You can extend a tangle of vines or tendrils to support your arms and extend your reach. When you wield a melee weapon that requires two hands, doesn’t have reach, and deals at least 1d6 damage, you can change between a typical two-handed grip and an extended two-handed grasp using an Interact action. Weapons wielded in your extended grasp gain reach of 10 feet. This grasp is less stable and powerful than a typical grip, reducing the weapon’s damage die by 1 step.
The fatal trait includes a die size. On a critical hit, the weapon’s damage die increases to that die size instead of the normal die size, and the weapon adds one additional damage die of the listed size.
How do these two things interact? It's unclear what order they apply in. Either way the extra die would be a d12, but if Fatal is applied after GR, then that means it's a good way to circumvent the drawback of the feat. It does feel a little too good to be true, though.
The Greatpick is the only two handed Fatal weapon, so the discussion will have to revolve around that.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I disagree with Jared. Both effects are perfectly compatible and should be both applied. Your damage die is a d12 and reduced by one step. So 2d10 damage.
It's definitely a bit unclear to me, but I'm inclined to agree with SuperBidi, even if I might want Jared to be right. An extra line in the Fatal trait saying "The effects of this trait are [un]affected by other changes to the weapon's damage die." would be nice though.
Well, Fatal states that it changes the "normal damage die", so, by normal, you could read "unmodified" and apply then all damage die modifications like Grasping Reach.
But, anyway, I think the devs haven't thought about all possible combinations. In that case, I think it's not hard to rule it fairly.
From a rules perspective, I tend to agree with SuperBidi and Jared Walter. I believe the proper "order of operations" here would be to apply Fatal, then apply the penalty from Grasping reach reducing the D12's to D10's.
Melee damage roll = damage die of weapon or
unarmed attack + Strength modifier + bonuses +
penalties
There is a spot of ambiguity here as a reduction or substitution of damage die would be handled prior to rolling the die for obvious reasons, but we always see Bonuses being added prior to Penalties.
From a thematic point of view, a critical hit with a Greatpick would be pretty similar whether in a standard two handed grip or an "grasping reach" grip. Really it's the weapon doing more of the work than the arms imho.
All in all, I would probably run it as 2d10 rather than 2d12.
Chances are that, no, it would not be reduced.
The fatal trait includes a die size. On a critical hit, the weapon’s damage die increases to that die size instead of the normal die size, and the weapon adds one additional damage die of the listed size.
Since the Trait only activates on a Critical, it 'snapshots' whatever your damage die is at the time of the crit and increases it to, in this case, d12(s). Fatal is also a Trait that doesn't work exactly by the rules of 'Increasing Damage Die' under Weapon Statistics on page 279 of the CRB. For example the Pick and Light Pick go up by two weapon dice, not just one. This shows that it has the power to override the current weapon die regardless of what it is.
To suggest it works the other way poses an additional problem; the Deadly Trait.
On a critical hit, the weapon adds a weapon damage die of the listed size. Roll this after doubling the weapon’s damage. This increases to two dice if the weapon has a greater striking rune and three dice if the weapon has a major striking rune. For instance, a rapier with a greater striking rune deals 2d8 extra piercing damage on a critical hit. An ability that changes the size of the weapon’s normal damage dice doesn’t change the size of its deadly die.
Two main things to note; but we'll start with the most important one. If we are to assume that Grasping Reach is to reduce the Weapon's Damage Die with Fatal, then we have to apply the same to Deadly since both traits activate at the same time, under the same conditions. The other thing to note is that Deadly specifically activates after the initial damage is rolled. This further suggests that the original Weapon Statistics are 'snapshot' before these Traits affect the weapon's 'current' damage size; whatever it may currently be.
There's also the final issue of having this effect happening the other way around. For instance with a Light Pick or normal Pick in the instance of Dual Handed Assault raising the Deadly or Fatal Damage Die by one step.
It's definitely not a difficult or crippling House Rule to implement, but there are certainly too many moving parts for me to assume it was intended to be read that way.
Chances are that, no, it would not be reduced.
The fatal trait includes a die size. On a critical hit, the weapon’s damage die increases to that die size instead of the normal die size, and the weapon adds one additional damage die of the listed size.
Since the Trait only activates on a Critical, it 'snapshots' whatever your damage die is at the time of the crit and increases it to, in this case, d12(s). Fatal is also a Trait that doesn't work exactly by the rules of 'Increasing Damage Die' under Weapon Statistics on page 279 of the CRB. For example the Pick and Light Pick go up by two weapon dice, not just one. This shows that it has the power to override the current weapon die regardless of what it is.
