Nope. Persistent is not doubled unless the ability specifically says it is. I believe it is in the persistent damage side bar but may be in the critical hit section. One thing about PF2 is it is information is in different areas. I know I've ready it, just not sure where.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Nope. Persistent is not doubled unless the ability specifically says it is. I believe it is in the persistent damage side bar but may be in the critical hit section. One thing about PF2 is it is information is in different areas. I know I've ready it, just not sure where.
Aaaactually that might not be the case.
Rules on doubling damage on a crit specifically call out that "Benefits you gain specifically from a critical hit, like the flaming weapon rune’s persistent fire damage or the extra damage die from the fatal weapon trait, aren’t doubled."
If persistent damage was never doubled, then the comment about the Flaming Rune doesn't make sense as that damage wouldn't be doubled anyways. The implication here is that normally persistent damage IS doubled on a crit.
Assuming the persistent damage isn’t a result of the critical hit, is persistent damage doubled on a critical hit? The question came up in play today, and didn’t notice a clear answer in an at-the-table skim, and a google search didn’t turn up a thread in the 2E forum.
It depends. What is the specific effect in question?
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Assuming the persistent damage isn’t a result of the critical hit, is persistent damage doubled on a critical hit?
The answer is unknown and often argued over.
Since Persistent Damage is a Condition, and its damage isn't factored into the steps for determining the damage of a Strike, Persistent Damage should not be doubled on a Crit.
Problematically, however, the example of the Acid Flask in the Core Rulebook describes that its Persistent Damage *is* multiplied on a Crit.
This leads people like myself to rule that Persistent Damage is multiplied on a Crit if the primary damage of the attack itself is Persistent Damage*.
*unless otherwise stated, such as with Acid Arrow.
Assuming the persistent damage isn’t a result of the critical hit, is persistent damage doubled on a critical hit?The answer is unknown and often argued over.
Since Persistent Damage is a Condition, and its damage isn't factored into the steps for determining the damage of a Strike, Persistent Damage should not be doubled on a Crit.
Problematically, however, the example of the Acid Flask in the Core Rulebook describes that its Persistent Damage *is* multiplied on a Crit.
This leads people like myself to rule that Persistent Damage is multiplied on a Crit if the primary damage of the attack itself is Persistent Damage*.
*unless otherwise stated, such as with Acid Arrow.
Where does it say persistent damage from an acid bomb is doubled?
I do see that it is not persistent damage that isn't doubled, it is splash damage.
Where does it say persistent damage from an acid bomb is doubled?Assuming the persistent damage isn’t a result of the critical hit, is persistent damage doubled on a critical hit?The answer is unknown and often argued over.
Since Persistent Damage is a Condition, and its damage isn't factored into the steps for determining the damage of a Strike, Persistent Damage should not be doubled on a Crit.
Problematically, however, the example of the Acid Flask in the Core Rulebook describes that its Persistent Damage *is* multiplied on a Crit.
This leads people like myself to rule that Persistent Damage is multiplied on a Crit if the primary damage of the attack itself is Persistent Damage*.
*unless otherwise stated, such as with Acid Arrow.
For example, if you threw a lesser acid flask and hit
your target, that creature would take 1d6 persistent acid
damage and 1 acid splash damage. All other creatures
within 5 feet of it would take 1 acid splash damage. On
a critical hit, the target would take 2d6 persistent acid
damage, but the splash damage would still be 1. If you
missed, the target would take 1 splash damage. If you
critically failed, no one would take any damage.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It depends. What is the specific effect in question?Infernal Wound from a Cornugon’s tail attack.
I would say no. That's an additional effect, not the Weapon Damage of the Strike.
Where does it say persistent damage from an acid bomb is doubled?Assuming the persistent damage isn’t a result of the critical hit, is persistent damage doubled on a critical hit?The answer is unknown and often argued over.
Since Persistent Damage is a Condition, and its damage isn't factored into the steps for determining the damage of a Strike, Persistent Damage should not be doubled on a Crit.
Problematically, however, the example of the Acid Flask in the Core Rulebook describes that its Persistent Damage *is* multiplied on a Crit.
This leads people like myself to rule that Persistent Damage is multiplied on a Crit if the primary damage of the attack itself is Persistent Damage*.
*unless otherwise stated, such as with Acid Arrow.
For example, if you threw a lesser acid flask and hit
your target, that creature would take 1d6 persistent acid
damage and 1 acid splash damage. All other creatures
within 5 feet of it would take 1 acid splash damage. On
a critical hit, the target would take 2d6 persistent acid
damage, but the splash damage would still be 1. If you
missed, the target would take 1 splash damage. If you
critically failed, no one would take any damage.
