Maybe this has been answered before, but currently as written the Thief Racket Dex to Damage is immune to Enfeebled because Enfeebled specifies "Strength-based damage rolls" and Thief Dex to damage says "instead of Strength".
It is also immune to Clumsy, because Clumsy specifically states "checks and DCs" and damage rolls are not a check or a DC.
I would imagine that the Thief Racket is good enough as it is and this RAW immunity is probably not intended.
Has anyone dealt with this at the table and if so how did you handle it?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe this has been answered before, but currently as written the Thief Racket Dex to Damage is immune to Enfeebled because Enfeebled specifies "Strength-based damage rolls" and Thief Dex to damage says "instead of Strength".
It is also immune to Clumsy, because Clumsy specifically states "checks and DCs" and damage rolls are not a check or a DC.
I would imagine that the Thief Racket is good enough as it is and this RAW immunity is probably not intended.
Has anyone dealt with this at the table and if so how did you handle it?
An Attack Roll is 100% a Check. Clumsy even points out that Ranged Attack Rolls are a type of Check in its description.
Specific Checks
While most checks follow these basic rules, it’s useful to know about a few specific types of checks, how they’re used, and how they differ from one another.Attack Rolls
When you use a Strike action or any other attack action, you attempt a check called an attack roll.
CLUMSY
CONDITION
Your movements become clumsy and inexact. Clumsy always includes a value. You take a status penalty equal to the condition value to Dexterity-based checks and DCs, (these things are all examples of checks and DCs) -> including AC, Reflex saves, ranged attack rolls, and skill checks using Acrobatics, Stealth, and Thievery.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
An Attack Roll is 100% a Check.
Let me clarify, since I didn't explicitly state it:
The Damage roll from Thief Racket's Dex to Damage is not penalized by Enfeebled or Clumsy RAW.
That seems like an error.
EDIT: I actually did explicitly state it in the very short post. I am talking about the damage roll. Not sure how that was missed when the first sentence, the title, and the second sentence all state as much.
Maybe this has been answered before, but currently as written the Thief Racket Dex to Damage is immune to Enfeebled because Enfeebled specifies "Strength-based damage rolls" and Thief Dex to damage says "instead of Strength".
It is also immune to Clumsy, because Clumsy specifically states "checks and DCs" and damage rolls are not a check or a DC.
I would imagine that the Thief Racket is good enough as it is and this RAW immunity is probably not intended.
Has anyone dealt with this at the table and if so how did you handle it?
An Attack Roll is 100% a Check.
Specific Checks
While most checks follow these basic rules, it’s useful to know about a few specific types of checks, how they’re used, and how they differ from one another.Attack Rolls
When you use a Strike action or any other attack action, you attempt a check called an attack roll.Let me clarify, since I didn't explicitly state it:
The Damage roll from Thief Racket's Dex to Damage is not penalized by Enfeebled or Clumsy RAW.
That seems like an error.
Clumsy never affects Damage from any Attack.
EDIT: I actually did explicitly state it in the very short post. I am talking about the damage roll. Not sure how that was missed when the first sentence, the title, and the second sentence all state as much.
Then Clumsy should have never been mentioned at all. It doesn't affect Damage ever. Not sure how that was missed.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the thief is just able tk use its Dex Modifier instead of the stregth one, but this doesn't transform its attacks into Dex attacks.
I see a thief being able to choose between dex and str as the stat which gives damage, but nothing more.
Everyone can attack using their DEX on Finesse weapons.
Everyone cannot deal DEX to damage though.
And this line in the Racket:
When you attack with a finesse melee weapon, you can add your Dexterity modifier to damage rolls instead of your Strength modifier.
Because it states "instead of your Strength modifier" makes the damage roll a non-STR Damage roll (in the same way that any other type of damage roll is not affected by Enfeebled that does not apply STR, such as a Crossbow).
The intent may be that it applies, but as written, it does not.
Clumsy should never have been mentioned
Clumsy is the "applies to DEX" condition.
Of course Clumsy doesn't apply to damage rolls, because 99% of the game doesn't have a damage roll contingent on DEX.
The only one that does is the Thief Racket.
If you're going to come in and comment on a post, I implore you to at least take the few seconds it takes to read and understand what the OP is saying before you just start spamming comments.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the thief is just able tk use its Dex Modifier instead of the stregth one, but this doesn't transform its attacks into Dex attacks.
I see a thief being able to choose between dex and str as the stat which gives damage, but nothing more.
Everyone can attack using their DEX on Finesse weapons.
Everyone cannot deal DEX to damage though.
