Weapon Storm and Weapon's Critical Specialization effect

[MongrelHorde]

On a critical failure Weapon Storm does double damage and,

"the target takes double damage and is subject to the weapon's critical specialization effect".

For almost all weapons this makes sense. But how does this apply for Axes?

"Choose one creature adjacent to the initial target and within reach. If its AC is lower than your attack roll result for the critical hit, you deal damage to that creature equal to the result of the weapon damage die you rolled (including extra dice for its potency rune, if any). This amount isn't doubled and no bonuses or other additional dice apply to this damage."

[Aratorin]

Since you didn't make an attack roll, I'd say nothing happens.

Personally I'd use Darts, Flails, Hammers, Knives, Picks, Slings (Weird that you can do this, but you can), Spears, or Swords with Weapon Storm, as they all have Critical Specialization abilities that would be extremely deadly with it.

[Quintessentially Me]

That may be RAW but given the spell very explicitly says you may be able apply the effect depending on the save result, I would imagine RAI is that you use your spell attack roll in place of the attack roll.

Definitely an errata candidate.

[MongrelHorde]

There is no spell attack roll with the spell, only a Reflex save.

If I were being an absolute stinker I would arbitrate nothing happens. But how lame is that?

[Firebug]

Speaking of Potency runes, does Weapon Storm's damage get increased by them? Just once? 4 times?

[Squiggit]

As written, nothing at all happens. I think it'd be reasonable to let the caster make a spell attack roll though.

Firebug wrote:

Speaking of Potency runes, does Weapon Storm's damage get increased by them? Just once? 4 times?

Not at all. Weapon Storm only references the die's size, the number of dice you roll is fixed.

[Nebul]

I have a question about the damage Weapon Storm does. I have a wizard with a flaming greatsword, (plus the fighter dedication feats needed to actually wield it, not necessary to cast the spell I know but it's neat.) It would be nice if I could use my fourth level focus spell "Elemental Tempest" with the spell, but I don't know what "same type as the weapon" actually means rules-wise. The greatsword does either piercing or slashing because it's versatile and a flaming one does extra fire damage.

It feels like the intent was to let me use the weapon's rune damage type because otherwise no player would pick this spell if they were an evoker planning to take, "Advanced School Spell," which is probably most wizards because the focus spells are really good. It isn't any better than just heightening a fireball, using that to get the extra focus spell damage on top of the regular fireball damage, and I COULD do that but it wouldn't be as thematic for my character.

[Aratorin]

Weapon Storm only does the damage listed in the spell. Additional runes on your weapon do not apply.

Using Weapon Storm with a D12 damage weapon does more damage than Fireball.

[Nebul]

"Weapon Storm only does the damage listed in the spell," which is what exactly, because the spell doesn't list any damage type other than, "the same type as the weapon," which is either piercing or slashing depending on my mood since it's versatile.

... and no it doesn't, 4d12 is roughly 26 damage on average rolls and a fireball heightened to 4th level is 8d6, which does 28 damage on average. I'm basically gimping myself by not using fireball, which also doesn't require me to get close, which raises the question, why ever bother with the spell at all?

[Fumarole]

There are plenty of reasons that come to mind: not knowing fireball as a heightened spell, facing an opponent immune to fire, facing an opponent with a weakness to physical damage, targeting an opponent right next to you in a confined space...

[Nebul]

I wouldn't want to use Weapon Storm in a confined space either tbh, the idea is to hit as many enemies with it as possible. In cramped quarters chances are I'm only going to get a couple enemies and I'm more likely to hit the party.

Out of curiosity how many enemies do you think there are in the game that are vulnerable to physical damage? It seems like fire is more likely to be extra effective, especially since most classes in the game deal physical damage already.

For that matter fireball is probably going to be better just because preparing it gives me the option of dealing fire damage when I do find something weak against it, and if I do need to do physical then I still have the sword.

[Andrew Teo]

Aratorin wrote:

Weapon Storm only does the damage listed in the spell. Additional runes on your weapon do not apply.

Using Weapon Storm with a D12 damage weapon does more damage than Fireball.

