Grasping Reach and a Greatpick


Rules Discussion

51 to 70 of 70 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

Aw3som3-117 wrote:
Please tell me you at least understand the concept I'm explaining about the order of operations

I understand it, it is just a fundamentally flawed premise that reflects nothing in the rules. There is no order of operations. There are just two abilities you must at all times account for. Grasping Reach applies before Fatal activates. It also applies after Fatal activates. It continues to apply at all times until you turn it off because it is, once activated, essentially a passive effect. The concept of checking for grasping reach once and then never looking at the ability again does not relate to any actual rule.

Quote:
It doesn't cease to function. If something increases damage by 10, and then an ability nullifies damage, does that mean that that the increase in damage ceased to function, or that you need a special exception to overrule the increase? Of course not.

If you had an ability that reduced the damage you dealt by 3 and a second ability that increased the damage you dealt by 10, would you argue that you must deal 10 extra damage because it applies second and overwrites the damage penalty? If that does not make sense and you think 10-3 is 7, then stop doing the same thing here.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
swoosh wrote:
Quote:
It doesn't cease to function. If something increases damage by 10, and then an ability nullifies damage, does that mean that that the increase in damage ceased to function, or that you need a special exception to overrule the increase? Of course not.
If you had an ability that reduced the damage you dealt by 3 and a second ability that increased the damage you dealt by 10, would you argue that you must deal 10 extra damage because it applies second and overwrites the damage penalty? If that does not make sense and you think 10-3 is 7, then stop doing the same thing here.

The level of intelligence you clearly think I have is quite literally insulting. No, I don't think that, nor is it remotely similar to my argument.


Yeah, seriously, that's kind of insulting. Either a way obvious strawman or just a disregard of what they're saying.

The -3 is "triggered" by using the action to activate it. There's not even a concrete indication that the reduced damage is a "passive effect" that applies no matter what your weapon's damage die changes to — it simply says that the extended grasp's damage die is reduced by one step compared to the normal one. It's just as likely, or even moreso, that it's more like pulling out a slightly different weapon than activating a buff and debuff.

(And yes, order of operations and what kind of effect it is matters, and that isn't said explicitly, so there can be multiple opinions on this without anyone being made out to be a dunce.)

The +10 is "triggered" in an uncommon event and has wording that says you set the bonus to it, without regard to what the damage die was before. It works like this because most, but not all, fatal weapons are raised two steps. Which would mean that, yes, if grasping reach "happens" once and isn't a persistent debuff as you interpret it, the +10 happens second and overwrites it, because that's usually what happens.

Trying to oversimplify to numbers is pretty pointless when the numbers themselves have different rules and ambiguous applications.

(It's still just +2-8 damage on average when it activates, by the way, depending on where one is in the game, with the weapon most suited to delivering big crits and being kinda mediocre otherwise. It doesn't strike me as "too good to be true" enough to warrant special attention against it.)


swoosh wrote:
Pumpkinhead11 wrote:
One very real issue with saying Grasping Reach works over Fatal is no matter how it’s ruled, one of the rules will betray the other.

Fatal bumps the weapon up to d12 and gives you an additional d12 die. Grasping Reach reduces the weapon damage d12s to d10s.

There is no betrayal because both abilities function. They just happen to mitigate each other just like any other bonus and penalty applying simultaneously would.

I’m glad you brought up the Penalty part. Would you be able to show me where in Grasping Reach it says the ability is a Penalty? Is there anything in the ability that is italicized to indicate it should be considered a penalty by the standards listed in the CRB? Is it an Item penalty? Status penalty? Circumstance penalty? This has not been addressed as far as i am aware.

A more fair comparison of Deadly and Fatal, and how they would balance against each would be by comparing an Ogre Hook against the Greatpick.

The Damage on a crit will scale to :

Greatpick: 4d10 + 1d12 + bonus + penalty

Ogre Hook: 4d8 + 3d10 + bonus + penalty

This is if we assume Grasping Reach is affecting the Fatal die.