And this line in the Racket:
When you attack with a finesse melee weapon, you can add your Dexterity modifier to damage rolls instead of your Strength modifier.Because it states "instead of your Strength modifier" makes the damage roll a non-STR Damage roll (in the same way that any other type of damage roll is not affected by Enfeebled that does not apply STR, such as a Crossbow).
The intent may be that it applies, but as written, it does not.
Clumsy should never have been mentionedClumsy is the "applies to DEX" condition.
Of course Clumsy doesn't apply to damage rolls, because 99% of the game doesn't have a damage roll contingent on DEX.
The only one that does is the Thief Racket.
If you're going to come in and comment on a post, I implore you to at least take the few seconds it takes to read and understand what the OP is saying before you just start spamming comments.
I wasn't spamming anything. It was a valid response to what you posted. You either made an error, or were making a very unclear and nonsensical point with that line. It's not a big deal.
No. It just tells that you can add str instead of dex. It doesn't change from str to dex check.
You can simply decide what stat to add.
Or else enfeebled wouldn't work ( and as you stated, it would be strange).
It may be that RAI that Enfeebled applies to Thief Racket damage attacks, but the RAW does not seem to indicate that.
For instance, if I make an attack with a Finesse weapon and I use my Dexterity, I apply Clumsy to that attack. But if I choose to use my STR (say I have only 1 point of STR lower, but a Clumsy 2 condition) I do not apply the Clumsy penalty.
This is a similar situation to that. Thief Dex to damage may be considered a STR-based damage roll, but if they apply their DEX to damage with a Finesse weapon, by their own reading, it is not.
Now logistically, applying a damage penalty is probably intended, but just asking how other's have run it.
No. It just tells that you can add str instead of dex. It doesn't change from str to dex check.
You can simply decide what stat to add.
Or else enfeebled wouldn't work ( and as you stated, it would be strange).
Enfeebled doesn't affect DEX based damage. It's not strange. It's working as intended.
It's honestly already a weaker Racket than Scoundrel anyway. DEX to Damage isn't that great of a benefit, especially considering how small a percentage of your total damage comes from your Ability mod.
As you can see, the variety of features gained by the thief racket is unquestionably less than compared to other racket options. The potency is debatable - but that dex to finesse weapon damage is the only unique benefit of the racket is not debatable, it's clear fact.
We very much disagree on the value of DEX to Damage on the Rogue. It allows them to funnel all of their ability focus into a single attribute and allows them to start with a +4 damage to their finesse weapon attacks without focusing STR. A Scoundrel cannot do that, and a Ruffian has to go full STR to accomplish that (and never gets Heavy armor to compensate for the loss in AC).
If you're fine with the extra buff, then that's totally fine, but I don't really see it as being "intended" so much as it is skirting the rules by a few words that don't take into account the exceptions DEX to damage ends up getting.
And that is why they also "deserve" damage penalty immunity. Which isn't even entirely unique to them since neither enfeebled nor clumsy reduces ranged weapon damage unless that weapon has the thrown or propulsive trait.
They've already been nerfed for applying Dex to Damage on Thrown Weapons.
...and never gets Heavy armor to compensate for the loss in ACThere is no "loss in AC" between what a light armor using character and a medium armor using character can achieve - they both cap out at 5 plus runes total between the armor bonus and dex cap.
That is true if you continue to max DEX, which if you're doing that strictly for the purposes of AC/Reflex DC, is less of a benefit than the Thief who can spend their STR bonus else where.
Strength applies to Athletics checks (and not Trip/Disarm weapons if they have the finesse trait as well), Damage rolls, and melee attacks with standard weapons.
So they effectively get to spend Ability Scores on things outside of STR entirely, because they don't need it at all.
The other two Rackets do need some DEX in order to stay comparable on AC.
This "funneling" that Thief Rogues can do is the power.
Note that wizards, clerics, druids, alchemists and sorcerers are also not particularly hurt by the Enfeebled condition.
Clerics and Druids certainly are, and of course they all are subject to the limitations of Concentrate trait, Manipulate trait, Stupified condition (which doesn't affect others).
Spells obviously get to sidestep this, because the condition deliberately doesn't apply to spells (it's not an exception).
A single Racket that ignores the default assumptions (STR to damage on a melee attack) that's exceptionally good doesn't need extra "damage immunity" benefits.
And at higher levels, Clumsy 2/3 isn't even uncommon (Synesthesia is level 5 spell), so that's a +3 net damage per attack for the Thief that no other melee damage roll in the game gets to ignore but the Thief.
