The damage from Bane is untyped. As is the damage for vicious.
As for Damage Reduction
Damage reduction does not negate touch attacks, energy damage dealt along with an attack, or energy drains. Nor does it affect poisons or diseases delivered by inhalation, ingestion, or contact.
Attacks that deal no damage because of the target’s damage reduction do not disrupt spells.
Spells, spell-like abilities, and energy attacks (even nonmagical fire) ignore damage reduction.
The extra damage from Bane and Vicious do not appear to fall under any of the categories of damage that ignore damage reduction. Because it's untyped it's not considered "energy damage" (the same way the extra damage from power attack isn't "energy damage") and it's not coming from a spell nor a spell like ability.
Interestingly, according to the definition above, firearms apparently ignore DR when they are used to make touch attacks.
Interestingly, according to the definition above, firearms apparently ignore DR when they are used to make touch attacks.
The attack is resolved against Touch AC but it is not a Touch attack:
|
The damage from Bane is untyped. As is the damage for vicious.
As for Damage Reduction
Damage reduction does not negate touch attacks, energy damage dealt along with an attack, or energy drains. Nor does it affect poisons or diseases delivered by inhalation, ingestion, or contact.
Attacks that deal no damage because of the target’s damage reduction do not disrupt spells.
Spells, spell-like abilities, and energy attacks (even nonmagical fire) ignore damage reduction.
The extra damage from Bane and Vicious do not appear to fall under any of the categories of damage that ignore damage reduction. Because it's untyped it's not considered "energy damage" (the same way the extra damage from power attack isn't "energy damage") and it's not coming from a spell nor a spell like ability.
Interestingly, according to the definition above, firearms apparently ignore DR when they are used to make touch attacks.
Vicious says its energy
When a vicious weapon strikes an opponent, it creates a flash of disruptive energy that resonates between the opponent and the wielder. This energy deals an extra 2d6 points of damage to the opponent and 1d6 points of damage to the wielder.
Also, DR also only works against attacks. It doesn't protect against falling damage for example (not an attack)
[Didnt know that]
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I always assumed the bonus damage from bane is the same type of damage as the weapon, eg. a Bane Rapier does 3d6+x piercing damage which will bypass DR/Piercing, but not DR/Slashing or DR/Bludgeoning.
The attack is resolved against Touch AC but it is not a Touch attack:
I've never played a character that uses guns, so I admit I'm only vaguely aware of how they work. I'm not sure what else the line could be referring to though. What's something that:
*Is a touch attack
*Doesn't deal energy damage
*Isn't a poison or disease
*Isn't a spell or spell-like ability
????
Reading up on the rules for firearms it is explicitly called out as not being a touch attack, but it just makes me wonder more what this line in DR is referring to.
Vicious says its energy
hmm.... I missed that. I suppose it makes sense, that way you can't avoid the damage to yourself by having DR.
I always assumed the bonus damage from bane is the same type of damage as the weapon, eg. a Bane Rapier does 3d6+x piercing damage which will bypass DR/Piercing, but not DR/Slashing or DR/Bludgeoning.
I remember seeing that as the rule for sneak attack damage. But sneak attack has a damage type (Precision). So, I'm not sure if that's a feature of precision damage or all damage in general. I think that's the way most DMs handle it when it comes to things like power attack.
I always assumed the bonus damage from bane is the same type of damage as the weapon, eg. a Bane Rapier does 3d6+x piercing damage which will bypass DR/Piercing, but not DR/Slashing or DR/Bludgeoning.I remember seeing that as the rule for sneak attack damage. But sneak attack has a damage type (Precision). So, I'm not sure if that's a feature of precision damage or all damage in general. I think that's the way most DMs handle it when it comes to things like power attack.
Well I guess it doesn't specifically say it's the same type, so it could be validly argued that it's untyped damage. I just always assumed it's just adding more damage to the weapon you're wielding (which is also a valid argument).
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The damage from Bane is untyped. As is the damage for vicious.