In this instance it’s fairly obvious that the Deadly trait is being favored over Fatal by a substantial amount. This is why i say it would be an unbalanced ruling.

As for the Two-Hand trait; it states that you are changing the weapon die, and specifically does not say it increases the weapon die; even if we could more easily explain it as such. The Two-Hand trait has been addressed before as a reasonable judgement call. To each their own on how they rule it, but i would say it works for two-hand trait just fine.

Horizon Hunters

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Aw3som3-117 wrote:
Cordell Kintner wrote:
So you're basically saying Fatal can never be reduced because... reasons? It doesn't say it can't be reduced, so why are you insisting that it can't? Like with your example with Slowed and Stunned, they have explicit rules saying they dont stack, yet Fatal has nothing that says it wouldn't stack with abilities that lower die size.
Damage can be reduced, sure. And if something allowed you to reduce the damage die on a hit for some kind of effect, then I think it would be pretty clear that the reduction would occur after the change to d12. However, I think grasping reach is, for all intents and purposes, changing the weapon's base damage die, and as mentioned previously, we all know what a d8 weapon with d12 fatal trait would do. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to think it's changing the damage die upon the attack landing. Again, a fair interpretation, but one that seems unlikely to be what was intended in my opinion.

No, I am going with what Grasping Reach says and lowering the damage die because you don't have a firm grasp on the weapon. Fatal still implies you are wielding a weapon in it's intentional way, so if you do something that lowers your force with the weapon it only makes sense that it would also be less Fatal.

The only rule about changing Damage Die is that they are like bonuses and penalties, only the highest or lowest change applies, but you can apply both a bonus and a penalty. This doesn't mean you can completely ignore the penalty because you feel like it.


The penalty is being proposed to be ignored because of the wording of the fatal trait, but go off...


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

For what it's worth, I think this is how I'd rule the respective damages after rereading through the fatal and deadly traits and considering this thread with Grasping Reach on a Critical Hit (If a player really wanted me to give an honest ruling and not just let them have their fun):

+1 flaming greatpick: (1d10 + 1d6 fire) x 2 + 1d10 fatal
+1 flaming ogre hook: (1d8 + 1d6 fire) x 2 + 1d8 deadly

and on a normal hit:

+1 flaming greatpick: 1d8 + 1d6 fire
+1 flaming ogre hook: 1d8 + 1d6 fire

I'd say both traits are both being modified by the grasping reach because (1) there isn't any notion of timing written into the feat and (2) the traits each add weapon damage dice that the feat calls out.

(1) The greatpick deals a damage die of a d8 because grasping reach applies to the original d10, and deals a d10 on a crit because the fatal trait changes it to a d12 which is then reduced to a d10. This happens because there is no mention of timing or order of operations under Grasping Reach.

(2) Both extra damage dice are similarly affected because they are referred to as weapon damage dice. Fatal technically only says 'damage die', but I believe they are referencing the same thing in that case.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
swoosh wrote:
Aw3som3-117 wrote:
Please tell me you at least understand the concept I'm explaining about the order of operations

I understand it, it is just a fundamentally flawed premise that reflects nothing in the rules. There is no order of operations. There are just two abilities you must at all times account for. Grasping Reach applies before Fatal activates. It also applies after Fatal activates. It continues to apply at all times until you turn it off because it is, once activated, essentially a passive effect. The concept of checking for grasping reach once and then never looking at the ability again does not relate to any actual rule.

Quote:
It doesn't cease to function. If something increases damage by 10, and then an ability nullifies damage, does that mean that that the increase in damage ceased to function, or that you need a special exception to overrule the increase? Of course not.
If you had an ability that reduced the damage you dealt by 3 and a second ability that increased the damage you dealt by 10, would you argue that you must deal 10 extra damage because it applies second and overwrites the damage penalty? If that does not make sense and you think 10-3 is 7, then stop doing the same thing here.