Comparing melee attack rules to spells isn't really a fair comparison. Spells are balanced damage-wise around themselves already.
I'm not sure why you'd think enfeebled should affect dex-based anything? It's a strength debuff. Yes, it is nice for rogue thieves.
If Clumsy read "all Dex based rolls" instead of "all Dex-based Checks and DCS" then I'd agree with you, because it would affect their damage then.
As is, neither condition affects their damage.
That's why I was asking how other people run it. Are they applying Enfeebled? Are they applying Clumsy? Have they never encountered this interaction? Are they just giving the Thief this buff because they don't care?
That's really what I'm asking. There's no debate here about the RAW, the RAW just seems unintended consequences of how it is written. Though as HumbleGamer pointed out, one might interpret that a standard melee attack with a finesse weapon from a Thief Rogue is still considered "STR-Based" since it was originally STR-Based.
And given Paizo rolled back Thrown Weapon Dex to Damage, I would expect immunity to damage penalties is probably not intended.
And finesse weapons, even with dex added to damage, are balanced around strength weapons, that's why they have smaller damage dice.
Also Paizo didn't "roll back" Dexterity applying to thrown weapon damage - it was never a thing in PF2 rules because the default for ranged weapons, which thrown weapons are and have always been inf PF2 when you throw them, is no modifier to damage.
What does that have to do with the Thief Racket Dex to Damage?
That's so other classes can get access to funneling dex for attacks, because otherwise, they would have to focus STR to even be able to land attacks with melee weapons.
That is deliberate because DEX controls much more than STR does on the character sheet:
- Acrobatics, Stealth, Thievery, Athletics checks with Finesse/Trip Finesse/Disarm traits
- Finesse and Ranged Attack rolls
- AC, Reflex Saves, and Reflex DCs
STR Governs:
- Athletics Checks default
- Melee Attack rolls, Melee/Thrown Damage rolls, and interacts with Propulsive
- Bulk
And if you add Melee Damage rolls to DEX, and you do not need melee attack rolls that leaves:
- Athletics Checks not with a Finesse weapon that has the Action as a trait
- Bulk
The fact that DEX contains Defensive Stats and STR does not is the major difference.
The value alone in being able to funnel in such a tight math system (two defensive stats and all of your offensive stats are basically always using your highest ability score) is a 10% higher value than most other classes can achieve.
Can the Ruffian do comparable damage if he goes 18 STR? Absolutely.
Is his Reflex DC lower and his ability coverage less good (also worse at quite a few skills and with ranged weapons)? Also yes.
And it's also the Class DC for Thief, which makes it even better for them specifically.
What it has to do with the Thief Racket dex to damage is that it's not actually a huge enough benefit that reacting to the specific aspect of it not being reduced by enfeebled nor clumsy with "that's broken!" is actually unreasonable.
It's not that big of a deal. The thief racket feature is strong, yes, but that is fully accounted for by that being all that racket gets - you don't have to hunt out other ways to reign it in.
I'm not hunting for ways to reign it in?
And I never said "that's broken!" so please don't put words in my mouth. I stated it's a weird rules interaction that is probably not intended and the RAI seems to be that one or the other should apply.
So do I understand you correctly, you think it is 100% intentional that the Thief Racket, in addition to the slew of benefits it gets listed above which most consider to be "the best racket of the three", to exclude it from taking damage penalties while Enfeebled/Clumsy?
If so, then I have your answer, you ignore it because you want thieves to have damage immunity to Enfeebled.
Would you respect an errata that adds the line:
"This is still considered a STR-Based damage roll for the purposes of conditions and penalties."
Or no?
People have made the same argument Thrown Weapons getting Dex to damage (I even argued to keep it at one point, but I'll admit it was selfish because I had members in my group I would have to nerf that were using thrown weapons), but I do respect that its reasonable errata.
There's basically no argument for having thief racket affected damage rolls get reduced by the enfeebled condition that isn't effectively arguing "but what if the authors are incompetent?" Which sure, maybe they are, and this is one of the mistakes they've made... but assuming that's the case? Not a solid base of reasoning.
So you're saying that the "authors were incompetent" when they changed Thrown Weapons to no longer apply Dex to Damage?
Sorry to hear you feel that people are incompetent if they don't account for minute interactions like the above.
Could you point some of them out for me please?
I'll save you the trouble, they are ranged attacks and spell attacks.
And some Range attacks still do (if they are Thrown Weapons or Propulsive).
There are 0 melee attacks that do not suffer from Enfeebled that are not the Thief Racket melee attacks.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've been running a game for a party with a thief and I've noticed that too!
