I love the idea of Leshy Seedpods, but...


Advice

51 to 91 of 91 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I still don't know how with all the feedback they got in the Playtest they still managed to botch Unarmed/Natural Attacks like they have.

They could have added a SINGLE paragraph in the Playing the Game Chapter that cleared up all of the questions relating to "Is it a Weapon but also not a Weapon?" questions like this and how magic interacts with it.

The classification of Unarmed Attacks as being decidedly NOT-Weapon attacks seems to have created far more problems than it ever hoped to solve for the purpose of balance.

The RAW here, as others have stated, is pretty clear. You don't add STR to damage for this because it is a non-thrown Ranged Attack, but at any table you ever see me running you can bet your bottom that I'd let the player add STR.


Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
graystone wrote:
RicoTheBold wrote:
I think there's a big difference between "the most common modifier you'll add" (book wording) and "add strength modifiers by default" (your wording). Everything in that section is hedged: "most common modifier", "sometimes add", and "you typically do not add" are not prescriptive, they're advisory.
You'll also notice that I noted that the 'monster' the Gourd Leshy's seed attack adds str to the damage so my suggesting str be added to a PC leshie isn't based just on "the most common modifier you'll add". IMO, there is MUCH less support for no str than adding str: it's circumstantial evidence for adding str but we have literally NO evidence that's it's anything else.

I mean, you literally have the entire section on unarmed attacks on page 278 that I already quoted, which I'll link here: Unarmed attacks

It's not circumstantial, it literally says calculate to attack/damage rolls like you would a weapon, and ranged weapons don't get Str to damage by default. This approach makes sense; it works like the other things that are really similar. For the same reason, no one is asking whether you use Dex to calculate your attack roll. How weird would it be to make all of them based off of Str?

I'm not disputing that the leshy in the Bestiary appears to work that way, but this isn't the first time there's a difference between the Bestiary and player options. Gourd leshy player characters don't get speak with plants (gourds only) at level 1, they don't automatically get nondetection and mending on stuff they store in their heads, they don't get Verdant Burst to heal plants around them and spawn gourd sprouts, they don't ensnare enemies when they attack in melee with their fists, etc. How do you even know it's doing Str to damage? Maybe it's Con, because they're generating the ammo internally. They're both +2.

Bestiary stats are much more relevant to monster creation guidelines in the GMG than player choices in other books.

graystone wrote:
Unicore wrote:
I think adding the (thrown) trait to the seed pods, as well as a range, would be the best errata for making this clear.
I'd rather see an errata/FAQ adding str to unarmed damage by default instead, leaving weapon traits for those that differ [like Wind Crash]. "Best" is going to be a matter of how often these thing are going to crop up: If they end up with more than one or two IMO, 'best' is adding it once instead of in every ability. Adding 'unarmed damage adds str unless the attack states otherwise' seems simple.

This would be a substantial change to the rule on page 278, and potentially could impact other things. If you want Str to seedpod damage, Unicore's targeted change is a more elegant solution.

Why should any category of attack made with Dex always get Str to damage? Bows don't unless they're composite. Crossbows don't. Blowguns don't. Bombs don't. Changing the rule just for unarmed damage is ignoring the approach of "using weapon traits just for ones that differ" that you simultaneously advocate for. They already have a rule that answers this question, you're just overlooking it. You're reading a section that speaks about things are generally done instead of a section that explicitly says how to do it in this case. At this point I'm genuinely just confused why you don't think it's the applicable rule.

(None of this is an opinion for what is balanced, and how it should have been printed, or whether the absence of any stat to add to damage is a deliberate omission or an oversight like the absence of range. I'm just citing the actual rule.)


Rico is correct.

Don't just say "all unarmed attacks get Strength to damage". It is a kludge and it is unnecessary.

Much more reasonable to houserule the Seedpod.

Since the range information is missing, we're bound to get errata on that. At this time we will know whether Strength was intended or not: if they errata the range without giving any modifier to damage, it pretty conclusively tells us Paizo's RAW and RAI is the same: they want the Seedpod to be a ribbon (flavor) ability only.