No
A bane weapon excels against certain foes. Against a designated foe, the weapon’s enhancement bonus is +2 better than its actual bonus. It also deals an extra 2d6 points of damage against such foes. To randomly determine a weapon’s designated foe, roll on the following table.
The weapon deal the extra damage, so it deals exactly the same kind of damage of the base weapon.
Vicious, as already pointed out, deal an unspecified kind of energy damage.
|
|
The attack is resolved against Touch AC but it is not a Touch attack:I've never played a character that uses guns, so I admit I'm only vaguely aware of how they work. I'm not sure what else the line could be referring to though. What's something that:
*Is a touch attack
*Doesn't deal energy damage
*Isn't a poison or disease
*Isn't a spell or spell-like ability????
Reading up on the rules for firearms it is explicitly called out as not being a touch attack, but it just makes me wonder more what this line in DR is referring to.
Considering that that is the text of the CRB, printed for the first time in 2009, it is a bit hard that it will refer to Ultimate Combat, where the firearms appear for the first time in Pathfinder and that was printed in 2011, don't you think.
There are a few creatures whose that make touch attacks while respecting those requirements. An example in a later book is a monk special ability, One touch. It is in Unchained, so that too was printed well after the CRB.Plus:
Early Firearms: When firing an early firearm, the attack resolves against the target’s touch AC when the target is within the first range increment of the weapon, but this type of attack is not considered a touch attack for the purposes of feats and abilities such as Deadly Aim. At higher range increments, the attack resolves normally, including taking the normal cumulative –2 penalty for each full range increment. Unlike other projectile weapons, early firearms have a maximum range of five range increments.
It clearly states that the attack resolves against touch AC if the target is within the first target increment, but that doesn't make it a touch attack.
Bane is disgustingly good anyway especially if you can apply it on the fly like an inquisitor.
My 14 Strength Occultist with zero combat feats keeps up with the front-liners because Legacy Weapon can add bane.
I read it the same way as Diego Rossi, but I can see the alternate. I'm like 99% sure the dev's meant it to just add damage using the same damage type.
Considering that that is the text of the CRB, printed for the first time in 2009, it is a bit hard that it will refer to Ultimate Combat, where the firearms appear for the first time in Pathfinder and that was printed in 2011, don't you think.
As I said I haven't really made a character that uses firearms and so as far as I knew this was an update to the DR rules that happened when they came out. But as has been previously pointed out it doesn't apply to firearms so this must pre-date them.
There are a few creatures whose that make touch attacks while respecting those requirements. An example in a later book is a monk special ability, One touch. It is in Unchained, so that too was printed well after the CRB.
Ah, I see. That's cool, I figured there must be abilities that do this (even if they came out later than the rule) I just didn't remember seeing such a thing. All the other examples of damaging touch attacks I could think of were spells or spell-like abilities.
Plus:
Early Firearms: When firing an early firearm, the attack resolves against the target’s touch AC when the target is within the first range increment of the weapon, but this type of attack is not considered a touch attack for the purposes of feats and abilities such as Deadly Aim. At higher range increments, the attack resolves normally, including taking the normal cumulative –2 penalty for each full range increment. Unlike other projectile weapons, early firearms have a maximum range of five range increments.It clearly states that the attack resolves against touch AC if the target is within the first target increment, but that doesn't make it a touch attack.
Yep, yep. I looked it up after this was pointed out to me by Bacondale and saw the same statement. Though, IMO the more compelling statement is the section I bolded and italicized.
|
|
Ive never even though as the 2d6 as weapon damage, just untyped damage. It kept the weapon ability good, and inquisitors got to be like pallys and ignore some dr guarenteed.
The 1st google result for "bane damage type pathfinder" said untyped, but thats nothing official.
First: it is +1 weapon ability. Are you sure you want to make it a form of unstoppable damage?
Second: the +2 to the weapon enhancement make it at minimum a +3 weapon, at maximum a +7 against the appropriate target. At a minimum, a bane weapon can bypass Cold Iron/Silver DR, at a maximum DR/epic.
Third: it doesn't care about alignment.