Good to know.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What little hinting the designers and developers have given (they're trying not to wade in unofficially, because it's messy, and they are close to releasing more errata) encourage a literal reading of the rules. Persistent damage is a type of damage. Damage doubles on a crit, unless it was added due to a crit (covered by the doubling damage rule), is splash damage (covered as an exception in the splash rule), or the effect itself specifies alternate behavior (like acid arrow, or wounding runes). Most of the time, persistent damage is added by a crit or specifically says what to do instead of doubling on a crit, so it mostly just doubles for acid/fire (and sticky) bombs.
Infernal wound should add doubled persistent damage on a crit. It's incredibly harsh, but that's the rule.
The condition argument doesn't really affect anything because "8d6 persistent bleed damage" is also a valid condition, and is what you end up with if you double the damage on the 4d6 for the effect in question.
Oh, gosh, I wasn't even considering the additional effect on a strike thing. Yeah, I can see it maybe not doubling because of that, which is a whole different exception, and I haven't run through the rules for that case in detail. I'm typing on a tablet so I'll say I'm firm on the general case I stated, but not on the additional part where it's an additional effect. The actual effect description says the strike deals 4d6 persistent bleed damage, so I'm inclined to think it still doubles, but I leave room for another rule that I might be overlooking.
|
This leads people like myself to rule that Persistent Damage is multiplied on a Crit if the primary damage of the attack itself is Persistent Damage*.
*unless otherwise stated, such as with Acid Arrow.
Is that because it's what works best for your game (i.e., it's a houserule), or because you think that's how the rule is actually meant to be applied?
The condition argument doesn't really affect anything because "8d6 persistent bleed damage" is also a valid condition, and is what you end up with if you double the damage on the 4d6 for the effect in question.If it's a condition with a set value, it isn't inherently increased on a critical hit though.
For example, if an attack said the target is Frightened 1 on a hit that doesn't automatically become Frightened 2 on a critical hit even though that's also a valid condition - the attack would have to specifically say "or Frightened 2 on a critical hit."
That's what people mean when they say persistent damage is a condition, and so you don't crank it up on a critical unless it specifically says you do.
It's a condition whose value is set by the amount of persistent damage dealt. If that damage is doubled due to a crit, then the condition is set to the new amount, as explicitly provided for in the acid bomb example on p. 544.
Frightened isn't a type of damage, so it isn't doubled. Everything else about it is irrelevant.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Is that because it's what works best for your game (i.e., it's a houserule), or because you think that's how the rule is actually meant to be applied?This leads people like myself to rule that Persistent Damage is multiplied on a Crit if the primary damage of the attack itself is Persistent Damage*.
*unless otherwise stated, such as with Acid Arrow.
I really only do Society.
This is the only interpretation that makes sense to me.
Would be happy to embrace errata or official clarification to the contrary, of course.
It's a condition whose value is set by the amount of persistent damage dealt.This is the part where someone asks "says who?" because even if your interpretation is correct, that's not a thing explicitly stated by the rules.
It's currently not explicit whether we are intended to treat persistent damage as if it were 'just damage' or as if it were 'just a condition' or even what, explicitly, treating it as 'both' would mean.
Yeah, I'd agree that it could be pretty ambiguous... Except for the example of bombs on page 544. I would probably be on the fence without that example.
Does anyone think it's gamebreaking? Because if it's not, since the rule is unclear then my only question is whether it's fun. I think it's fun and flavorful to double persistent damage if non-crits already get persistent damage.
I've found that persistent damage is only really a problem when they have the Dying condition, and double persistent damage doesn't really exacerbate that.
|
Assuming the persistent damage isn’t a result of the critical hit, is persistent damage doubled on a critical hit?The answer is unknown and often argued over.
Since Persistent Damage is a Condition, and its damage isn't factored into the steps for determining the damage of a Strike, Persistent Damage should not be doubled on a Crit.
Problematically, however, the example of the Acid Flask in the Core Rulebook describes that its Persistent Damage *is* multiplied on a Crit.
This leads people like myself to rule that Persistent Damage is multiplied on a Crit if the primary damage of the attack itself is Persistent Damage*.
*unless otherwise stated, such as with Acid Arrow.