(If they want to split the difference, they'll make the Seedpod Propulsive, not Thrown)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Zapp wrote:

Rico is correct.

Don't just say "all unarmed attacks get Strength to damage". It is a kludge and it is unnecessary.

Much more reasonable to houserule the Seedpod.

Since the range information is missing, we're bound to get errata on that. At this time we will know whether Strength was intended or not: if they errata the range without giving any modifier to damage, it pretty conclusively tells us Paizo's RAW and RAI is the same: they want the Seedpod to be a ribbon (flavor) ability only.

(If they want to split the difference, they'll make the Seedpod Propulsive, not Thrown)

Them only Errataing one or the the other doesn't mean anything. If they look at the rules and go okay this doesn't have a range and add one that means it got a range. They might feel the rules on adding str are clear and everyone knows you add str to unarmed attacks and that you only have 2 metaphysical hands that you can use for manipulate actions no matter how many actual hands you have. And then be shocked when we all didn't know this.


RicoTheBold wrote:
It's not circumstantial, it literally says calculate to attack/damage rolls like you would a weapon, and ranged weapons don't get Str to damage by default.

Look at the damage section though: "Melee damage roll = damage die of weapon or unarmed attack + Strength modifier + bonuses + penalties

Ranged damage roll = damage die of weapon + Strength modifier for thrown weapons + bonuses + penalties" There is LITERALLY no listing for differentiating ranged vs melee unarmed: there is only one unarmed damage calculation as they go out of their way to show that weapon and unarmed damage are NOT the same thing and as such, you can't point to ranged damage calculations for anything really as unarmed attacks can't have weapon damage dice just that when you actually have an unarmed damage die you figure damage out the same as a weapon... Do I trust the unarmed section or the damage section? I just can't understand the not weapon weapon status,as it IMO gives little benefit for much more complexity.

RicoTheBold wrote:
This would be a substantial change to the rule on page 278, and potentially could impact other things.

I don't see how. What would it impact? What would it change? As of now, it's change/alter exactly one thing: this feat. If fixed by making it act as a ranged weapon in all ways, it instead means fixing the feat and any future feats to require extra weapon traits.

Unicore wrote:
Yeah, but we already have all the weirdness of unarmed attacks getting weapon traits, that make no mention of unarmed attacks as separate than weapons with things like trip, disarm, shove, etc. For the consistency of putting the relevant information in the action itself, I think it makes far more sense for Ranged Attack to remain the same, that it does not get bonuses to damage from attribute unless specified in the action or by trait, than it does to further complicate the awkward space that unarmed attacks are in in PF2 as "not weapons, except when they are."

Personal taste I guess: you can either have all ranged weapons work the same or all unarmed attacks working the same: I don't see a cognitive load benefit of one over the other as it's not going to make unarmed any more complicated [in fact IMO it makes it LESS].


Gerystone, I find your perspective very interesting because for me there is a hierarchy of classification that begins with Melee attack / Ranged Attack. But I can see that weapon or not a weapon is a separate and independent classification process. However, weapon or not a weapon doesn't really tell me anything about how or why to apply an ability score modifier to damage, so I would have never assumed that: Weapon = go through additional steps to determine if and what modifier to add, while: Not a weapon = always add STR. For me, that chart makes it clear that the deciding factor is ranged vs Melee, but I would love to know why that did not feel inherent to you. It might be too late to consider that order and how it is applied to PF2, but, selfishly as a game designer, I am very interested in how to make sure that order of operations is clear and consistent. I think the obvious one is to make sure that the base order is set in stone and then anything that modifies it happens consistently on the same level.


Talonhawke wrote:
Them only Errataing one or the the other doesn't mean anything.

No, it is reasonable to conclude that if an ability is touched upon by errata, but only half changed, the intention is for the other half to not change.