To suggest it works the other way poses an additional problem; the Deadly Trait.
"Deadly Trait Here"
Two main things to note; but we'll start with the most important one. If we are to assume that Grasping Reach is to reduce the Weapon's Damage Die with Fatal, then we have to apply the same to Deadly since both traits activate at the same time, under the same conditions. The other thing to note is that Deadly specifically activates after the initial damage is rolled. This further suggests that the original Weapon Statistics are 'snapshot' before these Traits affect the weapon's 'current' damage size; whatever it may currently be.
For instance with a Light Pick or normal Pick in the instance of Dual Handed Assault raising the Deadly or Fatal Damage Die by one step.
It's definitely not a difficult or crippling House Rule to implement, but there are certainly too many moving parts for me to assume it was intended to be read that way.
I disagree. To your first point, grasping reach essentially imposes a -1 die size penalty at all times when wielding a weapon with the extended reach. This would be no different than an effect that reduced the damage from your attacks by 1, and would apply to all of your attacks accordingly.
Fatal specifically increases your weapon Die size to the indicated size when you score a critical hit with that weapon. But you still have to apply the penalty to that die size the same way you would have to apply any other penalty, meaning you would change the die size for Fatal and then reduce it according to grasping reach.
To your point about deadly, you missed the last sentence: "An ability that changes the size of the weapon’s normal damage dice doesn’t change the size of its deadly die." So no, you would not need to apply Grasping Reach to Deadly dice. They have their own independent die size that cannot be normally changed.
And finally your point about the Light or normal Pick and Dual Hand Assault. I would agree with you, if changing die size didn't state:
You can’t increase your weapon damage die size more
than once.
Since Fatal specifically calls your substitution an increase, you would not apply both and would only apply the better die increase, same as with any other bonus.
That’s actually a fair point on Deadly; it seems i did miss that sentence at the end. :p
As for Fatal, you’re now pointing out a contradiction though. If Fatal Damage Die is considered ‘Normal’ Damage Dice, and thus affected by Grasping Reach, then it would also be considered ‘Normal’ Damage Dice to be increased; which as you point out would go against only increasing Damage Once.
In the case of Dual Handed Assault we still have two conflicting conditions on a Crit; the ability raising the Die and Fatal raising the Die. In the end i believe we can agree that Fatal would take priority over DHA in saying what the Damage Die would become. The same assumption would apply with Grasping Reach; whatever its Damage Die is at the time of the Crit becomes the Fatal Die size.
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.
Both here, and in the equation it shows, you roll weapon damage before penalties. In every instance I see Fatal getting priority treatment over Grasping Reach. It also helps that Grasping Reach doesn’t specifically call it out as a ‘Penalty’ so we can safely assume that it wouldn’t apply to that equation post Fatal crit anyway.
As for Fatal, you’re now pointing out a contradiction though. If Fatal Damage Die is considered ‘Normal’ Damage Dice, and thus affected by Grasping Reach, then it would also be considered ‘Normal’ Damage Dice to be increased; which as you point out would go against only increasing Damage Once.
So, you mean that, because Grasping Reach already modifies the die, Fatal doesn't apply at all?
As for Fatal, you’re now pointing out a contradiction though. If Fatal Damage Die is considered ‘Normal’ Damage Dice, and thus affected by Grasping Reach, then it would also be considered ‘Normal’ Damage Dice to be increased; which as you point out would go against only increasing Damage Once.So, you mean that, because Grasping Reach already modifies the die, Fatal doesn't apply at all?
I’m saying there’s priority. While I admit, that thought crossed my mind as well, does it define Normal Damage Die somewhere in the book that i may have missed?
If we’re left to define ‘Normal’ by common sense or what not, then i would say the most average or consistent die size becomes the Normal Damage Die; in which case Fatal still adjusts the Greatpick to a d12.
If we think about what Grasping Reach is actually doing, it becomes pretty clear how it's supposed to work. Using prehensile vines to control and swing your weapon is not as effective as using your actual arms, thus the weapon you are swinging does less damage than it normally does.
Why would this only apply sometimes? If the weapon is being wielded by 10 foot vines, it does less damage, full stop.
If we think about what Fatal is actually doing, it becomes pretty clear how it’s suppose to work. When you hit a vulnerable spot it does exponentially more damage and is more effective than the actual swing itself, thus the weapon you are swinging does more damage than it normally does.
Why would this only apply sometimes? If the weapon is able to critically hit, it does the listed damage, full stop.