No it doesn't really. 4d12 is less than 8d6. I have to assume u are comparing a level 4 spell with a level 4 spell.

Please see my thread on weapon storm, would really like an official answer. Hope paizo can get their writing straightened out.

[Andrew Teo]

Nebul wrote:

"Weapon Storm only does the damage listed in the spell," which is what exactly, because the spell doesn't list any damage type other than, "the same type as the weapon," which is either piercing or slashing depending on my mood since it's versatile.

... and no it doesn't, 4d12 is roughly 26 damage on average rolls and a fireball heightened to 4th level is 8d6, which does 28 damage on average. I'm basically gimping myself by not using fireball, which also doesn't require me to get close, which raises the question, why ever bother with the spell at all?

This is exactly why my group has been reading WS as taking into account runes of striking. The problem is though, that it quickly becomes the highest damage spell in the game by far. With a greater striking rune, heightened to say level 7, the spell does 7x3 d12 with a great sword. At its utmost, say level 10 with major striking, if your elder colossal whatever dragon elder thing fails critically it becomes dust. So the issue with this spell is that either interpretation of "weapon dice" is extremely polarizing in terms of the significance of the spell's inclusion in the game. PLEASE paizo clarify!!!!

[thenobledrake]

When Paizo says "add" and you hear "multiply" it's not gonna help much for them to try and clarify.

[Draco18s]

Andrew Teo wrote:

With a greater striking rune, heightened to say level 7, the spell does 7x3 d12 with a great sword.

I don't know how you arrived there.

Quote:

You swing a weapon you’re holding, and the weapon magically

multiplies into duplicates that swipe at all creatures in either
a cone or an emanation. This flurry deals four dice of damage
to creatures in the area. This damage has the same type as
the weapon and uses the same die size. Determine the die size
as if you were attacking with the weapon; for instance, if you
were wielding a two-hand weapon in both hands, you’d use its
two-hand damage die.

Heightened (+1) Add another damage die.

Four, +1, +1, +1 is seven.

7d12 damage.

[Gisher]

Draco18s wrote:

Andrew Teo wrote:

With a greater striking rune, heightened to say level 7, the spell does 7x3 d12 with a great sword.

I don't know how you arrived there.

Quote:

You swing a weapon you’re holding, and the weapon magically

multiplies into duplicates that swipe at all creatures in either
a cone or an emanation. This flurry deals four dice of damage
to creatures in the area. This damage has the same type as
the weapon and uses the same die size. Determine the die size
as if you were attacking with the weapon; for instance, if you
were wielding a two-hand weapon in both hands, you’d use its
two-hand damage die.

Heightened (+1) Add another damage die.

Four, +1, +1, +1 is seven.

7d12 damage.

From this and another thread, I've come to believe that Andrew Teo has a unique view of how Striking Runes work.

CRB, p. 581 wrote:

A striking rune stores destructive magic in the weapon, increasing the weapon damage dice it deals to two instead of one.

Everyone else reads this as "increasing the [number of] weapon damage dice," but Andrew Teo reads it without inserting the implicit "number of." By that literal reading, Striking Runes actually increase the value assigned to the phrase "damage dice."

To you and me, a greatsword wielded two-handed has a "damage die" of 1d12 regardless of its Striking Runes. It is a fixed value defined on the weapon table. But for Andrew Teo a Greater Striking Rune redefines "damage die" to mean 3d12.

So you calculate seven damage dice as (7x1)d12=7d12, but Andrew Teo calculates it as (7x3)d12=21d12.

[Draco18s]

Gisher wrote:

So you calculate seven damage dice as (7x1)d12=7d12, but Andrew Teo calculates it as (7x3)d12=21d12.

Aside from his own exclamation that this is insanely overpowered (page 444, "If one version is too good to be true, it probably is") its also objectively wrong given the spell description.

It tells you how many dice to roll. Exactly 4.

It deal "four dice" of damage of the same size as the weapon. So even that weapon has striking runes and the phrase "damage dice" means "three d12s" the spell does not use the phrase "damage dice." It says "FOUR dice of the same SIZE." I don't know who I could say "pick up four dice" to and they somehow end up with twelve.