Do not argue there can be "a failure to errata something" - that means omissions could be accidental as well as intentional, and that is just a logical fallacy.

They will not and should not have to say that any omissions are intentional.

If they then later issue another errata where it does change, that's a new situation. In the meanwhile I will consider a hypothetical Seedpod where range is errataed but damage is not to clearly tell us the RAI is for no damage to be added.

Talonhawke wrote:
They might feel the rules on adding str are clear and everyone knows you add str to unarmed attacks

You don't add str to unarmed attacks.

(You do add str to melee attacks, including unarmed melee attacks, however)


Unicore wrote:
Not a weapon = always add STR.

In the damage section, only the melee section allows for unarmed dice in the damage roll calculation and that calculation includes strength. Ranged does not allow for the possibility for unarmed damage, as it's not included in the calculation listed. Either the damage section needs errata'd to include unarmed dice in the ranged section or we have to calculate it in the only allowed way presented, the melee damage section.

So IMO we never get to the ranged vs melee classification as only one section allows you to use unarmed damage dice in the calculation: ranged only allows weapon damage dice and unarmed attacks do not have those. It's just not possible to follow the damage section and use a ranged with unarmed as the only calculation is melee. This is all a result of making unarmed attacks and damage 100% different than weapon attacks and damage in some ways but then figuring out things in the same way like they ARE the same... Until ranged damage can allow you to add unarmed dice, we can't use in unarmed attacks [without houseruling of course].


The more I look at it though, there really is no section of the book that says unarmed attacked always use strength for damage. In fact they do not always use str for damage, because normal weapon traits can be applied to unarmed attacks, such as propulsive and finesse.

Additionally, on page 278 under unarmed attacks it says, "You can Strike with your fist or another body part, calculating your attack and damage rolls in the same way you would with a weapon."

This makes it pretty clear that you would calculate the attack and damage roll for an unarmed strike (a seedpod would be an attack with another body part) the same way you would for a weapon.

Seedpods should get the thrown trait in an Errata along with a specified range for how far they can be thrown. Without the thrown trait or the propulsive, ranged attacks (weapons or not) do not get an ability modifier to damage unless the specific ability says otherwise.


One thing that I'm not sure has been discussed sufficiently is:

Won't adding Thrown (and a range) make Leshy Monks surpass other Monks?

You essentially have a Monk with 30 ft reach in that case (except I understand there are a few Monk powers that specifically doesn't work with Seedpod).

I completely understand the futility in basing your concept around an attack mode that doesn't get any modifier to damage...

... but shouldn't range carry some kind of cost?

The more I think about it the more partial I'm getting to Propulsive, splitting the difference between no Strength and full Strength.

It means the Leshy Monk still has a reason to enter melee, and that the range isn't costless.

And more importantly, that sometimes choosing a race other than Leshy for your Monk remains a rational decision.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Zapp wrote:
Talonhawke wrote:
Them only Errataing one or the the other doesn't mean anything.

No, it is reasonable to conclude that if an ability is touched upon by errata, but only half changed, the intention is for the other half to not change.

Do not argue there can be "a failure to errata something" - that means omissions could be accidental as well as intentional, and that is just a logical fallacy.

They will not and should not have to say that any omissions are intentional.

If they then later issue another errata where it does change, that's a new situation. In the meanwhile I will consider a hypothetical Seedpod where range is errataed but damage is not to clearly tell us the RAI is for no damage to be added.

Talonhawke wrote:
They might feel the rules on adding str are clear and everyone knows you add str to unarmed attacks

You don't add str to unarmed attacks.

(You do add str to melee attacks, including unarmed melee attacks, however)

And we have seen enough times on the forums where things were assumed for years before the Dev team stepped in and said "Wait you guys think X means this?" Flurry needing 2 weapons is a great example of this. Yes they would only errata or FAQ what they thinks needs to be changed an no more.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Zapp wrote:

Won't adding Thrown (and a range) make Leshy Monks surpass other Monks?