I mean, in the end that just ends up as a justification to a ruling no matter how you look at it. Using the formula as justification also has issues; which is why i don’t feel it works that way.
If we look at all the Weapons with Fatal we also notice another pattern that’s being over looked.
The Pick and Light Pick have Fatal traits that increase their Die size by two sizes; while the Great Pick only increases by a single size. With that in mind, even if we lower the die size of the Great Pick to d8’s via Grasping Reach, and increase it with Fatal to d12’s then it still ends up being more consistent with the rules we have than saying Fatal becomes d10’s.
If we think about what Fatal is actually doing, it becomes pretty clear how it’s suppose to work. When you hit a vulnerable spot it does exponentially more damage and is more effective than the actual swing itself, thus the weapon you are swinging does more damage than it normally does.
Why would this only apply sometimes? If the weapon is able to critically hit, it does the listed damage, full stop.
No one says no to that. What people say is that there's no reason to remove an effect affecting the player because there's an effect giving an opposite bonus.
It's like saying that because you have a bonus to hit, it eliminates all penalties to hit. Nope. Your weapon die is reduced by one size and you have an increased weapon size through Fatal. Both cumulated means d10s and not d12s. It's fair and I don't see anything supporting your ruling. So why applying an unfair rule that is not supported clearly?
I would argue that the Greatpick only increases by 1 size because there were simply no D14's in stock at the LGS near Paizo.
As to applying bonuses and penalties, I agree that there isn't specifically a formula in the book to show how to apply multiple changes to a weapons die size as those would obviously have to be made prior to a roll.
But in every instance where a bonus and a penalty are added to a check the bonus is added before the penalty. This means that a die "increase" like Fatal would be calculated before a penalty like Grasping Reach.
Saying that Fatal "Overrides" Grasping Reach is being disingenuous. If anything the two cancel out, like any other bonus does with any other penalty. There is no such thing as a "snapshot" bonus where you only get X effect while ignoring other effects, especially penalties. Penalties always apply.
There is no conflict with Fatal and Dual Hand Assault. You simply get the higher increase in die size which, with the weapons you sited, would likely be the Fatal Dice as they provide the most benefit. This is the same with any other set of bonuses and works that way because you can't, "increase your weapon damage die size more than once."
Penalties always apply.
Assurance would like to have words.
;)(I definitely agree with SuperBidi, the Fatal dice should be reduced, but clarification text could be helpful).
If we think about what Fatal is actually doing, it becomes pretty clear how it’s suppose to work. When you hit a vulnerable spot it does exponentially more damage and is more effective than the actual swing itself, thus the weapon you are swinging does more damage than it normally does.
Why would this only apply sometimes? If the weapon is able to critically hit, it does the listed damage, full stop.
No one says no to that. What people say is that there's no reason to remove an effect affecting the player because there's an effect giving an opposite bonus.
It's like saying that because you have a bonus to hit, it eliminates all penalties to hit. Nope. Your weapon die is reduced by one size and you have an increased weapon size through Fatal. Both cumulated means d10s and not d12s. It's fair and I don't see anything supporting your ruling. So why applying an unfair rule that is not supported clearly?
That was more an example of why ‘common sense’ is a poor way to support a reasoning for a ruling since it works the other way around. In both instances it’s nothing more than a justification for a decision, not an explanation of the rules working or not working.
One issue with the ‘Penalty’ part is; well, it’s not called out as a penalty, but rather reasonably assumed as a penalty. If we treat it like any other penalty and put it into the Damage Roll formula then we come across the real issue. You are suppose to have rolled for damage before penalties are applied. If we assume that GR is a penalty then it causes us to re-roll our damage from the beginning since penalties are the last thing to take into consideration; but then we have to apply the penalty with the new numbers; and this just causes a loop until it tries to lower it below a d4.
The other issue that hasn’t been addressed is; What is ‘Normal Weapon Damage Dice’? How i’m Understanding your point is that Fatal, in this instance, is being treated as Normal and thus taking the penalty. Okay, let’s be fair and say that’s the case. How do we treat Precision Damage that adds onto a weapon? That can be applied much more consistently than the Fatal Trait, so should we reasonably assume that to be considered Normal as well?