Because you will have already checked and applied the ability once you begin resolving damage. The ability is already applied when you are normally rolling D8s for your damage rolls. It does not get applied again when something after it has been applied that changes it to a specific value, because then it's a double application. You don't subtract 3 and then subtract 3 again.

Also, wrong comparison is wrong. The fundamental difference is that regardless of the result, the value must equal 10. You could do 6 + 4, or even 7 + 3, but the math problem is that the value must equal 10, or the entire equation is incorrect. That is the RAW.

Horizon Hunters

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
(2) Both extra damage dice are similarly affected because they are referred to as weapon damage dice. Fatal technically only says 'damage die', but I believe they are referencing the same thing in that case.

Deadly clearly states that it is unaffected by changing the damage die. Fatal does not state this, so it should be affected normally.

thewastedwalrus wrote:

Because you will have already checked and applied the ability once you begin resolving damage. The ability is already applied when you are normally rolling D8s for your damage rolls. It does not get applied again when something after it has been applied that changes it to a specific value, because then it's a double application. You don't subtract 3 and then subtract 3 again.

Also, wrong comparison is wrong. The fundamental difference is that regardless of the result, the value must equal 10. You could do 6 + 4, or even 7 + 3, but the math problem is that the value must equal 10, or the entire equation is incorrect. That is the RAW.

We have a trait that increases damage to X, and an ability that decreases damage by Y. Why would X overwrite Y?

As thewastedwalrus said there is no timing involved when you change damage die. All changes to damage die, whether it be Grasping Reach, Deific Weapon, Deadly Simplicity, Crossbow Ace, Two-Handed, Jousting, or Fatal, occur at the same time: when you roll your damage die. Until you roll damage, the die size adjustments don't do anything.

Also, you can not increase damage size more than once, meaning the larger increase would overwrite any smaller increases (so no Deadly Simplicity + Fatal). This does not mean you can't decrease it more than once though.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Cordell Kintner wrote:
thewastedwalrus wrote:
(2) Both extra damage dice are similarly affected because they are referred to as weapon damage dice. Fatal technically only says 'damage die', but I believe they are referencing the same thing in that case.
Deadly clearly states that it is unaffected by changing the damage die. Fatal does not state this, so it should be affected normally.

Ah, I totally missed that last sentence. Thanks for the catch.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cordell Kintner wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
(2) Both extra damage dice are similarly affected because they are referred to as weapon damage dice. Fatal technically only says 'damage die', but I believe they are referencing the same thing in that case.

Deadly clearly states that it is unaffected by changing the damage die. Fatal does not state this, so it should be affected normally.

thewastedwalrus wrote:

Because you will have already checked and applied the ability once you begin resolving damage. The ability is already applied when you are normally rolling D8s for your damage rolls. It does not get applied again when something after it has been applied that changes it to a specific value, because then it's a double application. You don't subtract 3 and then subtract 3 again.

Also, wrong comparison is wrong. The fundamental difference is that regardless of the result, the value must equal 10. You could do 6 + 4, or even 7 + 3, but the math problem is that the value must equal 10, or the entire equation is incorrect. That is the RAW.

We have a trait that increases damage to X, and an ability that decreases damage by Y. Why would X overwrite Y?

As thewastedwalrus said there is no timing involved when you change damage die. All changes to damage die, whether it be Grasping Reach, Deific Weapon, Deadly Simplicity, Crossbow Ace, Two-Handed, Jousting, or Fatal, occur at the same time: when you roll your damage die. Until you roll damage, the die size adjustments don't do anything.

Also, you can not increase damage size more than once, meaning the larger increase would overwrite any smaller increases (so no Deadly Simplicity + Fatal). This does not mean you can't decrease it more than once though.

(Side note, the quote labels are incorrect. I know you can't edit them back, but just clarifying.)