I see your reasoning, but how exactly do you determine whether the persistent damage is the primary damage of the attack? Looking at the acid flask, a lot of people think "well acid flasks do persistent, that's what they do". But in fact, they also do a point of direct damage:
ACID FLASK - ITEM 1+
ACID ALCHEMICAL BOMB CONSUMABLE PLASH
Usage held in 1 hand; Bulk L
Activate [one-action] Strike
This flask filled with corrosive acid deals 1 acid damage, the
listed persistent acid damage, and the listed acid splash
damage. Many types grant an item bonus to attack rolls.
Type lesser; Level 1; Price 3 gp
It deals 1d6 persistent acid damage and 1 acid splash damage.
Type moderate; Level 3; Price 10 gp
You gain a +1 item bonus to attack rolls. The bomb deals
2d6 persistent acid damage and 2 acid splash damage.
Type greater; Level 11; Price 250 gp
You gain a +2 item bonus to attack rolls. The bomb deals
3d6 persistent acid damage and 3 acid splash damage.
Type major; Level 17; Price 2,500 gp
You gain a +3 item bonus to attack rolls. The bomb deals
4d6 persistent acid damage and 4 acid splash damage.
Granted, 1 damage isn't much. Other bombs do more regular damage on a hit. But is there a fundamental difference between an acid flask and an alchemist's fire?
The bomb deals 1d8 fire damage, 1 persistent fire damage, and
1 fire splash damage.
Alchemist fire does a lot more direct damage, and its direct damage scales by level. Certainly you could say that the point of acid flasks is to set someone up with persistent damage while alchemist fire is for immediate damage. But just looking at the structure, they're the same: some direct damage, some splash damage, some persistent damage.
And looking forward at monster attacks, you often get some direct damage and some persistent damage. Some of them may have rather substantial persistent damage compared to the direct damage. How do you determine where to draw the line and say "now the persistent damage is the primary thing"?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This notion of "primary damage" doesn't come from anywhere. There is a notion of additional damage, which is not related to persistent damage anyway.
Crits double all damage. So, it's logical to me that they also double persistent damage unless stated otherwise.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This notion of "primary damage" doesn't come from anywhere. There is a notion of additional damage, which is not related to persistent damage anyway.
Crits double all damage. So, it's logical to me that they also double persistent damage unless stated otherwise.
Sure it does.
Melee damage roll = damage die of weapon or unarmed attack + Strength modifier + bonuses + penalties
Just because he used the word "primary damage" instead of "damage die of the weapon" doesn't make it a wrong statement.
If you're wielding a +3 Greater Striking Flaming Shock Frost Longsword, and you get a +1 bonus to Damage you deal:
4D8 Slashing(Weapon Damage "Primary damage") + STR Modifier Slashing Damage + 1 Slashing(bonus damage) + 1D6 Fire (bonus damage) + 1D6 Cold (bonus damage) + 1D6 Electricity damage (bonus damage).
Now take something like Divine Smite. The question becomes, is the Persistent Good Damage Bonus Damage, or an additional effect that triggers when you hit, as opposed to part of the damage calculation of the weapon?
This notion of "primary damage" doesn't come from anywhere. There is a notion of additional damage, which is not related to persistent damage anyway.
Crits double all damage. So, it's logical to me that they also double persistent damage unless stated otherwise.Sure it does.
Melee damage roll = damage die of weapon or unarmed attack + Strength modifier + bonuses + penaltiesJust because he used the word "primary damage" instead of "damage die of the weapon" doesn't make it a wrong statement.
If you're wielding a +3 Greater Striking Flaming Shock Frost Longsword, and you get a +1 bonus to Damage you deal:
4D8 Slashing(Weapon Damage "Primary damage") + STR Modifier Slashing Damage + 1 Slashing(bonus damage) + 1D6 Fire (bonus damage) + 1D6 Cold (bonus damage) + 1D6 Electricity damage (bonus damage).
Nope. Your houserule of "primary" and "non-primary" damage is just nowhere in the book.
If you have a +3 Greater Striking Flaming Shock Frost Longsword and you get a +1 bonus to Damage you deal:4d8 + Str mod + 1 bonus Slashing damage.
Then, you have 1d6 additional (and not bonus) Fire damage, 1d6 additional Cold damage and 1d6 additional Electricity damage that are all considered different damage instances and thus are treated independantly for resistances and weaknesses.
There are tons of questions the developpers haven't answered:
Does bonus damage apply to additional damage? There's a consensus here that no is the answer.
Rage, Sneak Attack and Precision are additional damage, should resistances and weaknesses apply to both the primary damage and these additional damage independantly as additional damage are supposed to be separate damage instances?