Fourth: you get a +2 to damage that is clearly weapon damage, it increases the weapon enhancement. Do you keep separate the two kinds of extra damage?
|
|
Yep, yep. I looked it up after this was pointed out to me by Bacondale and saw the same statement. Though, IMO the more compelling statement is the section I bolded and italicized.Plus:
Early Firearms: When firing an early firearm, the attack resolves against the target’s touch AC when the target is within the first range increment of the weapon, but this type of attack is not considered a touch attack for the purposes of feats and abilities such as Deadly Aim. At higher range increments, the attack resolves normally, including taking the normal cumulative –2 penalty for each full range increment. Unlike other projectile weapons, early firearms have a maximum range of five range increments.It clearly states that the attack resolves against touch AC if the target is within the first target increment, but that doesn't make it a touch attack.
It is a compelling argument for me too, but I preferred not using it as a basis for my post as it can be argued that "bypassing DR" is neither a feat nor an ability.
I always considered Bane to be weapon damage and not untyped. It states an increase to the enchantment bonus, which has always been additional damage of the weapon's type (to my knowledge), so I just throw the +2D6 in with whatever damage the weapon already does... same as the enchantment bonus.
What type of damage does the bane weapon ability add?
I always thought the 2d6 is untyped damage that bypasses all DR.
What about vicious? Is that also untyped?
Bane adds the underlying physical damage type.
Thus, a +1 fey-bane scimitar deals this damage to fey: ((1d6+3, crit 18/x2) + (2d6)) magic slashing damage.
Because the weapon is situationally +3, it bypasses DR for cold iron and silver when used against fey. This is due to a general rule that +3 weapons bypass DR for iron or silver. +4 weapons, similarly, bypass DR (but not hardness) for adamant. +5 weapons bypass all alignment DRs.
And yes, +6 (for example, +4 bane with the bane active) can bypass DR for epic.
----
Vicious is an unspecified energy damage, kinda like disintegrate. As such, it bypasses all DR, but has the normal penalty against incorporeal (even if the weapon is also ghost touch) and can't affect ethereal.
Awkwardly, the weapon its being used on is a laser pistol that normally deals 2d4.
So it would deal 2d4+2+2d6 fire damage?
Since the bane property needs an enhancement bonus, you'd get (2d4+3) + 2d6 fire (and, as usual, DR doesn't apply to fire.) However, all of it is subject to fire resistance and the usual problems that laser weapons might have (can't hit invisible, for example.)
|
|
Since the bane property needs an enhancement bonus, you'd get (2d4+3) + 2d6 fire (and, as usual, DR doesn't apply to fire.) However, all of it is subject to fire resistance and the usual problems that laser weapons might have (can't hit invisible, for example.)Awkwardly, the weapon its being used on is a laser pistol that normally deals 2d4.
So it would deal 2d4+2+2d6 fire damage?
You can if bane is from inquisitor (which in this case it is)
I always assumed the bonus damage from bane is the same type of damage as the weapon, eg. a Bane Rapier does 3d6+x piercing damage which will bypass DR/Piercing, but not DR/Slashing or DR/Bludgeoning.I remember seeing that as the rule for sneak attack damage. But sneak attack has a damage type (Precision). So, I'm not sure if that's a feature of precision damage or all damage in general. I think that's the way most DMs handle it when it comes to things like power attack.
Precision isn't a type of damage, Piercing might be the word you were confusing it with, but it's not a type of damage like slashing, bludgeoning, energy damage, etc. It's basically just a category of where damage can come from.
Right precision it's like acupuncture anatomy
|
|
You can if bane is from inquisitor (which in this case it is)Since the bane property needs an enhancement bonus, you'd get (2d4+3) + 2d6 fire (and, as usual, DR doesn't apply to fire.) However, all of it is subject to fire resistance and the usual problems that laser weapons might have (can't hit invisible, for example.)Awkwardly, the weapon its being used on is a laser pistol that normally deals 2d4.
So it would deal 2d4+2+2d6 fire damage?
Yes, it will deal 2d4+2+2d6 and count as a +2 magical weapon. It gives a +2 to the to hit, too.