[...]
... but shouldn't range carry some kind of cost?

It's a d4 weapon whose only trait is manipualte and, as of the last and only dev comment, a 10 foot range that costs a feat.

Even with full strength to damage they're functionally daggers without agile, versatile or finesse.

The only thing that makes them stand out is that they're unarmed, which means you can't lose them... but also means they're going to work with a lot of combat options.

It's arguably one of the worst attacks in the entire game.


Squiggit wrote:
Zapp wrote:

Won't adding Thrown (and a range) make Leshy Monks surpass other Monks?

[...]
... but shouldn't range carry some kind of cost?

It's a d4 weapon whose only trait is manipualte and, as of the last and only dev comment, a 10 foot range that costs a feat.

Even with full strength to damage they're functionally daggers without agile, versatile or finesse.

The only thing that makes them stand out is that they're unarmed, which means you can't lose them... but also means they're going to work with a lot of combat options.

It's arguably one of the worst attacks in the entire game.

*nods* It's a niche attack: spend a feat on monk weapons instead and now you have a d4 weapon with a 20' range and an actual 0 reload that has real/actual weapon traits [Agile, Monk, Thrown, Uncommon]. multiclass into a ranger and Double Shot is available so you could 'flurry' with them, something you can't do as a normal mink for some reason...

As a generic unarmed attack without traits though... it is what you see and nothing can really be done to 'buff' it. It's a nice out of the box option to add ranged attacks to a 1st level character but it's not wining hands down vs monastic weapons. As weapons with a cp cost and - bulk, you aren't really saving anything with seedpods vs a real weapon until magic weapons are needed: the seedpod's ONE benefit is not costing you extra if you're already getting handwraps... that's it.


Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
graystone wrote:
RicoTheBold wrote:
It's not circumstantial, it literally says calculate to attack/damage rolls like you would a weapon, and ranged weapons don't get Str to damage by default.

Look at the damage section though: "Melee damage roll = damage die of weapon or unarmed attack + Strength modifier + bonuses + penalties

Ranged damage roll = damage die of weapon + Strength modifier for thrown weapons + bonuses + penalties" There is LITERALLY no listing for differentiating ranged vs melee unarmed

I'm just totally baffled here.

Things I'm pretty sure we agree on:
- The damage section only includes how to calculate weapon damage, not unarmed.
- The unarmed part I quoted says to calculate like attack and damage in the same way you would with a weapon.

Things we don't seem to agree on:
- Calculating an unarmed attack/damage "in the same way you would with a weapon" means reading the melee or ranged weapon damage calculation rules, and then...just doing that, even though it's not a weapon. And since it's not thrown or propulsive, not applying Str to damage.

Like...I just don't see why it matters that the damage section doesn't talk about unarmed when the unarmed section says to calculate it like a weapon, so the weapon damage calculation rules are therefore totally applicable. It's not a matter of trusting one section over the other, because the unarmed section is specifically referring you to the other.

I think maybe you're getting hung up on the other part of the unarmed rules section that says "However, unarmed attacks aren’t weapons, and effects and abilities that work with weapons never work with unarmed attacks unless they specifically say so." That still applies, but doesn't cancel out two sentences earlier where it says, "calculating your attack and damage rolls in the same way you would with a weapon."


Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Zapp wrote:

One thing that I'm not sure has been discussed sufficiently is:

Won't adding Thrown (and a range) make Leshy Monks surpass other Monks?

You essentially have a Monk with 30 ft reach in that case (except I understand there are a few Monk powers that specifically doesn't work with Seedpod).

I completely understand the futility in basing your concept around an attack mode that doesn't get any modifier to damage...

... but shouldn't range carry some kind of cost?

The more I think about it the more partial I'm getting to Propulsive, splitting the difference between no Strength and full Strength.

It means the Leshy Monk still has a reason to enter melee, and that the range isn't costless.

And more importantly, that sometimes choosing a race other than Leshy for your Monk remains a rational decision.

