I think I've seen in the past rules that said something akin to "if the attack deals fire damage it gains the fire trait" but I can't seem to find anything of that sort now that I search for it.
Do weapons and attacks with things like fire pois and lit torches really don't have the fire trait (as an example)?
Indeed. Fire trait for effects implies fire damage (see below), but fire damage does not require the Fire trait, as indeed exemplified by the fire poi.
Trait : Fire
Source Core Rulebook pg. 632 2.0
Effects with the fire trait deal fire damage or either conjure or manipulate fire. Those that manipulate fire have no effect in an area without fire. Creatures with this trait consist primarily of fire or have a magical connection to that element. Planes with this trait are composed of flames that continually burn with no fuel source. Fire planes are extremely hostile to non-fire creatures.
is it only me that find that at least.. weird?
I mean the fact that if Traits are suppossed to describe what things do, a thing doing fire damage doesn't have the Fire trait.
And on that note, why does then Flaming rune has the Fire trait, but a lit torch or a fire poi doesn't? Aren't they both items doing/adding fire damage?
Could it be that it's just for weapons?
- A fire poi as well as a torch has no fire trait.
- Alchemist's fire has the fire trait
- Alchemical crossbow has no trait
and
- If you charge your alchemical crossbow with a bottle of Alchemist's Fire, it doesn't gain the fire trait ( it doesn't gain any trait, regardless the bottle you decide to use ).
HumbleGamer wrote: Could it be that it's just for weapons?
- A fire poi as well as a torch has no fire trait.
- Alchemist's fire has the fire trait
- Alchemical crossbow has no trait
and
- If you charge your alchemical crossbow with a bottle of Alchemist's Fire, it doesn't gain the fire trait ( it doesn't gain any trait, regardless the bottle you decide to use ).
it's not just weapons though.
if "fire" doesn't grant the trait, then that means that any item that doesn't explicitly have it doesn't get it, like a campfire as an example since neither "wood" nor "fire" has the trait.
it's basically that *some* items have it (alchemist bombs, flaming rune) and some others don't.
it's just inconsistent at this point if an item has or hasn't the Trait which is at least "weird" imo.
shroudb wrote: HumbleGamer wrote: Could it be that it's just for weapons?
- A fire poi as well as a torch has no fire trait.
- Alchemist's fire has the fire trait
- Alchemical crossbow has no trait
and
- If you charge your alchemical crossbow with a bottle of Alchemist's Fire, it doesn't gain the fire trait ( it doesn't gain any trait, regardless the bottle you decide to use ).
it's not just weapons though.
if "fire" doesn't grant the trait, then that means that any item that doesn't explicitly have it doesn't get it, like a campfire as an example since neither "wood" nor "fire" has the trait.
it's basically that *some* items have it (alchemist bombs, flaming rune) and some others don't.
it's just inconsistent at this point if an item has or hasn't the Trait which is at least "weird" imo. I can follow your reasoning, but by reading the fire trait it seems it is meant to non natural effects ( which also includes alchemical stuff ).
Apart from planes and creatures, it explicitly says "effects which manipulates or conjure".
Anyway, even if just for a matter of convenience, I see no harm in giving the fire tag to anything which uses the fire element ( unless ofc they had a specific reason not to include some items in that category ).
HumbleGamer wrote: shroudb wrote: HumbleGamer wrote: Could it be that it's just for weapons?
- A fire poi as well as a torch has no fire trait.
- Alchemist's fire has the fire trait
- Alchemical crossbow has no trait
and
- If you charge your alchemical crossbow with a bottle of Alchemist's Fire, it doesn't gain the fire trait ( it doesn't gain any trait, regardless the bottle you decide to use ).
it's not just weapons though.
if "fire" doesn't grant the trait, then that means that any item that doesn't explicitly have it doesn't get it, like a campfire as an example since neither "wood" nor "fire" has the trait.
it's basically that *some* items have it (alchemist bombs, flaming rune) and some others don't.
it's just inconsistent at this point if an item has or hasn't the Trait which is at least "weird" imo. I can follow your reasoning, but by reading the fire trait it seems it is meant to non natural effects ( which also includes alchemical stuff ).
Apart from planes and creatures, it explicitly says "effects which manipulates or conjure".
Anyway, even if just for a matter of convenience, I see no harm in giving the fire tag to anything which uses the fire element ( unless ofc they had a specific reason not to include some items in that category ). it's just that we already have Magical and Alchemical as traits. So having Fire also being "only magical or alchemical fire" seems kinda redundant.
What about the actions themselves? Like, maybe a weapon with a flaming rune doesn't gain the fire trait, but the strike itself deals fire damage and thus has the fire trait?
I would figure the same would be true for a weapon that has Clerical emblazoned energy on it. If the energy type is included in the damage from a strike using the weapon, even if the weapon itself doesn't have that trait, the strike would by virtue of the damage being dealt.
Usually, mundane effects do not have the fire trait, and magical/alchemical/non-natural effects or items have it.
And as we know that some things in SoM might have interactions with those traits (Elementalist class archetype), it might have its importance.
Weirdly enough I remember people talking about the rule the OP mentioned, but as far as I can tell it's not actually a rule anymore. Maybe it was a playtest thing?
shroudb wrote: is it only me that find that at least.. weird?
I mean the fact that if Traits are suppossed to describe what things do, a thing doing fire damage doesn't have the Fire trait.
No because the Fire Poi does mixed damage some buldgeoning and some fire. Which is why the trait is not on the weapon. It has specific rules.
Fire is a trait. It shows in 4 categories (Elemental/ Energy/ Monster/ Planar)
Fire is also a damage type.
Sounds complex but its not. You can work it out from context easily enough.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Squiggit wrote: Weirdly enough I remember people talking about the rule the OP mentioned, but as far as I can tell it's not actually a rule anymore. Maybe it was a playtest thing? Intentionally removed in the 2nd CRB printing, if I recall.
There was no mention in the patch notes about removing it, so the only way you would be able to tell it was even there would be to have a copy of the first printing, which a lot of people do. As far as I know it's unknown if it was intentionally removed or not, as no developer has acknowledged it.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Cordell Kintner wrote: There was no mention in the patch notes about removing it, so the only way you would be able to tell it was even there would be to have a copy of the first printing, which a lot of people do. As far as I know it's unknown if it was intentionally removed or not, as no developer has acknowledged it. It has been confirmed as known and intentional but not in any "official" sense so I am hesitant to say by whom or link to the source. I don't want to encourage latching onto the post or taking a statement out of context. But perhaps my word is enough to go off of.
Recent threads in Rules Discussion
|