At level 12 it will deal 2d4+2+4d6 with Greater Bane.
|
Vicious is untyped energy partly for the reason mentioned (so the wielder can’t reduce the 1d6), and partly because I think somewhere along the line (in a previous game) it was negative energy. But that meant that the wielder could actually heal from the 1d6 if they were undead or had negative energy affinity.
I’ve always treated bane as additional weapon damage of the same type as the weapon as well.
Precision isn't a type of damage, Piercing might be the word you were confusing it with, but it's not a type of damage like slashing, bludgeoning, energy damage, etc. It's basically just a category of where damage can come from.
Except it is a damage type
Sneak attack deals precision damage, as does the feat precise strike.
its even called out in the critical hit rules.
Exception: Precision damage (such as from a rogue’s sneak attack class feature) and additional damage dice from special weapon qualities (such as flaming) are not multiplied when you score a critical hit.
some monster types even have immunity to it
Not subject to critical hits or flanking. Does not take additional damage from precision-based attacks, such as sneak attack.
It’s a type of damage, but it’s not a “type” of damage. It is the same “type” of damage as whatever attack it is attached to.
Interesting.
I have always told the players at my table that they take X amount of, say, Slashing damage, and X amount of Precision damage... same as I split up Slashing and Fire from a flaming sword.
Some people/things/classes have different resistances and immunities that single out Precision damage, so I always list it separate.
But I have always treated Bane like Impact. Your weapon does more of whatever your weapon already did.
|
|
You do need to list precision damage separately for things that are immune, but it’s still piercing, slashing, bludgeoning, fire, etc. based on what the original attack was.
So if I deal 1d6 piercing with a rapier and 1d6 precision with sneak attack, and that totals 3+4=7 points of damage, something with DR 10/slashing isn’t going to take any damage. Something with DR 5/slashing is going to take 2 points of damage, not 4. Something immune to precision damage is going to take 3. Something immune to precision damage with DR 5/slashing isn’t going to take anything.
|
|
You do need to list precision damage separately for things that are immune, but it’s still piercing, slashing, bludgeoning, fire, etc. based on what the original attack was.
Maybe it is more correct to say that "precision damage" is a way to add damage, and that a creature being immune to precision damage negates that way to add damage, but the actual type of damage added to the attack is the same as the base weapon.
Immunity to it can be achieved by having concealment.
You do need to list precision damage separately for things that are immune, but it’s still piercing, slashing, bludgeoning, fire, etc. based on what the original attack was.
So if I deal 1d6 piercing with a rapier and 1d6 precision with sneak attack, and that totals 3+4=7 points of damage, something with DR 10/slashing isn’t going to take any damage. Something with DR 5/slashing is going to take 2 points of damage, not 4. Something immune to precision damage is going to take 3. Something immune to precision damage with DR 5/slashing isn’t going to take anything.
Furious Thune is correct, and this is a really good rundown of how to think about it (well done sir).
|
|
I’m just stealing from decade old threads where this was all explained after 1E was released.
Concealment doesn’t make you immune to precision damage. Rogue Sneak Attack doesn’t work against targets with concealment. Arguably Precise Strike doesn’t, since it doesn’t work against things that are immune to sneak attack, though there’s an argument that a concealed target isn’t immune to sneak attack, since that isn’t how it’s phrased and since Shadow Strike exists.
Unchained Rogue can sneak attack targets with partial concealment.
Investigator Studied Combat doesn’t reference Sneak Attack and doesn’t have a note about not working against concealment.
(Edit: Studied Combat, I meant. Studied Strike references sneak attack. Studied combat does not, but is also precision damage).
So concealment is less immunity to precision damage and more a situation in which some common sources of precision damage don’t work, but others do.
So sort of a clarification on the precision damage doing the same sort of damage as the original; if I'm a dragon blooded sorcerer, with sneak attack and I do damage with an element boosted by my arcana that's a valid sneak attack target, do I get that extra damage from my arcana on the sneak attack dice? Same with the orc bloodline? If so, that really expedites one of my builds that I thought I would need 10 levels of arcane trickster to pull off properly.