Because X is a substitution that happens to also be an increase, whereas Y is a reduction and not also a substitution. This also assumes Y comes after X, when we have someone on your side of the argument saying Y applies before X, thus altering X. It can't be both, because now you're applying Y twice, when it's supposed to be a single reduction.

So then you are saying Fatal D12 does not actually change dice to D12 because Grasping Reach somehow overwrite Trait values, even though there is no RAW that gives it that power. Even despite that, then what does Fatal D12 change dice to, if Fatal D12 does not actually mean Fatal D12? D2s are just as likely a candidate then.

You can't have it both ways. If bonuses and penalties of the same type don't stack, neither would steps up or down in dice. Just as well, if we're talking strict RAW, Grasping Reach does nothing as there are no rules for decreasing damage dice, so all you're proposing is semi-reasonable GM FIAT, which is about as much rules as is making a Fortitude save versus forced urination in the trouser region from a critically failed Fear effect.

Horizon Hunters

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Darkssol the Painbringer wrote:
So then you are saying Fatal D12 does not actually change dice to D12 because Grasping Reach somehow overwrite Trait values, even though there is no RAW that gives it that power. Even despite that, then what does Fatal D12 change dice to, if Fatal D12 does not actually mean Fatal D12? D2s are just as likely a candidate then.

Fatal does work, it increases to D12 and adds a D12. But AFTER that it's reduced, but the additional D12 is not. This doesn't ignore the trait, it just modifies it. The opposite way completely ignores the reducing of the die size.

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
If bonuses and penalties of the same type don't stack...

But they do stack, you just use the largest version of that penalty. If you have a +2 Status Bonus to AC, and a -1 Status Penalty to AC, your total net is +1. The same should apply to increasing and decreasing dice./

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
there are no rules for decreasing damage dice...

This here is the problem. I am inferring how things SHOULD be, based on how Increasing damage dice work. This rule is very similar to the Bonuses and Penalties rule, so I am inferring that decreasing die size should work in the same way. There needs to be an FAQ or rules added on how reducing die sizes works in conjuntion to increasing them.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Why is the additional dice not reduced? It's weapon damage dice that is equal to your weapon's adjusted die size that is added after the damage is multiplied. If your weapon's dice is reduced, so is the Fatal value by proxy, and others of your argument even claim as such.

We're not talking off-setting, we are talking about how two +1's or two -1's don't equal twice their value, respectively. You literally argued that they stack negative-wise but not positive-wise because the rules only outright called out positive stacking in that instance.

Then that's not a true mirrored inverse of the rule. The additive dice scaling rules state that multiple effects which adjust die steps up do not stack. If you want it to work the opposite way, the same restriction of die steps decreasing should not stack, either.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Let me put this as essentially as possible, cause I think all this nitty gritty about inferring rules is just obscuring the point.

According to you all, 1000 fatal crits with grasping reach and 1000 fatal crits without grasping reach will average out to the exact same damage. It sure sounds like grasping reach is doing nothing here except giving you reach. It's a relatively minor thing given the obscurity of the feat, but I file "gaining reach with no drawback" under too good to be true, given that the wording of grasping reach pretty much explicitly says that an attack with it is less effective than an attack without it.

By your ruling, fatal crits are equally as effective with or without grasping reach, which means its drawback is not being applied in those instances, even though its benefit is.

And miss me with "but then fatal isn't doing anything" because it's still adding a die.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
theservantsllcleanitup wrote:

Let me put this as essentially as possible, cause I think all this nitty gritty about inferring rules is just obscuring the point.

According to you all, 1000 fatal crits with grasping reach and 1000 fatal crits without grasping reach will average out to the exact same damage. It sure sounds like grasping reach is doing nothing here except giving you reach. It's a relatively minor thing given the obscurity of the feat, but I file "gaining reach with no drawback" under too good to be true, given that the wording of grasping reach pretty much explicitly says that an attack with it is less effective than an attack without it.

