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


Advice

1 to 50 of 91 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

3 people marked this as a favorite.

How the hell do I justify using them? I think Paizo did this dope idea a huge disservice.

RAW, Seedpods are a ranged unarmed Strike that deals 1d4 bludgeoning damage, and critical hits additionally slow the target by 10 ft. for 1 round.

That's...it? That's all? This Strike doesn't have the Thrown trait to get Str to damage, so 1d4 is all you're ever going to get. The extra effect only applies on a critical hit, and how often does a –10 speed debuff have any kind of impact?

The official entry is missing the range too. Community consensus is 30 ft. based on the Leshy creature in the bestiary, but when asked about it, a Paizo representative said it should probably be 10 ft. If that turns out to be the case, there's no question that this ability has zero value whatsoever.

Why were they so conservative with this idea? I don't need my build to be Seedpods-only (although that's what I set out to do), but I would certainly like them to be USABLE. And in their current form, I don't believe they are.

I don't mean that they are a subpar option. I mean that 1d4 damage per Strike and an impractical critical bonus effect is genuinely a trap option.

Thoughts? Happy to be proven wrong here. And if anyone has found a way to incorporate Seedpods into a proper build, let me hear it!


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

You mean other than this?


HammerJack wrote:
You mean other than this?

What do you mean?


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Agent Black wrote:
This Strike doesn't have the Thrown trait to get Str to damage, so 1d4 is all you're ever going to get.

It's not a weapon, it's an unarmed attack. Unarmed strikes get str damage. Ranged had nothing to do with it.

"When you use melee weapons, unarmed attacks, and thrown ranged weapons, the most common modifier you’ll add to damage is your Strength ability modifier."

Agent Black wrote:
The official entry is missing the range too. Community consensus is 30 ft. based on the Leshy creature in the bestiary, but when asked about it, a Paizo representative said it should probably be 10 ft. If that turns out to be the case, there's no question that this ability has zero value whatsoever.

I'd be THRILLED with 30' but even 10' isn't bad as the average thrown weapon is 20'. It gets the full benefits of unarmed proficiencies and handwraps so a monk uses the same things to punch and range. Normally a monk would need monastic weapons for ranged and even then they can't flurry with it but you can flurry with a seedpod.

Agent Black wrote:
critical hits

-10 speed is fine. It helps keep everyone stay at the range they want to: melee can keep up with mobile creatures easier and ranged/casters have an easier time staying that way. Not exciting but it's ok.


SuperBidi wrote:
HammerJack wrote:
You mean other than this?
What do you mean?

Seedpod + monk class = a way to incorporate Seedpods into a proper build.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:

It's not a weapon, it's an unarmed attack. Unarmed strikes get str damage. Ranged had nothing to do with it.

... [abridged quote mine]
It gets the full benefits of unarmed proficiencies and handwraps so a monk uses the same things to punch and range. Normally a monk would need monastic weapons for ranged and even then they can't flurry with it but you can flurry with a seedpod.

Oh snap, some HUGE points here, thank you! (Thanks HammerJack as well for the Monk tip.) Definitely glad to be proven wrong in this case.

+Str to damage already has the workings of a viable damage source. Then add in Flurry of Blows for the enhanced action economy, and Handwraps as a relatively cheap and accessible magic item early in the game, and a viable build is born.

Awesome. Was not expecting to get answers that fast, or for them to make it this easy. I will challenge you a bit that –10 speed only on critical hits has much practical value, but as long as Seedpods are viable as my main attack, I'll certainly take it.

Thanks again guys! And if you have any other tidbits to help this bad boy shape up at level 4 or 5, I'm all ears.


I think i have my first Character picked out now.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

The majority of the improvements for Monks say "unarmed attacks" which the seedpod would qualify for. Powerful Fist however specifically calls out fists for the increase from 1d4 to 1d6.

Personally, I wish this was written as Powerful Blows, that increase Unarmed attack damage from 1d4 to 1d6.

Would people allow it for seedpods? Has there been a FAQ/errata that I missed?