I'm not quite sure what you're saying Bender, but you can deal sneak attack damage with Scorching Ray, and if you do the Sneak Attack damage will be Fire damage (and will add to the Scorching Ray damage before applying resistances). Is that basically what you were asking?
I'm not quite sure what you're saying Bender, but you can deal sneak attack damage with Scorching Ray, and if you do the Sneak Attack damage will be Fire damage (and will add to the Scorching Ray damage before applying resistances). Is that basically what you were asking?
Basically. A red dragon sorcerer gets to add a point of damage per die of damage that the spell does. I thought the way to get the sneak attack dice to also add plus one damage was to be a 10th level arcane trickster, as the wording on that ability is a little strange
PS: chronic lurker, generally really enjoy your takes even if I don't always agree with them Mr. Charisma
I’m just stealing from decade old threads where this was all explained after 1E was released.
Concealment doesn’t make you immune to precision damage.
It actually does, as per this FAQ:
Concealment and Precision Damage: Does concealment (the 20% kind, not total concealment) negate all kinds of precision damage? There is some confusion from the multiple places where precision damage appears.
Yes, in general concealment does negate all kinds of precision damage, unless you have a special ability that particularly says otherwise like the Shadow Strike feat or the Unchained rogue’s sneak attack.
This also means that abilities that negate miss chance, but not concealment, won't allow you to apply precision damage. So a Rogue with a Seeking bow (which negates miss chance) still can't sneak attack if they're attacking an invisible opponent.
You do need to list precision damage separately for things that are immune, but it’s still piercing, slashing, bludgeoning, fire, etc. based on what the original attack was.
So if I deal 1d6 piercing with a rapier and 1d6 precision with sneak attack, and that totals 3+4=7 points of damage, something with DR 10/slashing isn’t going to take any damage. Something with DR 5/slashing is going to take 2 points of damage, not 4. Something immune to precision damage is going to take 3. Something immune to precision damage with DR 5/slashing isn’t going to take anything.
My understanding is that its a damage type same as slashing, good or fire. An attack can have multiple damage types associated with it, its just that precision damage takes on any damage types associated with the weapon used to make the attack.
So, if you have a ratfolk rogue wearing a +1 flaming, holy amulet of mighty fists and they attack a flanked enemy with a bite.
The bite attack is slashing, bludgeoning, piercing, magic and good. Additionally, the enemy takes precision damage that is also slashing, bludgeoning, piercing, magic and good. Finally they take some fire damage as well.
The precision damage is considered separately for the same reason the fire damage is considered separately. Its not that it isn't a type of damage but rather because enemies might have special defenses against these damage types. Also, these damage types aren't multiplied on a crit.
Its my understanding that when it comes to DR it applies against the total sum of physical damage dealt per attack. So, if in my example above the target is evil you would add the following things together before applying DR. weapon damage, stat modifier, sneak attack, the untyped damage from holy and any other feats/abilities/conditions that modify the damage of the attack. The fire damage would automatically bypass any DR the creature has since it's energy damage, though it is subject to any energy resistance the creature might possess.
|
|
I’m just stealing from decade old threads where this was all explained after 1E was released.
Concealment doesn’t make you immune to precision damage.
It actually does, as per this FAQ:
This also means that abilities that negate miss chance, but not concealment, won't allow you to apply precision damage. So a Rogue with a Seeking bow (which negates miss chance) still can't sneak attack if they're attacking an invisible opponent.Concealment and Precision Damage: Does concealment (the 20% kind, not total concealment) negate all kinds of precision damage? There is some confusion from the multiple places where precision damage appears.
Yes, in general concealment does negate all kinds of precision damage, unless you have a special ability that particularly says otherwise like the Shadow Strike feat or the Unchained rogue’s sneak attack.
Negating and immunity aren’t the same thing. It’s a small distinction, but with potential implications. You negate precision damage from attacks against which you have concealment. You aren’t immune to precision damage in general. For example, being in darkness against someone with darkvision. You have concealment in general, but not against them.