I think this is entirely possible, but it's a pretty big damage difference in a lot of builds. I don't have a real concrete grasp on the damage dice math curves (mostly because I'm lazy and haven't looked them up) but in the playtest, 1d4 ranged on a starknife without some real strength behind it didn't feel very powerful, and even low-level shortbow users tossing out 1d6 often can't make it through minor damage resistance.

I think people are sleeping on the fact that a Dex monk that's already ignoring Str doesn't see it as much of a downside. Making it thrown means it interacts differently with Barbarian feats that benefit there in a way that may/may not be desirable.

I think the low damage (as printed) makes it hard to make seedpod something better than a backup tool, but it's a good backup for monks, rogues, switch-hitters who don't want to have to pull out another weapon or give up holding a shield, and low-level animal instinct barbarians.


Squiggit wrote:
Zapp wrote:

Won't adding Thrown (and a range) make Leshy Monks surpass other Monks?

[...]
... but shouldn't range carry some kind of cost?

It's a d4 weapon whose only trait is manipualte and, as of the last and only dev comment, a 10 foot range that costs a feat.

Even with full strength to damage they're functionally daggers without agile, versatile or finesse.

The only thing that makes them stand out is that they're unarmed, which means you can't lose them... but also means they're going to work with a lot of combat options.

It's arguably one of the worst attacks in the entire game.

For Monks, Seed Pods are much better than daggers. Some of their best abilities (Flurry, Ki Strike, etc.) can't be used with daggers, shuriken, or any other thrown weapons. As Unarmed Strikes, Seed Pods do work with them.

Even if the range does turn out to be only 10' that's still better than a Reach weapon, and spending a feat on Monastic Weapons to get Bo Staves is considered a pretty good option for Str-focused Monks. Seed Pods are similarly a good option for Dex-focused Monks. Not an Uber-weapon, but a solid choice.


A feat being an okayish choice for a specific class maybe depending on your build is a pretty far cry from the overpowered abomination Zapp is acting like it is, though.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
...so you could 'flurry' with them, something you can't do as a normal mink for some reason...

I think that's because their short front legs and cute but tiny paws make it difficult to throw things. ;)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Squiggit wrote:
A feat being an okayish choice for a specific class maybe depending on your build is a pretty far cry from the overpowered abomination Zapp is acting like it is, though.

Zapp was specifically focusing on Monks and was considering the case that the range was 30' and that it had the 'thrown' tag added. In that case, I would have to agree that it would be really tempting for most monks.

For one feat, you would get a 30' range thrown weapon attack that...
-can't be disarmed
-has an inexhaustible supply of 'ammo' with 0 bulk
-adds your full Str modifier to damage
-doesn't require the 'returning' rune
-can take advantage of many of your melee class abilities
-is enhanced by your Handwraps of Mighty Blows

Unless I was going to keep Dex very low with a Mountain Stance build or Champion multiclass, I'd find Seed Pods really hard to resist.


RicoTheBold wrote:
- The damage section only includes how to calculate weapon damage, not unarmed.

No, the section specifically states unarmed or weapon damage in the melee section only. As such, it most certainly DOES include how unarmed damage is calculated: "Melee damage roll = damage die of weapon or unarmed attack + Strength modifier + bonuses + penalties" is FROM the damage section. Note unarmed.

RicoTheBold wrote:
- The unarmed part I quoted says to calculate like attack and damage in the same way you would with a weapon.

But then goes 100% out of it's way to exclude the possibility of ranged unarmed damage dice: hence, you either figure it out as a generic ranged attack or generic melee unarmed attack and IMO unarmed is more specific that ranged. Figuring it out as a weapon doesn't create a weapon damage die that doesn't exist.

RicoTheBold wrote:
- Calculating an unarmed attack/damage "in the same way you would with a weapon" means reading the melee or ranged weapon damage calculation rules, and then...just doing that, even though it's not a weapon. And since it's not thrown or propulsive, not applying Str to damage.