Are Persistent Damage and Splash Damage "damage" and as such can benefit from bonuses to damage and doubling on Critical hit (for Persistent Damage)?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Nope. Your houserule of "primary" and "non-primary" damage is just nowhere in the book.
Except literally in the rule I quoted. Yes, different types of damage from different dice are different instances of damage. Nobody ever argued that.
Sneak Attack and Precision Damage are a different type of damage from a different source, so of course they are separate instances for weakness/resistances.
But that has nothing to do with the issue being discussed.
If anything, your concept that additional damage is not bonus damage is a house rule, as the damage roll calculation doesn't mention additional damage at all, so none of that would be doubled on a critical if they aren't bonuses.
'Primary damage' seems to be something that just muddles the conversation. The rules for critical hits never make that kind of distinction.
Either precision damage is a condition that happens to inflict the listed value whenever it activates, in which case it wouldn't be doubled.
Or it's 'real' damage that you track as a condition and it does double.
Regardless of which you lean towards, I can't see an interpretation that lets you treat Acid Flasks and Alchemist's Fire by different rules. So I think that whole line of thought isn't worth pursuing.
Sneak Attack and Precision Damage are a different type of damage from a different source, so of course they are separate instances for weakness/resistances.
You sure about that? That seems at odds with the game's description of precision damage:
Precision damage increases the damage you already deal, using the same type, but is ineffective against creatures that lack vital
organs or weak points.
When you hit with an ability that grants you precision damage, you increase the attack’s listed damage, using the same damage type, rather than tracking a separate pool of damage.
Nope. Your houserule of "primary" and "non-primary" damage is just nowhere in the book.Except literally in the rule I quoted. Yes, different types of damage from different dice are different instances of damage. Nobody ever argued that.
Sneak Attack and Precision Damage are a different type of damage from a different source, so of course they are separate instances for weakness/resistances.
But that has nothing to do with the issue being discussed.
If anything, your concept that additional damage is not bonus damage is a house rule, as the damage roll calculation doesn't mention additional damage at all, so none of that would be doubled on a critical if they aren't bonuses.
James Jacobs explained that additional damage is not bonus damage, hence the fact that you apply them when in combat form. But it is damage and as such is doubled on a critical hit.
'Primary damage' seems to be something that just muddles the conversation. The rules for critical hits never make that kind of distinction.
Either precision damage is a condition that happens to inflict the listed value whenever it activates, in which case it wouldn't be doubled.
Or it's 'real' damage that you track as a condition and it does double.
Regardless of which you lean towards, I can't see an interpretation that lets you treat Acid Flasks and Alchemist's Fire by different rules. So I think that whole line of thought isn't worth pursuing.
Sneak Attack and Precision Damage are a different type of damage from a different source, so of course they are separate instances for weakness/resistances.You sure about that? That seems at odds with the game's description of precision damage:
Precision damage increases the damage you already deal, using the same type, but is ineffective against creatures that lack vital
organs or weak points.When you hit with an ability that grants you precision damage, you increase the attack’s listed damage, using the same damage type, rather than tracking a separate pool of damage.
You're right, my bad.
You sure about that? That seems at odds with the game's description of precision damage:
Precision damage increases the damage you already deal, using the same type, but is ineffective against creatures that lack vital
organs or weak points.When you hit with an ability that grants you precision damage, you increase the attack’s listed damage, using the same damage type, rather than tracking a separate pool of damage.
There's this line which messes with it:"Likewise, since precision damage is always the same type of damage as the attack it’s augmenting, a creature that is resistant to non-magical damage, like a ghost or other incorporeal creature, would resist not only the dagger’s damage but also the precision damage, even though it is not specifically resistant to precision damage."
And Denizer of Leng has a resistance to precision damage, so I think Aratorin's ruling tend to be the good one.
Wait so a Flaming Rune's 1d6 fire damage is multiplied on a crit, or not? I know the 1d10 on the crit doesn't because of the specific rule for that.
I made a mistake, it was Mark Seifter.
Here's the post.
Yes, additional damage is multiplied on a critical hit, all damage is.
The only damage not multiplied on a crit is damage that comes on a crit (like deadly) or something that says it isn't multiplied on a crit.
Other than that persistent damage is listed next to every other damage type in the damage section and there is even an example in the book of it being multiplied.
Until there is errata this is RAW
And personally I don't feel like nerfing my alchemist by saying "no crits for you" or "weak crits for you"
The only damage not multiplied on a crit is damage that comes on a crit (like deadly) or something that says it isn't multiplied on a crit.
Other than that persistent damage is listed next to every other damage type in the damage section and there is even an example in the book of it being multiplied.