Though I did miss this with regards to Studied Combat.
|
|
I'm not quite sure what you're saying Bender, but you can deal sneak attack damage with Scorching Ray, and if you do the Sneak Attack damage will be Fire damage (and will add to the Scorching Ray damage before applying resistances). Is that basically what you were asking?Basically. A red dragon sorcerer gets to add a point of damage per die of damage that the spell does. I thought the way to get the sneak attack dice to also add plus one damage was to be a 10th level arcane trickster, as the wording on that ability is a little strange
PS: chronic lurker, generally really enjoy your takes even if I don't always agree with them Mr. Charisma
Still confused about what you are trying to say.
If you are trying to add the Draconic bloodline bonus to damage to the sneak attack damage (when using an appropriate spell), it doesn't work.
Bloodline Arcana: Whenever you cast a spell with an energy descriptor that matches your draconic bloodline’s energy type, that spell deals +1 point of damage per die rolled.
It is the spell that deals extra damage, not the riders of the spell. The sneak attack is extra damage that you add to the spell after the spell damage is rolled, it is not part of the spell damage.
I think the confusion is in when you have an attack like an elemental fist that deals bludgeoning damage from the punch, plus bonus energy damage, in which case I would say that since the bonus energy damage is extra on top of the punch itself hitting (hence bonus), the precision damage clones the type of the punch, and not say the flames surrounding your punch. Similar for if you sneak attack with a flaming shortsword.
LordKailas - I included fire, because you can sneak attack with things like Scorching Ray. As Meirril points out, the sneak damage would then become fire damage, since that is the base damage type of the attack.
I don't believe this is a point we actually disagree on. As I said precision damage takes on the same damage types as the base weapon. If that base weapon is a spell that does cold damage then the precision damage also takes on the cold damage type.
|
|
LordKailas - I included fire, because you can sneak attack with things like Scorching Ray. As Meirril points out, the sneak damage would then become fire damage, since that is the base damage type of the attack.I don't believe this is a point we actually disagree on. As I said precision damage takes on the same damage types as the base weapon. If that base weapon is a spell that does cold damage then the precision damage also takes on the cold damage type.
Fair enough. It's the word "type" that people seem to get caught up on. Precision damage is a type of damage, sure, but more in the way that spell damage or weapon damage are types of damage, not in the way that bludgeoning, piercing, slashing, or even Good or Evil are types of damages that have corresponding DRs.
There's no DR/precision. There's no Precision Energy Resistance.
You can be immune to Precision damage, but that's more like being immune to Critical Hits than it is having DR/precision. A critical hit is additional damage of the same type as the original attack, and precision damage works much the same way.
I have seen Precision damage referred to as a "subtype" of damage to eliminate some of the confusion, but I don't think that comes from anywhere in the rules.
|
|
LordKailas - I included fire, because you can sneak attack with things like Scorching Ray. As Meirril points out, the sneak damage would then become fire damage, since that is the base damage type of the attack.I don't believe this is a point we actually disagree on. As I said precision damage takes on the same damage types as the base weapon. If that base weapon is a spell that does cold damage then the precision damage also takes on the cold damage type.Fair enough. It's the word "type" that people seem to get caught up on. Precision damage is a type of damage, sure, but more in the way that spell damage or weapon damage are types of damage, not in the way that bludgeoning, piercing, slashing, or even Good or Evil are types of damages that have corresponding DRs.
There's no DR/precision. There's no Precision Energy Resistance.
You can be immune to Precision damage, but that's more like being immune to Critical Hits than it is having DR/precision. A critical hit is additional damage of the same type as the original attack, and precision damage works much the same way.
I have seen Precision damage referred to as a "subtype" of damage to eliminate some of the confusion, but I don't think that comes from anywhere in the rules.
Actually there is any place of the rules where "precision damage" is defined?
AFAIK it always goes the other way: X is precision damage, Y is immune from precision damage. There no univocal definition of precision damage, insteaad there are plenty of things that are defined as such.|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Only in designer comment, I think. They talked about defining it somewhere in the game, but then never did.
