for Improved unarmed strike and mystic strikes you should start getting some return. Even so 2 feats for... half? a quarter? Of Your WBL is absurdly good. But you're right that at that point, you're into things that aren't mathematically comparable they're somewhat incomparable and you're eyeballing them.

And while a ring of fang user will need a laser rifle for pew pewing at a distance, so will the curve blade wielder.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ravingdork wrote:

I agree with BigNorseWolf. Looking at the rules in a vacuum is likely to lead to some really weird situations--scenarios like having a bite attack that can't easily get through modern armor, even though every single other bite attack in the whole of the game can.

You gotta look at the big picture. It really helps to find the most sensible, and the most likely correct answer.

Except the big picture is that the Ring of Fangs drastically outperforms its opportunity cost if you don't apply the textual rules. Applying the Archaic penalty to BNW's chart makes the IUS RoF solid, but not the best possible option (unless you further spec into Raw Lethality), which is right about where it probably should be in the metagame.

The big picture is, further, that BNW's take on it completely trivializes the advantage that Vesk and other Natural Weapons races get, and makes it so that those races themselves need to get the ring to compete in the unarmed strike arena.

The most sensible answer is that Paizo did not want to completely upend the Unarmed Strike game with a back matter magic item in the second adventure path volume, and that we should operate with the assumption that inferring a bunch of rules that don't even apply to PCs is not what we are supposed to be doing.

Quote:
People who nitpick the rules in a vacuum are usually doing it to try and get away with something.

Except that everyone arguing against BNW's position here are explicitly trying to prevent rules abuse. I know that BNW is saying that there is no munchkinry intended, but the fact remains that the BNW Example RoF user in this thread is significantly more powerful than the Dracomicron RoF user in this thread, with significantly fewer resources expended.


Starfinder Superscriber
BigNorseWolf wrote:
If they don't work together, why do so many vesk buy one? I've never seen a game stop for the natural weapon fighter to ask if someone was using archaic armor so they could use a different weapon/macro.

The vast majority of the arguments I've witnessed/been in have not been at table. They've come up on Discord or Forums or Reddit every time some new player comes along and asks anything along the lines of "What's the best DPR class?" or "Is there a viable unarmed strike build?" or "I want to play a monk, how?"

I have seen a handful of arguments at table, but not many. That being said, the vast majority of players I interact with don't do much macroing or even using the sheet really. A lot of them still type in /r 1d20+x every time they want to do something. I have seen a few players, though, with weapon configs or macros in roll20 that assumed it was archaic and went ahead and took the -5 off, and others that assume it isn't and don't. The two arguments I remember over it at table were both at online cons last year and in both cases happened when the GM noticed it in the rolls and said 'no'.

I personally am of the opinion that the bickering over it doesn't do a good job of bringing in new players and I'd like it to stop. That's why I started the thread about it in the OP forums that this thread was in response to. Honestly, for a home game, you just go with whatever your GM says it is and call it a night. But in SFS, there isn't a consensus answer from the GMs/OP staff, and the RAW is (as has been made obvious by this 150 post thread) unclear.


When I search up 'bite' on aonsrd.com, all I find is a ton of monsters that have a bite attack, the universal monster rule that says that natural attacks such as bite cannot be disarmed or sundered, the universal monster rule for grab that mentions that the ability is often triggered by a bite attack, and the Ring of Fangs.

When I search up 'natural weapon' on aonsrd.com, I find a bunch of noise regarding weapons of various types, and that same universal monster rule about natural weapons being unable to be sundered or disarmed.

So yeah. When people are talking about bite attacks and natural weapons as it applies to PC characters, I think they are bringing in assumptions from Pathfinder.

I have seen it argued that since all of the listed natural attacks for any playable race have specified that the attack loses the archaic and nonlethal traits, that means that for all abilities or equipment that give a character a natural attack, the attack shouldn't have the archaic or nonlethal traits. I consider this to be a hasty generalization.

I could instead consider all playable races that don't have a listed natural attack to have the unarmed strike as a natural attack. At that point, the vast majority of playable races have a natural attack that includes the archaic and nonlethal traits.


breithauptclan wrote:
So yeah. When people are talking about bite attacks and natural weapons as it applies to PC characters, I think they are bringing in assumptions from Pathfinder.

And this is a bad thing because...?

I get that they're technically different games, and some things have changed between one and the other , but it's not like the same people writing in very similar circumstances for very similar systems are going to mean vastly different things just because it's allegedly a completely new game.

This goes double for something written at the beginning of the game, probably before all of the rules had solidified. Dead suns 2 was the... second? thing to come out after the core rules.

Quote:
I have seen it argued that since all of the listed natural attacks for any playable race have specified that the attack loses the archaic and nonlethal traits, that means that for all abilities or equipment that give a character a natural attack, the attack shouldn't have the archaic or nonlethal traits. I consider this to be a hasty generalization.

How many more data points do you need? Whats the alternative? That there is an unwritten rule that PC natural weapons are archaic and it just happens that every playable race with natural weapons has been an exception to that rule. AND pc natural weapons pay no attention at all to other kinds of natural weapons.

That's assuming that a deeper unknown level of rules exist AND that it works a certain way AND that the way it works is counter to our rather large at this point sample size. None of those are very likely and combined they're way less than plausible. (you had my skepticism set to 3 kilomalcoms at the idea that there was a plan for all this...)

Quote:
I could instead consider all playable races that don't have a listed natural attack to have the unarmed strike as a natural attack.

Except we know you have the nesting backwards there. Natural weapons are a definite subset of unarmed strikes (not the other way around).

101 to 150 of 291 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Starfinder / Rules Questions / What does a ring of fangs actually do? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.