As I pointed out, the damage section goes out of it's way to INCLUDE unarmed damage dice in only one place: the melee section. AS such, you can't override it with the "in the same way you would with a weapon" or the addition of unarmed in the damage calculation for melee are worthless, superfluous and a waste of paper/ink the section could just 100% say weapon if it doesn't matter as there is no reason to add it if it's not meant to mean anything.

RicoTheBold wrote:
Like...I just don't see why it matters that the damage section doesn't talk about unarmed when the unarmed section says to calculate it like a weapon, so the weapon damage calculation rules are therefore totally applicable. It's not a matter of trusting one section over the other, because the unarmed section is specifically referring you to the other.

Like... I don't see why it matters that one section tells you something in general [use the same kind of generic math] while another specifically tells you what to add [damage section]. Again, if it didn't matter, the damage section wouldn't mention unarmed damage at all if you figure everything out the same without any consideration for it being different: why waste the space?

RicoTheBold wrote:
I think maybe you're getting hung up on the other part of the unarmed rules section

IMO, that's what you're doing: focusing on the general and ignoring the specific. Using the same general formula doesn't override the need for actual unarmed dice in the formula that the ranged damage formula lacks: you can't do the math without a base die and the addition of specific unarmed dice in the melee section means that it matters that it's there [or NOT there].


Aside from rules/potential for them being too much powerful, and taking into account what is explained in the feat. How do you imagine a seedpod would work? What are the stats that best represent them?

Spoiler:

  • Name
  • Category
  • Price
  • Damage
  • Range
  • Reload
  • Bulk
  • Hands
  • Group
  • Weapon Traits

This is what I think best represent them.

  • Seedpod
  • Unarmed
  • -
  • 1d4 B
  • 20
  • 0
  • -
  • 1
  • Sling
  • Manipulate

For me is not propulsive nor thrown because I imagine it as the size of a stone (sling) but more light and with flimsy shell, so it doesn´t have the weight nor the cutting edges needed to "transform" the strenght into damage.

If they say in the future that they are as heavy and/or with a strong shell, then I could imagine it with a propulsive trait.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Well, the new blog post just gave the organized play answer to this question, or it's range at least.

"The seedpod ranged unarmed attack granted by the Seedpod feat (page 54) has a range (not a range increment) of 10 feet."

Hard nerf to this ability, but there it is.


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

I hope they release ancestry feats to build off of Leshy Seedpod in the future. Otherwise it totally breaks immersion for me to be forced to play the little broken-horned Kimarhi Ronso all the time.

But I would buy a feat that boosted the range from 10 feet to 30 foot increments. Then my immersion can just assume my monster fleshy brothers all had that feat.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Uchuujin wrote:
Hard nerf to this ability, but there it is.

That went WAY past nerf and went to 'no one would EVER take the feat'. That isn't a ranged attack, it's a melee reach attack with less damage than your punch that provokes an AoO: it's literally the worse possible attack you can make. You're better off throwing a rock off the ground: that at least has a range increment.

Paizo Employee Organized Play Developer

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Uchuujin wrote:

Well, the new blog post just gave the organized play answer to this question, or it's range at least.

"The seedpod ranged unarmed attack granted by the Seedpod feat (page 54) has a range (not a range increment) of 10 feet."

Hard nerf to this ability, but there it is.

You literally can't nerf an ability that never worked to begin with. And to be clear, this wasn't the "organized play" answer; we asked the design team and Lost Omens team how the ability was supposed to work and extended that answer to our blog since it's a nonfunctional ability without an answer. Any further updates or changes to their errata will continue be reflected in our rulings accordingly.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Michael Sayre wrote:
Uchuujin wrote:

Well, the new blog post just gave the organized play answer to this question, or it's range at least.

"The seedpod ranged unarmed attack granted by the Seedpod feat (page 54) has a range (not a range increment) of 10 feet."

Hard nerf to this ability, but there it is.