Until there is errata this is RAW
And personally I don't feel like nerfing my alchemist by saying "no crits for you" or "weak crits for you"
What about say, a Viper for example? Is the Damage from Viper Venom doubled on a crit? If no, why would you double Infernal Wound, but not Viper Venom? They are both abilities that trigger from the Strike, not part of the Strike's Damage Roll.
|
|
What about say, a Viper for example? Is the Damage from Viper Venom doubled on a crit? If no, why would you double Infernal Wound, but not Viper Venom? They are both abilities that trigger from the Strike, not part of the Strike's Damage Roll.The only damage not multiplied on a crit is damage that comes on a crit (like deadly) or something that says it isn't multiplied on a crit.
Other than that persistent damage is listed next to every other damage type in the damage section and there is even an example in the book of it being multiplied.
Until there is errata this is RAW
And personally I don't feel like nerfing my alchemist by saying "no crits for you" or "weak crits for you"
There's another check between you and the viper venom that actually controls whether you take it, one that's not even rolled by the attacker. Infernal wound is just persistent damage with additional rules about how it goes away. Regardless of whether you think persistent damage should double or not, those aren't parallel arguments.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The only damage not multiplied on a crit is damage that comes on a crit (like deadly) or something that says it isn't multiplied on a crit.
Other than that persistent damage is listed next to every other damage type in the damage section and there is even an example in the book of it being multiplied.
Until there is errata this is RAW
And personally I don't feel like nerfing my alchemist by saying "no crits for you" or "weak crits for you"
I wouldn't want to put it quite that strongly. That example is AFAIK the only thing that actually shows persistent damage critting, but the example has other factual flaws in it:
For example, if you threw a lesser acid flask and hit
your target, that creature would take 1d6 persistent acid
damage and 1 acid splash damage. All other creatures
within 5 feet of it would take 1 acid splash damage. On
a critical hit, the target would take 2d6 persistent acid
damage, but the splash damage would still be 1. If you
missed, the target would take 1 splash damage. If you
critically failed, no one would take any damage.
Because just an inch lower on the same page it starts with:
This flask filled with corrosive acid deals 1 acid damage, the
isted persistent acid damage, and the listed acid splash
damage. Many types grant an item bonus to attack rolls.
Notice how the example left out the initial 1 acid damage. So the example's wrong about something else; who's to say it's not wrong about persistent damage critting too?
Also, the main topic of the example is to explain that splash damage specifically doesn't crit.
Elsewhere, the book leaves us in doubt whether persistent damage is like other damage that crits, or a condition inflicted with a set value that only increases on a crit if it specifically says so. Some spells (like Acid Arrow) go out of their way to say they don't multiply persistent damage on a crit but other spells (Charged Javelin) explicitly say they do double persistent on a crit, so that doesn't really allow us to draw perfect conclusions.
---
So putting it as "it's clearly RAW, how could you think otherwise" is putting it a bit too strong for my taste.
The only damage not multiplied on a crit is damage that comes on a crit (like deadly) or something that says it isn't multiplied on a crit.
Other than that persistent damage is listed next to every other damage type in the damage section and there is even an example in the book of it being multiplied.
Until there is errata this is RAW
And personally I don't feel like nerfing my alchemist by saying "no crits for you" or "weak crits for you"
I wouldn't want to put it quite that strongly. That example is AFAIK the only thing that actually shows persistent damage critting, but the example has other factual flaws in it:
For example, if you threw a lesser acid flask and hit
your target, that creature would take 1d6 persistent acid
damage and 1 acid splash damage. All other creatures
within 5 feet of it would take 1 acid splash damage. On
a critical hit, the target would take 2d6 persistent acid
damage, but the splash damage would still be 1. If you
missed, the target would take 1 splash damage. If you
critically failed, no one would take any damage.Because just an inch lower on the same page it starts with:
This flask filled with corrosive acid deals 1 acid damage, the
isted persistent acid damage, and the listed acid splash
damage. Many types grant an item bonus to attack rolls.Notice how the example left out the initial 1 acid damage. So the example's wrong about something else; who's to say it's not wrong about persistent damage critting too?
Also, the main topic of the example is to explain that splash damage specifically doesn't crit.
Elsewhere, the book leaves us in doubt whether persistent damage is like other damage that crits, or a condition inflicted with a set value that only increases on a crit if it specifically says so. Some spells (like Acid Arrow) go out of their way to say they don't multiply persistent damage on a crit but other spells (Charged Javelin)...
I said RAW because of the damage section and it being listed as damage. The other elements are merely supportive.