I, personally, don't think that that is incredibly powerful or anything though, but there is something about it that strikes me as an unintended benefit. It's so... Like, hidden. Right? Only noticeable when the rules interact during play. I haven't picked up on this interaction since recently, and the player hadn't either.
Extrapolating just because, I'd say that either clumsy is supposed to work like enfeebled for thieves, or enfeebled is supposed to somehow affect them as well. Although... In the similar way that enfeeble penalizes dex-meleee users that rely on finesseable weapons by ''only'' reducing their damage rolls, since they too use dexterity for their attack rolls, clumsy reduces thieves's(and also other characters that use dex to hit thanks to finesse weapons) attacks but not their damage. So, uhmm... Yeah, I don't know. It's not quite the same thing, but that might set some sort of precedence.
For now, we've been sticking with RAW. I recall from somewhere that the 2nd errata is supposed to show up sometime this month, so I assume that if this isn't intended, it will be pointed out there.
For now, we've been sticking with RAW. I recall from somewhere that the 2nd errata is supposed to show up sometime this month, so I assume that if this isn't intended, it will be pointed out there.
I would think it depends on if they noticed it. I too have a Thief and I just recently started seeing it. It's completely possible this didn't get noticed before they finalized the errata (round two could be here any day now, so I suppose we'll see).
Thanks for the info! What level are you all currently?
At early levels, this truly isn't a big deal, but when Enfeebled/Clumsy 2/3 come online, it's actually a decent change to the math (depending on duration length).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would think it depends on if they noticed it. I too have a Thief and I just recently started seeing it. It's completely possible this didn't get noticed before they finalized the errata (round two could be here any day now, so I suppose we'll see).
Yeah, that does make sense... Hopefully if it isn't intended it will be included there, though that it won't doesn't necesarilly mean that it actually is inteded. Because of what you pointed out and stuff. And pfft, don't worry about it!
Thanks for the info! What level are you all currently?
At early levels, this truly isn't a big deal, but when Enfeebled/Clumsy 2/3 come online, it's actually a decent change to the math (depending on duration length).
They're all level six right now! And hmmm, yeah, that might be true, with how tight the math is and everything. Up until now though it hasn't been too relevant to us.
Out of curiosity, how often does Enfeebled come up as a condition your PCs have to deal with? It is one of about 26 different negative conditions that can be imposed on PCs per the CRB. I'd think it would be a pretty rare event where this matters at all, and on those rare occasions where the target happens to be a Rogue Thief, it still wouldn't matter much.
Oh, barely at all, at least until now. Did I imply otherwise? Sorry! That wasn't my intention. I mean, I personally only made the connection that Midnightoker is talking about a little before rereading on the Redeemer's reaction for one of my players, when I was a little unsure on how it would intereact with enemies attacks that have the finesse trait. It was only when I considered enfeebled applying on these attacks as well that I ended up wondering about the thief. Then I read it and yeah, etc etc.
Though even if it doesn't matter much, I personally still would like to know. I got a little too curious, I guess!
They're all level six right now! And hmmm, yeah, that might be true, with how tight the math is and everything. Up until now though it hasn't been too relevant to us.
That's my concern as well. Makes little difference early on, but as soon as higher-level conditions come online, it starts to matter more.
OP, why are you being so hostile toward people who don't agree with your assertion that this is a problem?
I haven't tried to be hostile towards anyone, but I was frustrated with a single person who just didn't read the original post.
And for that I am sorry.
The rest of the exchanges I've had haven't really been hostile, unless disagreeing is inherently hostile.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe this has been answered before, but currently as written the Thief Racket Dex to Damage is immune to Enfeebled because Enfeebled specifies "Strength-based damage rolls" and Thief Dex to damage says "instead of Strength".
It is also immune to Clumsy, because Clumsy specifically states "checks and DCs" and damage rolls are not a check or a DC.
I would imagine that the Thief Racket is good enough as it is and this RAW immunity is probably not intended.
Has anyone dealt with this at the table and if so how did you handle it?
The rules are the rules. If it says it includes something, then it's included. If it doesn't, then it isn't. It's pretty clear on that front.
Whether that's intended or not is hard to say. The different verbiage used in Enfeebled (rolls) compared to Clumsy (checks) seems deliberate enough, partly because Strength usually added to more than just checks, whereas Dexterity usually doesn't, but I imagine it's specific enough to encompass it.
I don't necessarily see a problem with a GM ruling it would affect the damage rolls, but only as long as the GM acknowledges that it's an alteration to the rules, and is changed because it makes sense given the situation at hand.