Pretty sure the fists qualifier is so you need to consider how many hands you have available, rather than holding stuff in hand and kicking or headbutting or what have you. In this regard seedpod does not say it requires any hands, so I assume you just flex or whip them off your body or something. So I would say it shouldn't apply Powerful Fist.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It's also viable for precision Rangers from level 2 onwards when quick draw becomes an option. With a bird companion that's an opener of 1d4+4+1d8+1d4 bleed and inflicting a 20% miss chance


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Inkfist wrote:
quick draw

Quickdraw doesn't do anything for a seedpod so I'm unsure why you mentioned it.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
Inkfist wrote:
quick draw
Quickdraw doesn't do anything for a seedpod so I'm unsure why you mentioned it.

Its a round one option. Hunt target, command companion, strike with seedpod at up to double the range increment without penalty.

Round 2 if the enemy has closed the gap. Strike with quick draw, Strike, command companion for move and strike (the lack of MAP and the companions access to precisions bonus damage makes this viable.

Quick draw enables a switch hitter play style at no action cost if you start every encounter mode with your hands empty.


Inkfist wrote:
Strike with quick draw

Strike with what? Unarmed attacks aren't weapons so what weapon are you striking with?

Quickstrike: "You Interact to draw a weapon, then Strike with that weapon."

Unarmed attacks: "However, unarmed attacks aren’t weapons, and effects and abilities that work with weapons never work with unarmed attacks unless they specifically say so."


@graystone: Thanks for explanation. I understand now :)


graystone wrote:
Inkfist wrote:
Strike with quick draw
Strike with what? Unarmed attacks aren't weapons so what weapon are you striking with

The thing about switch hitting is that you often switch weapons between ranged and melee.

Assuming you aren't being facetious, using Quick draw let's you draw and strike with a weapon that's not your seedpod or an unarmed strike...such as a big d12 weapon...you know switch hitting.

Monks with their stances don't need to swap out to a different weapon when unarmed, but Rangers (who we are talking about here) do.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Inkfist wrote:
Assuming you aren't being facetious, using Quick draw let's you draw and strike with a weapon that's not your seedpod or an unarmed strike...such as a big d12 weapon...you know switch hitting.

If you're actually drawing a real weapon, that defeats the savings you'd get by using handwraps for both ranged and melee unarmed attacks: you now have to buy handwrap AND a weapon with runes. You can do it but it'd not something that I'd suggest,both from a gold and stat standpoint. A switch hitter is better served with a maxed dex and a modest str but "a big d12 weapon" isn't going to be finesse.

If instead of quickdraw, that ranger takes monk dedication for a feat he gets a 1d6 Agile, Finesse, Nonlethal, Unarmed weapon that uses the handwraps from your seedpods, uses dex to hit and is agile [and doesn't need quickdraw].

SuperBidi wrote:
@graystone: Thanks for explanation. I understand now :)

No problem, happy to help. Unarmed not being a weapon is odd and easy to miss.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

By RAW, only melee attacks add Strength modifier to damage by default. Ranged attacks add no modifier that isn't explicitly specified to damage, unless they have the thrown (apply full Strength modifier) or propulsive (apply half of Strength modifier) traits.

Seedpods are a ranged attack with none of those traits and no specified bonus to damage, therefore you don't get to add your Strength modifier or even a portion of it to your damage rolls with them. The unarmed trait doesn't change anything about it. Case in point, the monk's wind crash is a ranged unarmed attack with the propulsive trait and thus adds half the monk's Strength bonus to damage.

Unless errata'd into something decent, seedpods are a terrible option until weapon specialization comes around. And even then, you're better off playing an elf with Elemental Wrath if you want a free ranged attack at will.


FlashRebel wrote:
By RAW, only melee attacks add Strength modifier to damage by default.

"When you use melee weapons, unarmed attacks, and thrown ranged weapons, the most common modifier you’ll add to damage is your Strength ability modifier." Melee weapons, unarmed attacks, and thrown ranged weapons add strength modifiers by default. Unarmed attacks aren't weapons, so they must be specifically mentioned and they ARE mentioned in the same place melee and thrown ranged weapons are. So RAW, yes seedpods add str dam.

As to the monk's wind crash, the property overrides the normal full str damage added: it's not proof the seedpod doesn't add it.

If you disagree, how much str damage to you add to a punch? The SAME section that tells you that covers all unarmed attacks and not just that including ranged ones.