Lastly, it seems i’m being viewed merely as obstinate, or disingenuous; which isn’t actually the case. If it was clarified that the Die Reduction was suppose to happen before Damage was rolled then i would certainly agree with you; regardless of my personal opinion on such a ruling. In this case all i have done is point out the issues i have with each point that has been brought up; much like how beowulf99 critiqued my points, i find a number of issues with the reasoning so far given when actually comparing them to the rules we have at the moment.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That was more an example of why ‘common sense’ is a poor way to support a reasoning for a ruling since it works the other way around. In both instances it’s nothing more than a justification for a decision, not an explanation of the rules working or not working.
One issue with the ‘Penalty’ part is; well, it’s not called out as a penalty, but rather reasonably assumed as a penalty. If we treat it like any other penalty and put it into the Damage Roll formula then we come across the real issue. You are suppose to have rolled for damage before penalties are applied. If we assume that GR is a penalty then it causes us to re-roll our damage from the beginning since penalties are the last thing to take into consideration; but then we have to apply the penalty with the new numbers; and this just causes a loop until it tries to lower it below a d4.
The other issue that hasn’t been addressed is; What is ‘Normal Weapon Damage Dice’? How i’m Understanding your point is that Fatal, in this instance, is being treated as Normal and thus taking the penalty. Okay, let’s be fair and say that’s the case. How do we treat Precision Damage that adds onto a weapon? That can be applied much more consistently than the Fatal Trait, so should we reasonably assume that to be considered Normal as well?
Lastly, it seems i’m being viewed merely as obstinate, or disingenuous; which isn’t actually the case. If it was clarified that the Die Reduction was suppose to happen before Damage was rolled then i would certainly agree with you; regardless of my personal opinion on such a ruling. In this case all i have done is point out the issues i have with each point that has been brought up; much like how beowulf99 critiqued my points, i find a number of issues with the reasoning so far given when actually comparing them to the rules we have at the moment.
I don't think you are being obstinate or anything. You just have a different point of view. That is not a bad thing.
It is obvious that any increase or decrease to weapon damage die would have to be added prior to a roll, and in any case there can never be a "feedback loop" of effects because generally speaking a bonus or a penalty can only be applied once per "check". I believe the issue comes from increasing and decreasing damage die being a non-standard bonus or penalty. However since you called out the fact that Grasping Reach isn't a penalty at all, at least it isn't called out as such in the rule unlike every other penalty I can find with a quick search, that could mean that it actually subplants any further alteration to the die size.
Consider that as far as I can tell there were no effects that specifically reduced a weapons damage die size prior to the existence of Grasping Reach. This could mean that the intention is that it counts as your one modification you are allowed to a weapons damage die, which would completely negate Fatal.
That is another possible interpretation. I don't like it, and lieu of an official ruling, would rather go with the bonus cancels penalty interpretation as it seems the most fair to all parties. Fatal is still providing you a benefit, the extra damage die, and you ares till being penalized for having the added reach of Grasping Reach.
Normal Weapon Damage Dice is largely irrelevant under my interpretation. I would personally define it as the standard die given by the weapon, so in the case of Greatpick it would be a d10. However Fatal has a specified die size that it changes the "normal" die size to, which means that regardless of any changes to the "normal die size" you end up with the Fatal die size, which again under my interpretation is then reduced by Grasping Reach. I don't see a rule violation happening in that interaction.
As a rule I believe that there are no free lunches. If you are gaining a benefit, like the added 10 foot reach of Grasping Reach, you pay for it. Any rules interpretation that sidesteps that cost in my mind is an exploit, especially if it is not the the one I find to be most logical. That is my mindset for GMing however and I am in no way saying that I am absolutely correct, just providing my thought process for instances like this.
This could mean that the intention is that it counts as your one modification you are allowed to a weapons damage die, which would completely negate Fatal.
Fatal is still providing you a benefit, the extra damage die, and you ares till being penalized for having the added reach of Grasping Reach.
FWIW, weapons with the Fatal trait already lost a die size to have the Fatal (or Deadly) trait when compared to other weapons of the same category.
I don't think you are being obstinate or anything. You just have a different point of view. That is not a bad thing.It is obvious that any increase or decrease to weapon damage die would have to be added prior to a roll, and in any case there can never be a "feedback loop" of effects because generally speaking a bonus or a penalty can only be applied once per "check". I believe the issue comes from increasing and decreasing damage die being a non-standard bonus or penalty. However since you called out the fact that Grasping Reach isn't a penalty at all, at least it isn't called out as such in the rule unlike every other penalty I can find with a quick search, that could mean that it actually subplants any further alteration to the die size.
Consider that as far as I can tell there were no effects that specifically reduced a weapons damage die size prior to the existence of Grasping Reach. This could mean that the intention is that it counts as your one modification you are allowed to a weapons damage die, which would completely negate Fatal.