By your ruling, fatal crits are equally as effective with or without grasping reach, which means its drawback is not being applied in those instances, even though its benefit is.

And miss me with "but then fatal isn't doing anything" because it's still adding a die.

Actually the example you gave is a hyperbolic one. Not incorrect, but also not a fair one; but i can work with it.

First let’s use 100 Strikes as a baseline.

With 100 Strikes a Fighter will Crit with 30 of them(statistically speaking). This would mean that Grasping Reach die reduction is being applied to 70 Strikes. Well that doesn’t seem like the die reduction is being ignored; it actually seems like it’s working as intended. Oh, that was also the initial Strike; meaning that’s before applying MAP.

So with 100 Strikes at -5 MAP a Fighter will Crit with 5 of them. At MAP -10 this ends up being the same 5%, or 5 Crits, because of the Nat 20. This is also with at level enemies and lower. Once you include higher level enemies and bosses the number of crits will tank even farther down.

So by the time we hit 1000 Crits we have swung somewhere around 3000 - 3500 Strikes at -0 MAP. This is also using Fighter as the assumed class. If we use Barbarian or Ranger, for example, you lower the expected results by and additional 10% at all Strikes(Flurry Hunter’s Edge will indeed fluctuate these numbers a bit).


2 people marked this as a favorite.
theservantsllcleanitup wrote:

Let me put this as essentially as possible, cause I think all this nitty gritty about inferring rules is just obscuring the point.

According to you all, 1000 fatal crits with grasping reach and 1000 fatal crits without grasping reach will average out to the exact same damage. It sure sounds like grasping reach is doing nothing here except giving you reach. It's a relatively minor thing given the obscurity of the feat, but I file "gaining reach with no drawback" under too good to be true, given that the wording of grasping reach pretty much explicitly says that an attack with it is less effective than an attack without it.

By your ruling, fatal crits are equally as effective with or without grasping reach, which means its drawback is not being applied in those instances, even though its benefit is.

And miss me with "but then fatal isn't doing anything" because it's still adding a die.

If you're talking about balance, then:

First of all, that's not relevant to the question being asked.
Secondly, you're ignoring all the non-critical hits. Yes, certain downsides in the game apply only in certain circumstances. If I'm enfeebled and use a finesse or ranged weapon, then "it sure sounds like enfeebled didn't do anything / was mitigated". Uh... yeah, and?
And lastly, not only is this ignoring non-crits, it's also ignoring that the character is going out of their way to even get that benefit to begin with. Synergies exist in the game. That's always been the case.

I can understand, whether I agree with them or not, the argument that grasping reach should apply after the die is set to a d12, like an aura, as a couple people have claimed it should. However, an argument that "well, but I think that's too strong" or "that mitigates the effects of grasping reach in a specific scenario... and using a specific weapon." Yeah, I'm not buying it. That's not an argument, that's an opinion about what you want the ability to do, not about what the book says it does. In other words: homebrew.


Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

Why is the additional dice not reduced? It's weapon damage dice that is equal to your weapon's adjusted die size that is added after the damage is multiplied. If your weapon's dice is reduced, so is the Fatal value by proxy, and others of your argument even claim as such.

We're not talking off-setting, we are talking about how two +1's or two -1's don't equal twice their value, respectively. You literally argued that they stack negative-wise but not positive-wise because the rules only outright called out positive stacking in that instance.

Then that's not a true mirrored inverse of the rule. The additive dice scaling rules state that multiple effects which adjust die steps up do not stack. If you want it to work the opposite way, the same restriction of die steps decreasing should not stack, either.

I will agree with most of this. There is a ruling in the book on extra dice that are added by specifically triggered abilities.