The full quote from damage rolls, 1st step:
"When you use melee weapons, unarmed attacks, and thrown ranged weapons, the most common modifier you’ll add to damage is your Strength ability modifier. Weapons with the propulsive trait sometimes add half your Strength modifier. You typically do not add an ability modifier to spell damage, damage from most ranged weapons, or damage from alchemical bombs and similar items."

The last sentence is void as unarmed attacks are specifically NOT weapons so none of it applies. The second line covers wind crash' exception. The first is pretty clear on what you add to unarmed attack.

Where do you see ranged unarmed attacks, by default, do not add str?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
FlashRebel wrote:
By RAW, only melee attacks add Strength modifier to damage by default.

"When you use melee weapons, unarmed attacks, and thrown ranged weapons, the most common modifier you’ll add to damage is your Strength ability modifier." Melee weapons, unarmed attacks, and thrown ranged weapons add strength modifiers by default. Unarmed attacks aren't weapons, so they must be specifically mentioned and they ARE mentioned in the same place melee and thrown ranged weapons are. So RAW, yes seedpods add str dam.

As to the monk's wind crash, the property overrides the normal full str damage added: it's not proof the seedpod doesn't add it.

If you disagree, how much str damage to you add to a punch? The SAME section that tells you that covers all unarmed attacks and not just that including ranged ones.

The full quote from damage rolls, 1st step:
"When you use melee weapons, unarmed attacks, and thrown ranged weapons, the most common modifier you’ll add to damage is your Strength ability modifier. Weapons with the propulsive trait sometimes add half your Strength modifier. You typically do not add an ability modifier to spell damage, damage from most ranged weapons, or damage from alchemical bombs and similar items."

The last sentence is void as unarmed attacks are specifically NOT weapons so none of it applies. The second line covers wind crash' exception. The first is pretty clear on what you add to unarmed attack.

Where do you see ranged unarmed attacks, by default, do not add str?

Damage Rolls wrote:

When the result of your attack roll with a weapon or unarmed attack equals or exceeds your target’s AC, you hit your target! Roll the weapon or unarmed attack’s damage die and add the relevant modifiers, bonuses, and penalties to determine the amount of damage you deal. Calculate a damage roll as follows.

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

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.

Magic weapons with striking, greater striking, or major striking runes add one or more weapon damage dice to your damage roll. These extra dice are the same die size as the weapon’s damage die. At higher levels, most characters also gain extra damage from weapon specialization.

Need I say more?

The rules for damage rolls don't distinguish between weapon attacks and unarmed attacks, they only care about if the attack is melee or ranged. Seedpods are ranged attacks and don't have any damage improving traits or specified bonus to damage rolls, so you don't get to add your Strength modifier to them.

Silver Crusade

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

Ranged weapons.

Seedpod is not a weapon but a natural attack that has range.


Rysky wrote:

Ranged weapons.

Seedpod is not a weapon but a natural attack that has range.

Unarmed wrote:
An unarmed attack uses your body rather than a manufactured weapon. An unarmed attack isn’t a weapon, though it’s categorized with weapons for weapon groups, and it might have weapon traits. Since it’s part of your body, an unarmed attack can’t be Disarmed. It also doesn’t take up a hand, though a fist or other grasping appendage follows the same rules as a free-hand weapon.

Where exactly is there a mention that an unarmed attack has to apply your Strength modifier? I see nothing here.

By the way, "natural attacks" aren't even a thing in this edition.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
FlashRebel wrote:
Need I say more?

Yes, yes you do.

"Strength modifier for thrown weapons": "However, unarmed attacks aren’t weapons, and effects and abilities that work with weapons never work with unarmed attacks unless they specifically say so."

"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.": "However, unarmed attacks aren’t weapons, and effects and abilities that work with weapons never work with unarmed attacks unless they specifically say so."

SO to reiterate, unarmed attacks ARE NOT WEAPONS so anything that talks about weapons DOES NOT apply to them "unless they specifically say so". So the bolded quote about thrown and ranged weapons is 100% meaningless as it DOES NOT APPLY to unarmed attacks. Want to know what part DOES "specifically say so"? "When you use melee weapons, unarmed attacks, and thrown ranged weapons, the most common modifier you’ll add to damage is your Strength ability modifier." Note where it specifically notes that unarmed attacks apply to this part?