That is another possible interpretation. I don't like it, and lieu of an official ruling, would rather go with the bonus cancels penalty interpretation as it seems the most fair to all parties. Fatal is still providing you a benefit, the extra damage die, and you ares till being penalized for having the added reach of Grasping Reach.
Normal Weapon Damage Dice is largely irrelevant under my interpretation. I would personally define it as the standard die given by the weapon, so in the case of Greatpick it would be a d10. However Fatal has a specified die size that it changes the "normal" die size to, which means that regardless of any changes to the "normal die size" you end up with the Fatal die size, which again under my interpretation is then reduced by Grasping Reach. I don't see a rule violation happening in that interaction.
As a rule I believe that there are no free lunches. If you are gaining a benefit, like the added 10 foot reach of Grasping Reach, you pay for it. Any rules interpretation that sidesteps that cost in my mind is an exploit, especially if it is not the the one I find to be most logical. That is my mindset for GMing however and I am in no way saying that I am absolutely correct, just providing my thought process for instances like this.
My thoughts and feelings echo most of this to be honest. I do find your interpretation both convincing and a reasonable conclusion to a somewhat vague ruling on an incredibly niche scenario. Personally i like players that come up with ideas like this one, cause it bring novelty and ingenuity to the table, which i hold in exceedingly high regard; and also encourages such behavior. There is a limit to this of course, as cheese can absolutely ruin a gaming or story environment.
My part in the discussion was more putting the explanation to the test and seeing how it holds up; which caused me to find issues in certain parts, and to bring them to attention. If anything i feel we’ve been able to somewhat narrow down where the difference of opinion is originating. Although i don’t feel topic will be that common of an issue, i feel it would be good to have a firm understanding before we end up with a dozen 2h Fatal weapons and half a dozen Grasping Reach type feats.
FWIW, weapons with the Fatal trait already lost a die size to have the Fatal (or Deadly) trait when compared to other weapons of the same category.This could mean that the intention is that it counts as your one modification you are allowed to a weapons damage die, which would completely negate Fatal.
Fatal is still providing you a benefit, the extra damage die, and you ares till being penalized for having the added reach of Grasping Reach.
Fortunately that is not an issue. I dont think you would rule that a Greatpick gets d10 on a normal hit with grasping reach right? It obviously would be reduced to d8.
So why is it odd then that on a crit it would only be increased to d10 rather than d12? It's the same relative increase in effectiveness after all. +1 die size from a non-crit.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I read grasping reach as being an 'always on' effect. It's not about stacking or order of operations, it's just a passive thing you deal with.
So your greatpick swings for d8 and on fatal it gets upgraded to d12 which then gets reduced to d10 by the effect of grasping reach.
This interpretation respects the functionality of both abilities and I think it's more logically consistent to have them both work rather than to selectively ignore one of them.
I read grasping reach as being an 'always on' effect. It's not about stacking or order of operations, it's just a passive thing you deal with.
So your greatpick swings for d8 and on fatal it gets upgraded to d12 which then gets reduced to d10 by the effect of grasping reach.
This interpretation respects the functionality of both abilities and I think it's more logically consistent to have them both work rather than to selectively ignore one of them.
The thing is, from my perspective, i see the interpretation of lowering the Fatal Die Size as the interpretation that’s ignoring how Fatal works. I also mentioned how Greatpick is the one, of currently three, weapons with Fatal that only has a single Die increase from Fatal. To me it seems obvious that the damage would be d12’s even if you applied the the affect of Grasping Reach.
That’s why i would suggest that if the common opinion here is indeed the correct one, having a line that says something along the lines of, ‘Damage Die Reductions occur after any and all Damage Die Increases,’ would be the best solution and fix any interpretation issues with this and in the future. That or adding the last line of the Deadly Trait to Fatal; since they both act fairly similar.
Fortunately that is not an issue. I dont think you would rule that a Greatpick gets d10 on a normal hit with grasping reach right? It obviously would be reduced to d8.
So why is it odd then that on a crit it would only be increased to d10 rather than d12? It's the same relative increase in effectiveness after all. +1 die size from a non-crit.
I have already stated that this is my interpretation as well.
The thing is, from my perspective, i see the interpretation of lowering the Fatal Die Size as the interpretation that’s ignoring how Fatal works.
And I disagree. Fatal changes your damage die to d12s, but Grasping Reach reduces the damage die by one. This reading allows both abilities to work together and in a way that is consistent with how they work independently of each other.