You literally can't nerf an ability that never worked to begin with. And to be clear, this wasn't the "organized play" answer; we asked the design team and Lost Omens team how the ability was supposed to work and extended that answer to our blog since it's a nonfunctional ability without an answer. Any further updates or changes to their errata will continue be reflected in our rulings accordingly.

Oh... That makes it even worse if it's a general answer vs a PFS one... *tosses feat into basket* I can cross that out out my book. :(


Ravingdork wrote:

I hope they release ancestry feats to build off of Leshy Seedpod in the future. Otherwise it totally breaks immersion for me to be forced to play the little broken-horned Kimarhi Ronso all the time.

But I would buy a feat that boosted the range from 10 feet to 30 foot increments. Then my immersion can just assume my monster fleshy brothers all had that feat.

They might give you 30', but not increments.


Yeah, I feel they need to up the damage and give us at least 20' instead of 10'. If they did that, I could see using Seedpods often enough.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Starfinder Superscriber

Correction posted in that thread, that it will be a 10' range increment, not a flat 10' range.


NielsenE wrote:
Correction posted in that thread, that it will be a 10' range increment, not a flat 10' range.

That helps


Talonhawke wrote:
NielsenE wrote:
Correction posted in that thread, that it will be a 10' range increment, not a flat 10' range.
That helps

Yes, I can pull it out of basket with that... That said, it just moves from useless to kind of bad. Maybe it could crawl up to fair with a monk focusing just on generic unarmed options...

And it still isn't clear on the damage bonus... It's a start, so I'll take it and hopefully we'll see more corrections/FAQ's/errata for it in the future.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

hmm so what monk abilities can help with this?
flurry of blows anything else?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
jimthegray wrote:

hmm so what monk abilities can help with this?

flurry of blows anything else?

Flurry, Ki Strike, Elemental Fist, Stunning Fist, Shattering Strike, Diamond Fists, Knockback Strike... That's it off hand I can think of, but that just a quick glance.


Michael Sayre wrote:
Uchuujin wrote:

Well, the new blog post just gave the organized play answer to this question, or it's range at least.

"The seedpod ranged unarmed attack granted by the Seedpod feat (page 54) has a range (not a range increment) of 10 feet."

Hard nerf to this ability, but there it is.

You literally can't nerf an ability that never worked to begin with. And to be clear, this wasn't the "organized play" answer; we asked the design team and Lost Omens team how the ability was supposed to work and extended that answer to our blog since it's a nonfunctional ability without an answer. Any further updates or changes to their errata will continue be reflected in our rulings accordingly.

True enough I suppose, but I think it is fair to say that it is below even the most pessimistic of expectations.

NeilsenE wrote:
Correction posted in that thread, that it will be a 10' range increment, not a flat 10' range.

This however does go a long way to helping things out.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Michael Sayre wrote:
And to be clear, this wasn't the "organized play" answer; we asked the design team and Lost Omens team how the ability was supposed to work and extended that answer to our blog since it's a nonfunctional ability without an answer. Any further updates or changes to their errata will continue be reflected in our rulings accordingly.

I note they were silent on the damage modifier issue.

To me that means we have confirmation no ability modifier to damage is added.

Which is entirely consistent with the rules:

Quote:
Ranged weapons don’t normally add an ability modifier to the damage roll, though weapons with the propulsive trait (page 283) add half your Strength modifier (or your full modifier if it is a negative number), and thrown weapons add your full Strength modifier.

Since it has neither the thrown nor the propulsive trait, and since it is a ranged attack, it is no surprise the Seedpod adds no ability modifier to damage.


Zapp wrote:
I note they were silent on the damage modifier issue.

It seems a work in progress to me as they've changed to twice in a short amount of time: I don't see silence as a confirmation of anything. Something explicit would be needed IMO.

Zapp wrote:
Quote:
Ranged weapons don’t normally add an ability modifier to the damage roll, though weapons with the propulsive trait (page 283) add half your Strength modifier (or your full modifier if it is a negative number), and thrown weapons add your full Strength modifier.
Since it has neither the thrown nor the propulsive trait, and since it is a ranged attack, it is no surprise the Seedpod adds no ability modifier to damage.