Unarmed attacks are NOT weapons. Core Rulebook pg. 450, Step 1: Roll the Damage Dice and Apply Modifiers, Bonuses, and Penalties explains how unarmed damage is rolled "damage die of weapon or unarmed attack + Strength modifier + bonuses + penalties". Normal ranged damage rolls are "damage die of weapon + Strength modifier for thrown weapons + bonuses + penalties" but with unarmed NOT being weapons, it has no weapon die and can't be thrown: do you think the damage for a seedpod is "bonuses + penalties" as none of the other things apply unarmed?


3 people marked this as a favorite.
FlashRebel wrote:
Rysky wrote:

Ranged weapons.

Seedpod is not a weapon but a natural attack that has range.

Unarmed wrote:
An unarmed attack uses your body rather than a manufactured weapon. An unarmed attack isn’t a weapon, though it’s categorized with weapons for weapon groups, and it might have weapon traits. Since it’s part of your body, an unarmed attack can’t be Disarmed. It also doesn’t take up a hand, though a fist or other grasping appendage follows the same rules as a free-hand weapon.

Where exactly is there a mention that an unarmed attack has to apply your Strength modifier? I see nothing here.

By the way, "natural attacks" aren't even a thing in this edition.

core rulebook pg 450 wrote:
When you use melee weapons, unarmed attacks, and thrown ranged weapons, the most common modifier you’ll add to damage is your Strength ability modifier. Weapons with the propulsive trait sometimes add half your Strength modifier. You typically do not add an ability modifier to spell damage, damage from most ranged weapons, or damage from alchemical bombs and similar items.


Paradozen wrote:
FlashRebel wrote:
Rysky wrote:

Ranged weapons.

Seedpod is not a weapon but a natural attack that has range.

Unarmed wrote:
An unarmed attack uses your body rather than a manufactured weapon. An unarmed attack isn’t a weapon, though it’s categorized with weapons for weapon groups, and it might have weapon traits. Since it’s part of your body, an unarmed attack can’t be Disarmed. It also doesn’t take up a hand, though a fist or other grasping appendage follows the same rules as a free-hand weapon.

Where exactly is there a mention that an unarmed attack has to apply your Strength modifier? I see nothing here.

By the way, "natural attacks" aren't even a thing in this edition.

core rulebook pg 450 wrote:
When you use melee weapons, unarmed attacks, and thrown ranged weapons, the most common modifier you’ll add to damage is your Strength ability modifier. Weapons with the propulsive trait sometimes add half your Strength modifier. You typically do not add an ability modifier to spell damage, damage from most ranged weapons, or damage from alchemical bombs and similar items.

Then why does the wind crash attack require the propulsive trait to gain extra damage from strength if ranged unarmed attacks should all apply the character's full Strength modifier anyway? Literally every precedent contradicts the idea that seedpods should add strength to damage.

I shall add that wind crash comes from a stance focus spell available at monk level 8 (so not really free to use), deals the same damage type and uses damage dice only one step above seedpods. Seedpods are far from good as they are, but assuming out of thin air that they get bonus damage from strength would make a level 1 ancestry feat nearly as powerful as a level 8 monk class feat. If you don't see anything wrong with a level 1 ancestry feat giving the equivalent of a limitless amount of thrown weapons that don't require any action to be drawn and have all the benefits of unarmed attacks, at this point you want the game to be broken.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

If I had to guess, because it's not a "true" unarmed strike but a Focus Spell.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
FlashRebel wrote:
at this point you want the game to be broken.

Do you really think seedpods adding strength to damage breaks the game?


FlashRebel wrote:
Then why does the wind crash attack require the propulsive trait to gain extra damage from strength if ranged unarmed attacks should all apply the character's full Strength modifier anyway?

Why do you assume it GAINED the ability to use 1/2 strength instead of LOSING the ability to add full str?

FlashRebel wrote:
Literally every precedent contradicts the idea that seedpods should add strength to damage.

This is "literally" not the case. Look at the Gourd Leshy's seed attack once and you'll notice it adds it's str damage to it's seed attack. In fact every unarmed attack I look at that deals damage, except wind crash, adds full strength. IMO, it's contradicting precedent to NOT add str damage to seedpods.

FlashRebel wrote:
If you don't see anything wrong with a level 1 ancestry feat giving the equivalent of a limitless amount of thrown weapons that don't require any action to be drawn and have all the benefits of unarmed attacks, at this point you want the game to be broken.