Precision-based is a catch-all term for the bonus damage applied by a number of class features (sneak attack, skirmish, and sudden strike). This will be more clearly defined in the final rule set.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
LINK from 2008 (during the original playtest)
Precision damage is, alas, not defined as a term. It's more a descriptive element, which is probably not the best way to handle things in game. But basically, precision damage is limited to sneak attacks and the duelist's extra damage, as far as I can tell.
LINK 2 from 2009 when there were only a couple of sources of precision damage
Seems to me that the notion of "precision damage" might be in the same category as "iterative attack,"—a useful game term that for whatever reason is never defined. And since it's not defined, you see the word precision pop up as descriptive text.
Precision damage is, basically, extra damage caused by placing a blow in a precise spot where the damage is more damaging than a simple blow. That's basically the same thing that's going on with a sneak attack or a duelist's precise strike, and it's also what's going on with a critical hit.
Weapon Specialization doesn't care about precision; neither do things like Power Attack or even a ranger's favored enemy ability, since these abilities simply increase the damage done by something EVERY TIME you hit. There's no flavor text associated with these attacks that specifically say you're specifically trying to stab someone in a heart. I suppose you could make a case, theme-wise, that the favored enemy damage should count, but in the rules as written it does not.
So basically—as far as I read it, precision damage is a handy way of summarizing "extra damage from critical hits, extra damage from sneak attacks, and extra damage from a duelist's precise strike ability."
Vital Strike's problem isn't really the mention of precision damage, but it's over-explanation of what it does. All it does is let you roll the actual dice you roll for the weapon's value twice. Other dice or modifiers you might add to that base weapon damage is not increased.
In the end, since "precision" is not a specific quantified rules element, whenever it appears you shouldn't attach rules assumptions to it. It's just a word; we could have used any other word in its place that's a synonym, like "preciseness" or "accuracy."
LINK 3 also from 2009
I'm going to explain this next one, because Jason Bulmahn's response taken out of context could be read as saying something very different than what it does. Essentially, there was an interpretation for a while that if the damage from a Rogue's base attack didn't exceed the DR of a creature, then they could not apply Sneak Attack. Meaning a 1d4 dagger could never exceed DR/5 (except for a crit), so a Rogue could never get Sneak Attack in that situation. That's what he means when he says, "DR doesn't negate Sneak Attack." Not that Sneak Attack always goes through DR and isn't reduced. The rest of the thread makes that clearer. Note that "it is part of the damage roll."
DR does not negate sneak attack damage. The sneak attack damage is not a special effect that accompanies the attack, it is part of the damage roll.
Hope that clears it up.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
LINK 4 from 2010 to the top of the thread. Again, frustratingly, he later says this is the kind of thing that should go in the FAQ (which they hadn't created at that point), but it never made it in as far as I can tell.
If you're wondering why I know about that last one, it's because a GM ruled that way against me in PFS once, which just makes Rogues completely ineffective. Suddenly everything with DR that's at all uncommon may as well be an elemental. (this was pre-Unchained as well, when they were the weakest class by far).
It's good to know that more than one developer has known about this issue since the first playtest and literally nothing has been done about it. That's awesome.
Somebody had to be the first person to use each of these terms. Each time there was a first time. And instead of being like, "oh, I like that, LET ME WRITE THAT DOWN"... it somehow got adopted and put into print without anyone, EVER writing it down?
Nobody ever thought that this reoccurring term MIGHT come up in a technical discussion about rules interactions? No?
Not at any time in the past decade, even chiming in here to posts about the very issue? Nobody was like, "hey, holy $#!+, I can fix this, right now..." and freaking wrote a definition for any of these terms?
They are sure quick to nerf things that are cool, but they literally don't care to define key terms despite acknowledging the problem several times over the past decade?
The same amount of time, effort, and typing that any of these developers went through replying to these issues on the forums could have solved the issue with an official definition. Lol.
|
|
@ Ferious Thune
Great collection of quotes.
@ VoodistMonk
The problem is not having done it initially, but after all, they where in a hurry to publish the CRB and it is already 575 pages of text.