Doubling and Halving Damage CRB pg 451 wrote:
Sometimes you’ll need to halve or double an amount of damage, such as when the outcome of your Strike is a critical hit, or when you succeed at a basic Reflex save against a spell. When this happens, you roll the damage normally, adding all the normal modifiers, bonuses, and penalties. Then you double or halve the amount as appropriate (rounding down if you halved it). The GM might allow you to roll the dice twice and double the modifiers, bonuses, and penalties instead of doubling the entire result, but this usually works best for singletarget attacks or spells at low levels when you have a small number of damage dice to roll. 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.

Oh, and the book also seems to call the Fatal Trait a specifically triggered ability and likens it to the Flaming Weapon Rune. Paizo’s words; not mine.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
theservantsllcleanitup wrote:

Let me put this as essentially as possible, cause I think all this nitty gritty about inferring rules is just obscuring the point.

According to you all, 1000 fatal crits with grasping reach and 1000 fatal crits without grasping reach will average out to the exact same damage. It sure sounds like grasping reach is doing nothing here except giving you reach. It's a relatively minor thing given the obscurity of the feat, but I file "gaining reach with no drawback" under too good to be true, given that the wording of grasping reach pretty much explicitly says that an attack with it is less effective than an attack without it.

By your ruling, fatal crits are equally as effective with or without grasping reach, which means its drawback is not being applied in those instances, even though its benefit is.

And miss me with "but then fatal isn't doing anything" because it's still adding a die.

It is applying though, because for all of those criticals, there are plenty of regular hits in-between that have the reduced die size, which is still affected. Fatal is intended to boost the effectiveness of the attack to a specific level, regardless of what its previous level of effectiveness was. There is still a drawback, where not making a critical strike is much less effective than making a critical strike, and you aren't factoring that in because you're so hyper-focused on the critical aspect that you forget it's not a guarantee in this game. A simple DPR calculation proves that it indeed does affect your overall effectiveness.


Pumpkinhead11 wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

Why is the additional dice not reduced? It's weapon damage dice that is equal to your weapon's adjusted die size that is added after the damage is multiplied. If your weapon's dice is reduced, so is the Fatal value by proxy, and others of your argument even claim as such.

We're not talking off-setting, we are talking about how two +1's or two -1's don't equal twice their value, respectively. You literally argued that they stack negative-wise but not positive-wise because the rules only outright called out positive stacking in that instance.

Then that's not a true mirrored inverse of the rule. The additive dice scaling rules state that multiple effects which adjust die steps up do not stack. If you want it to work the opposite way, the same restriction of die steps decreasing should not stack, either.

I will agree with most of this. There is a ruling in the book on extra dice that are added by specifically triggered abilities.

Doubling and Halving Damage CRB pg 451 wrote:
Sometimes you’ll need to halve or double an amount of damage, such as when the outcome of your Strike is a critical hit, or when you succeed at a basic Reflex save against a spell. When this happens, you roll the damage normally, adding all the normal modifiers, bonuses, and penalties. Then you double or halve the amount as appropriate (rounding down if you halved it). The GM might allow you to roll the dice twice and double the modifiers, bonuses, and penalties instead of doubling the entire result, but this usually works best for singletarget attacks or spells at low levels when you have a small number of damage dice to roll. 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.
Oh, and the book also seems to call the Fatal Trait a specifically triggered ability and likens it to the Flaming Weapon Rune. Paizo’s words; not...

This is a non-sequitur. That rule is for on-critical effects not being doubled. That doesn't mean it's not weapon damage whose dice are affected by die size increases/decreases.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It’s perfectly apt to answering your question. If the Fatal Die isn’t doubled(or halved) then it’s not affected by the penalties. Basically you roll the Fatal die after you’ve calculated all the normal damage for a crit; which means bonuses and penalties.

You do bring up a point that it might be affected if Grasping Reach isn’t considered a penalty; but we have yet to hear what kind of penalty it should be considered. I would lean towards untyped penalty at best, but I’m not looking to answer for anyone else.

51 to 70 of 70 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / Rules Discussion / Grasping Reach and a Greatpick All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.