No, I don't see anything wrong or broken. Why would it be fine without +1-4 damage and totally broken and wrong with it?

For 1 feat you can learn to Shuriken: it's reload 0, range 20 and does 1d4+str damage - bulk and 1cp cost... So you can carry a non-vast amount and it doesn't impact bulk and at 1cp cost you have no problem buying enough to cover every attack you make in a combat then after you can pick them up... *looks at seedpods* what's broken again?


3 people marked this as a favorite.
FlashRebel wrote:
Seedpods are far from good as they are, but assuming out of thin air that they get bonus damage from strength would make a level 1 ancestry feat nearly as powerful as a level 8 monk class feat.

It isn't assuming our of thin air. There are literal rules, which have been quoted upthread, which support adding strength to damage. Whether or not that is intended is another story, I kinda expect to see propulsive tacked on when they officially release the range of seedpods. But looking at the rules that say add strength to unarmed damage and concluding you add strength to unarmed damage isn't assuming something out of thin air, it's reading the rules.


Until official errata. It's a thrown weapon. It gets str to damage and at best 20ft range


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Martialmasters wrote:
Until official errata. It's a thrown weapon. It gets str to damage and at best 20ft range

I think you accidentally wrote the assumptions you intend to fill in (to account for missing information like range increment) as though they were an actual rule. Judgements outside of codified rules are necessary for the game to work, but it is important to distinguish which is which. Especially when they have large side effects, like not being able to use handwraps, or flurry of blows, because you converted an unarmed attack into a weapon.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Martialmasters wrote:
It's a thrown weapon.

It can't be this, it's not a weapon: It's an unarmed attack, melee or ranged doesn't matter.

Martialmasters wrote:
It gets str to damage

I agree.

Martialmasters wrote:
at best 20ft range

I can see good reason for 30', as that is the range for the monster version of the ability.

HammerJack wrote:
Especially when they have large side effects, like not being able to use handwraps, or flurry of blows, because you converted an unarmed attack into a weapon.

This is even bigger an issue: making it a thrown weapon also means you'll NEVER get a proficiency bonus as it's not a simple, martial or advanced and it's no longer unarmed.


My opnion is that it gets str to damage. But i also feel like wind crash is the one who needs a wording fix... That property makes no sense on it as it should get str to damage as an unnarmed attack.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
Martialmasters wrote:
It's a thrown weapon.

It can't be this, it's not a weapon: It's an unarmed attack, melee or ranged doesn't matter.

Martialmasters wrote:
It gets str to damage

I agree.

Martialmasters wrote:
at best 20ft range

I can see good reason for 30', as that is the range for the monster version of the ability.

HammerJack wrote:
Especially when they have large side effects, like not being able to use handwraps, or flurry of blows, because you converted an unarmed attack into a weapon.
This is even bigger an issue: making it a thrown weapon also means you'll NEVER get a proficiency bonus as it's not a simple, martial or advanced and it's no longer unarmed.

If we are looking at the Bestiary entry for guidance then we can also see the rules contradict themselves there as well. The Bestiary Leaf Leshy takes a -1 damage penalty to it's longspear damage due to low Strength, but takes no such penalty on it's seedpod attack, implying Str doesn't apply. However both the Fungus and Gourd Leshy do receive their full Strength bonus on seed pod attacks. Regardless all three use a 30 foot range increment, so that seems reasonable.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
oholoko wrote:
My opnion is that it gets str to damage. But i also feel like wind crash is the one who needs a wording fix... That property makes no sense on it as it should get str to damage as an unnarmed attack.

That property is there so it doesn't get full bonuses, since <><> (infinity) agile 1d6 + full Str (not even taking into account handwrap runes) at 30' that IGNORE CONCEALMENT AND COVER! That also gives an AC bonus! is a little on the strong side, all things considered. So they figured since they want cool effect and flavor to tag along, 1d6 + 1/2 Str was the right place to put the nerf bat while still keeping it awesome


nick1wasd wrote:
oholoko wrote:
My opnion is that it gets str to damage. But i also feel like wind crash is the one who needs a wording fix... That property makes no sense on it as it should get str to damage as an unnarmed attack.
That property is there so it doesn't get full bonuses, since <><> (infinity) agile 1d6 + full Str (not even taking into account handwrap runes) at 30' that IGNORE CONCEALMENT AND COVER! That also gives an AC bonus! is a little on the strong side, all things considered. So they figured since they want cool effect and flavor to tag along, 1d6 + 1/2 Str was the right place to put the nerf bat while still keeping it awesome

Fair enough. But i still feel like it's not a great nerf.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
graystone wrote:
FlashRebel wrote:
By RAW, only melee attacks add Strength modifier to damage by default.