Yes, but that quote in 1000% meaningless.

Quote:
An unarmed attack isn’t a weapon, though it’s categorized with weapons for weapon groups, and it might have weapon traits.

The fact that you can add weapon traits doesn't tell you how the base damage is figured out. Until that's done, we have no way to tell if Wind Crash's attack having Propulsive is an upgrade from no damage or a downgrade from full damage:

Zapp wrote:

Melee damage roll = damage die of weapon or unarmed attack + Strength modifier + bonuses + penalties

Ranged damage roll = damage die of weapon + Strength modifier for thrown weapons + bonuses + penalties

If they alter this to include unarmed into the ranged damage equation, then I could see it.


Yes if they differentiated and made - Unarmed attack Range / Unarmed attack Melee then sure but right now there is only - Unarmed attack and in the equation it can only replace Melee to calculate damage.

- damage die of weapon OR unarmed attack


graystone wrote:
Zapp wrote:
I note they were silent on the damage modifier issue.

It seems a work in progress to me as they've changed to twice in a short amount of time: I don't see silence as a confirmation of anything. Something explicit would be needed IMO.

As long as you answer any player asking with "it is presently undefined", okay.

I mean your stance is fine as long as you don't use this as an excuse to provide the Seedpod with an ability bonus to damage.

That would be entirely unreasonable; essentially saying "my dreamed-up houserule is RAW until explicitly stricken down by official statement".

Since there likely will never be any such clarification (for the reasons me and countless others have explained), this is wilfully blinding yourself to the realities of the situation.

Your logical options are between
a) Seedpods with no damage modifier
or
b) Seedpods are insufficiently defined, and therefore can't be used. (If it was a computer game, trying to use one would crash the game)

Cheers


As much as I'd like seedpods with a str modifier. It even makes sense given how they would be"thrown" or "shot" from the leshy body. Maybe even propulsive.

But as currently written I'd probably side with no strength for now but would match it's range to what's in the bestiary since their is zero relative info.

Wich is it really that bad? Most ranged weapons don't get it, you have the added safety of range, it's built in to work with handwraps letting you be a switch hitter without expecting higher than average wealth levels.

Leshy seem like amazing Monk's in this regard since you can flurry of blows at range out of the gate.


Zapp wrote:
I mean your stance is fine as long as you don't use this as an excuse to provide the Seedpod with an ability bonus to damage.

My stance was they get str damage BEFORE they started changing things and so far nothing they have done has changed that.

Zapp wrote:
That would be entirely unreasonable; essentially saying "my dreamed-up houserule is RAW until explicitly stricken down by official statement".

I've given my proof and my explanation why I see it having damage based on the existing rules: I see not giving it str damage a houserule.

Zapp wrote:
Since there likely will never be any such clarification (for the reasons me and countless others have explained), this is wilfully blinding yourself to the realities of the situation.

Since it was unaddressed, I think the conclusion is... that it was unaddressed... Errata JUST added range: full stop. It doesn't meaningfully alter our debate on damage.

Zapp wrote:

a) Seedpods with no damage modifier

or
b) Seedpods are insufficiently defined, and therefore can't be used. (If it was a computer game, trying to use one would crash the game)

c) there is ONLY one way given to figure out unarmed damage so use it: "Melee damage roll = damage die of weapon or unarmed attack + Strength modifier + bonuses + penalties". I pick c, as you have undefined on one hand and defined on the other so the only way it works is with what's defined. a) just doesn't exist under the current rules: it might 'feel' right but it's no different than looking at Produce Flame under the ranged weapon damage and saying it shouldn't get a spellcasting ability modifier because of the ranged damage equation even though it doesn't include spells. Unarmed only has one damage section, melee.

51 to 91 of 91 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / Advice / I love the idea of Leshy Seedpods, but... All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.