I feel like that's a lot more compelling than just deciding one ability doesn't work at all in a specific scenario.
I also mentioned how Greatpick is the one, of currently three, weapons with Fatal that only has a single Die increase from Fatal.
I feel like, if anything, that's an argument against your interpretation, because it makes Fatal relatively more powerful than normal in the specific situation of being under the effect of Grasping Reach, which again is kind of strange and unintuitive.
That’s why i would suggest that if the common opinion here is indeed the correct one, having a line that says something along the lines of, ‘Damage Die Reductions occur after any and all Damage Die Increases,’
This is where I think the big hangup is. There is no 'after' or 'before' as I read it. Grasping Reach, while active, is just a passive modifier on the damage die of your weapons. It's always there unless you turn the ability itself off, rather than being something you can shuffle around or ignore.
The thing is, from my perspective, i see the interpretation of lowering the Fatal Die Size as the interpretation that’s ignoring how Fatal works.And I disagree. Fatal changes your damage die to d12s, but Grasping Reach reduces the damage die by one. This reading allows both abilities to work together and in a way that is consistent with how they work independently of each other.
I feel like that's a lot more compelling than just deciding one ability doesn't work at all in a specific scenario.
I also mentioned how Greatpick is the one, of currently three, weapons with Fatal that only has a single Die increase from Fatal.I feel like, if anything, that's an argument against your interpretation, because it makes Fatal relatively more powerful than normal in the specific situation of being under the effect of Grasping Reach, which again is kind of strange and unintuitive.
That’s why i would suggest that if the common opinion here is indeed the correct one, having a line that says something along the lines of, ‘Damage Die Reductions occur after any and all Damage Die Increases,’This is where I think the big hangup is. There is no 'after' or 'before' as I read it. Grasping Reach, while active, is just a passive modifier on the damage die of your weapons. It's always there unless you turn the ability itself off, rather than being something you can shuffle around or ignore.
I know you disagree, thus why i said ‘from my perspective’. Fatal and Grasping Reach also both say that they alter ‘the Normal Weapon Die Size’. In this instance both abilities are altering the Die Size and in opposing directions at that. This means one of them has to take affect first and the other takes affect second; there’s no two ways around it since even in your example of it being passive and always active you’re still applying it after Fatal takes affect. Fatal not being the normal die size and only being the die size on a critical would reasonably mean it takes affect after Grasping Reach since it has such a specific activation requirement. As for Grasping Reach always being active, i agree; which is why a d8 would be the normal die size while it’s active. Fatal also says it increases to the listed die size instead of the normal die size; this also suggests an ‘order of operations’ of sorts.
So the way i see it either Fatal overrides Grasping Reach, or Grasping Reach overrides Fatal, since with this scenario the decrease in die size would be something other than the listed d12 die size.
I’m not sure how a Greatpick getting a d12 on a critical and a d8 on a normal hit is considered relatively more powerful than normal; slightly more powerful sure, but the Greatpick seems like the worst bang for your buck out of the three; with Lightpick being the best choice. A Lightpick is an Agile Weapon that becomes a d8 on a critical; literally the most powerful Agile weapon at the moment. If Fatal also is intended to be reduced then that just shifts the go to weapon to be ones with the Deadly Trait since we already know that that isn’t affected by changes in die size; which is interestingly one of the issues that keeps cropping up with Fatal possibly overriding Grasping Reach currently.
Fatal also isn't the normal die. Grasping reach would reduce the size of the die, but on a critical hit, the Fatal property increases it to a specific die. That it increases to a specific die instead of saying 'One step larger' seems to me that the property continues to function as written. The effect of Grasping Reach is still functioning, as the normal die size has been reduced accordingly.
But would you not consider the die size referenced by Fatal to be the "current" die size of the weapon on a critical hit? Again, Grasping Reach never uses the term "Normal damage die". Instead it references the damage die used by the weapon.
You can extend a tangle of vines or tendrils to support your arms and extend your reach. When you wield a melee weapon that requires two hands, doesn’t have reach, and deals at least 1d6 damage, you can change between a typical two-handed grip and an extended two-handed grasp using an Interact action. Weapons wielded in your extended grasp gain reach of 10 feet. This grasp is less stable and powerful than a typical grip, reducing the weapon’s damage die by 1 step.
Since Grasping Reach doesn't reference "normal damage die", whatever die the weapon normally uses is irrelevant. Grasping Reach is only looking at the die currently used by that weapon. In the case of a Fatal weapon on a Crit, that would be the Fatal die size.