"When you use melee weapons, unarmed attacks, and thrown ranged weapons, the most common modifier you’ll add to damage is your Strength ability modifier." Melee weapons, unarmed attacks, and thrown ranged weapons add strength modifiers by default. Unarmed attacks aren't weapons, so they must be specifically mentioned and they ARE mentioned in the same place melee and thrown ranged weapons are. So RAW, yes seedpods add str dam.

As to the monk's wind crash, the property overrides the normal full str damage added: it's not proof the seedpod doesn't add it.

If you disagree, how much str damage to you add to a punch? The SAME section that tells you that covers all unarmed attacks and not just that including ranged ones.

The full quote from damage rolls, 1st step:
"When you use melee weapons, unarmed attacks, and thrown ranged weapons, the most common modifier you’ll add to damage is your Strength ability modifier. Weapons with the propulsive trait sometimes add half your Strength modifier. You typically do not add an ability modifier to spell damage, damage from most ranged weapons, or damage from alchemical bombs and similar items."

The last sentence is void as unarmed attacks are specifically NOT weapons so none of it applies. The second line covers wind crash' exception. The first is pretty clear on what you add to unarmed attack.

Where do you see ranged unarmed attacks, by default, do not add str?

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.

I think it's fair to say that based on this section, it's undefined whether to add Str to damage or not.

That said:

Page 278, Unarmed Attacks wrote:
Almost all characters start out trained in unarmed attacks. 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. Unarmed attacks can belong to a weapon group (page 280), and they might have weapon traits (page 282). However, unarmed attacks aren’t weapons, and effects and abilities that work with weapons never work with unarmed attacks unless they specifically say so.

If you're calculating it the same way you would with a weapon - it's ranged, so you do not add Str to damage because it doesn't have the thrown or propulsive traits. Also, despite your assertion that an unarmed attack couldn't have those traits, this section clearly indicates it could have. It also answers your proposed question about how much Str damage you add to a punch.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
RicoTheBold wrote:
I think it's fair to say that based on this section, it's undefined whether to add Str to damage or not.

I'm not sure it is. You're right, it says 'most common' rather than 'always', but if the book tells you what's normal/common and nothing within the specific rules text contradicts that, I don't think it's necessarily logical to say that there's just no way to tell.


Probaly best off using the range and modifer given by fungus and gourd leshy till offical errata comes out with it.

Since a unarmed range attack is odd duck only other one is scalding spit which is unarmed ranged attack but has most of it's ability stated.


Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Squiggit wrote:
RicoTheBold wrote:
I think it's fair to say that based on this section, it's undefined whether to add Str to damage or not.
I'm not sure it is. You're right, it says 'most common' rather than 'always', but if the book tells you what's normal/common and nothing within the specific rules text contradicts that, I don't think it's necessarily logical to say that there's just no way to tell.

Well, I think that's a valid opinion. But I included the actual rules on unarmed attacks that immediately follow in my post, which define it pretty clearly as working the same as a weapon.

My point with with the undefined thing is that hedging language calls out that there can be exceptions, and so I went looking for the rule that might provide one and there it was. Although there's some irony there in that the exception rules basically say not to treat it as an exception for this particular calculation.

And I was originally going to say that it was "undefined like the seedpod range" but since I found the rule that clearly explains to calculate it like a weapon, I rephrased my sentence because the range remains undefined.


Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Reziburno25 wrote:

Probaly best off using the range and modifer given by fungus and gourd leshy till offical errata comes out with it.

Since a unarmed range attack is odd duck only other one is scalding spit which is unarmed ranged attack but has most of it's ability stated.

Sure, the range of 30' is an okay interpretation. I wouldn't hold your breath on errata on a non-core book, but I hope they make an exception somewhere that's not just maybe it should be 10' as mentioned above. (But really, maybe it should be 10'. Or split the difference and go with 20'.)