And they inherited it, as the term was already used in the 3-3.5 books, similarly without an explanation. As Pathfinder is (at least theoretically) retro compatible with all the 3.5 books defining it would have required to make the definition compatible with all WoTC 3.5 splatbook or make it something new, possibly with a different name.
After that initial "sin" making a clear definition has become more and more difficult with every new splatbook, so it wasn't a matter of spending a few minutes. You can read the old blogs that tried to clarify and streamline the stealth rules and how at the end they were unsuccessful. Precision damage suffers from the same kind of problem, defining it requires to reconcile plenty of different uses.
I agree that it was an error, but fixing in a way that avoids loopholes and further explanations for all the uses is far from easy.
Ive never even though as the 2d6 as weapon damage, just untyped damage. It kept the weapon ability good, and inquisitors got to be like pallys and ignore some dr guarenteed.
The 1st google result for "bane damage type pathfinder" said untyped, but thats nothing official.
If the inquisiter can't bypass the level appropriate DR with his base weapon damage + str + power attack, etc. etc, then the inquisitor isn't really built to deal damage anyway, and I'd have to wonder why they have a bane weapon. So I feel like that is largely a moot point.
Like MrCharisma, I feel the bane damage is always just extra damage on the weapon of the same type as the weapon, but yea, not explicitly called out as such.
For me I tried to create bane weapon for really hard opponent like demon and dragon for other low races like elf or goblin are workless and for vicious weapon on less I have a ring of regeneration or an active regeneration spell I don't used
Apologies to anyone feeling this necros this thread, but I don't like starting a new thread when an issue ties in so directly to an old conversation. And this is a slight variant to the issue.
I had an in inquisitor shooting baned arrows into a globster. Globsters are immune to piercing damage.
Those who say "extra damage" is untyped would say the globster would take the bane damage (only) form such an attack.
Those who say the extra damage is MORE of the type already being inflicted, therefore more piercing damage, would rule that the baned arrow could not hurt the globster at all.
Let me know if I'm missing something from the conversation here (or elsewhere) but it looks like opinions are very much divided between the two interpretations and there is no errata, FAQ, or developer opinion to make the matter clear.
I'm really torn.
Just a few things pulling me each way:
- Bane is only a +1 enhancement, so this inclines me to limit its advantages
- But then it's an inquisitor "supernatural ability" which I think opens doors of possibility.
- I thought maybe "extra" was a key word, but I see that flaming weapons, for example, on a successful hit deal an "extra 1d6 of fire damage" and so there's not clarification there.
- But, I don't know, I don't think I like the idea of a vermin bane arrow scoring its 2d6 damage on a mosquito swarm. Or do I?
- Tie should probably go to the player, so I'm leaning toward allowing bane damage to go through in cases like this.
Given all that's been said in other posts above, does anyone have anything new to help clarify the division of views?
|
|
I am in the "bane is weapon damage" camp.
I thin is clearly defined by the ability description:
A bane weapon excels against certain foes. Against a designated foe, the weapon’s enhancement bonus is +2 better than its actual bonus. It also deals an extra 2d6 points of damage against such foes. To randomly determine a weapon’s designated foe, roll on the following table.
"Against a designated foe, the weapon’s enhancement bonus is +2 better than its actual bonus." is extremely important, as it is one of the few ways to deal full damage to creatures that can be damaged only by Epic weapons in the base rules. To do that the +2 should be part of the weapon damage, not something separated.
"It also deals an extra 2d6 points of damage against such foes." The extra damage for me refers to the weapon damage. If it was separated damage it would have been defined as what kind of damage it uses.
An example of that:
Vicious: it creates a flash of disruptive energy that resonates between the opponent and the wielder. This energy deals an extra 2d6 points of damage to the opponent and 1d6 points of damage to the wielder.
If the damage isn't part of the weapon damage but a different stack of damage, things like hardness would be applied two times, once to the weapon damage, once to the extra, non-weapon, damage.
BTW; even if the bane damage is separated, the arrow still targets a single creature. It will do nothing against a swarm.