I think there's a real and clear rule that it should not have Str to damage, if that's what you mean by "using the modifier."

It's a ranged attack, calculates with Dex to hit, doesn't add Str to damage. Otherwise benefits from things that help unarmed, doesn't count as a weapon.

It's still reasonably viable for a Dex monk that never boosts strength. It doesn't play nice with Crane stance, which is lame, but hopefully the APG has more good Dex monk options. If you compare it to a monk with zero ranged options at low levels without other feat investment, it's absolutely okay. It's a ranged option for an animal instinct barbarian that can't use weapons while raging. Technically even wizards are proficient in them. It doesn't require a free hand for a switch-hitting melee build.

There's some cool stuff there, but it doesn't include Str to damage.


Also can't you pretty much use the seed pod with both hands full so that handy.


On Pg 451, under the formula for calculating damage on a ranged attack, the wording is pretty explicit that you only add str modifier to thrown weapons:

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

whereas it does call out unarmed attacks in the melee damage roll:

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

At my table, I would follow this formula over a clause that includes a "most common" because it doesn't even specify clearly in that sentence what the exceptions are, but it would be good to see a FAQ about this because there is legitimate room for confusion about how unarmed attacks are handled, especially when they are ranged attacks.

EDIT:

From 278:

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.

Ranged unarmed attacks are not included in the exceptions for ranged attacks that do add ability modifiers.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Yeah, it is not clear to me which way is intended. The problem being that (I guess) when they were writing and testing the rule a ranged unarmed attack wasn't really thought about. It really needs official clarification, as I can see it both ways.


graystone wrote:

It's not a weapon, it's an unarmed attack. Unarmed strikes get str damage. Ranged had nothing to do with it.

"When you use melee weapons, unarmed attacks, and thrown ranged weapons, the most common modifier you’ll add to damage is your Strength ability modifier."

This quote only says Strength, not Dexterity or some other Ability, is the "most common" modifier you'll add to damage...

...when you add a modifier to damage!

The reason y'all think there's a problem here is because you interpret this quote as saying "all unarmed attacks gain Strength to damage".

It does not. It only says IF you gain modifier to damage it will likely be Strength (for unarmed attacks et al).

Other rules make it clear that while melee attacks (including unarmed ones) gain Strength to damage, ranged attacks do not gain any modifier to damage - except in clearly designated cases.

Seedpods being ranged but neither thrown nor propulsive adds no modifier to damage.

Even if you couldn't accept this, the interpretation you add Strength to Seedpods merely because they're ranged unarmed attacks still does not hold water: why would otherwise Wind Crash add it?


Squiggit wrote:
RicoTheBold wrote:
I think it's fair to say that based on this section, it's undefined whether to add Str to damage or not.
I'm not sure it is. You're right, it says 'most common' rather than 'always', but if the book tells you what's normal/common and nothing within the specific rules text contradicts that, I don't think it's necessarily logical to say that there's just no way to tell.

It falls into place once you realize that the designer likely just wanted to clarify Strength (not Dex) is the most likely modifier to add, when one is added.

Maybe the seedpod designer misread this sentence too, believing no language about Strength to damage was needed?


mach1.9pants wrote:
Yeah, it is not clear to me which way is intended. The problem being that (I guess) when they were writing and testing the rule a ranged unarmed attack wasn't really thought about. It really needs official clarification, as I can see it both ways.

I would say that while the RAW is clear (no Strength to damage), the intention likely was the opposite.

Just because 5E has a predilection for adding useless natural attacks to monster races doesn't mean PF2 has to.

Houseruling that Strength applies (and the 30 ft range) is reasonable. Assuming this is RAI (rules as intended) is also reasonable: it should then eventually be errataed.

Interpreting it as RAW (rules as written) is the one thing that is unreasonable, with ill-defined and likely unwanted side-effects. Given the preceding paragraph, however, I hope I don't come across as unreasonable.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
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.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Having player’s look at bestiary to figure out their character’s abilities listed in a different book seems like a mistake worth correcting with an errata. I would much prefer seed pods do add STR to damage, but I also think there was a deliberate effort made to restrict ranged attack damage, and I think adding the (thrown) trait to the seed pods, as well as a range, would be the best errata for making this clear.


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.


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.

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."

1 to 50 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.