| 7 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Let's say I have a nuar soldier.
This nuar has the Unarmed Mauler gear boost to give her unarmed strike the Wound critical effect. In addition, she is a 9th level Gloom Gunner with Ominous Power, which gives the Intimidate critical effect to any weapon she uses, in addition to one other critical effect that the weapon has. Finally, she has Lung Puncture, which adds Fatigue for 1d4 rounds to whatever other critical effects she has.
Effect the First
Effect the Second
Effect the Third
Can she use all three if she crits with her horns? Ominous Power only says you can stack with one effect, but Lung Puncture seems to be outside the scope of regular order of crit effects.
Also, Ominous Power talks about other critical effects that the weapon has; Lung Puncture is NOT a trait of the weapon; it's an effect that I apply myself that expressly is in addition to other effects (plural). This contrasts the Gloom Gunner trait, because that specifically gives the Ominous Fusion temporarily to the weapon itself with the 5th level ability, Shadow Fusion.
I can see arguments for just two effects, or for all three, but I think it depends on what the intention was with feats like Lung Puncture, Slam Down, and Blood in Their Eyes. Are they outside the regular order of effects and just applied after you do the others, or would they not stack with other effects that add to your critical effects?
All three is definitely out.
the ominous fusion in addition to one other critical hit effect the weapon has.
Is specifically there to stop you from piling this on with other critical hit effects. If you are applying two critical hit effects already this one cannot activate.
Also, Ominous Power talks about other critical effects that the weapon has; Lung Puncture is NOT a trait of the weapon; it's an effect that I apply myself that expressly is in addition to other effects (plural)
Lung puncture
critical hit with a weapon The weapon doesn't come with the fatigued critical hit but that is irrelevant. It's still going through the weapon. The save, effect, and other abilities are all based on the weapon.
There is no order. If you have a basket and the watermelon gives you room for one more fruit it doesn't matter if the water melon is in first second or third. It would be impossible for the clause "one other critical hit effect " to ever work if you could just apply it again and again and again because of an alleged order
critical hit with a weapon The weapon doesn't come with the fatigued critical hit but that is irrelevant. It's still going through the weapon. The save, effect, and other abilities are all based on the weapon.
Technically Lung Puncture doesn't have a save. The only thing Lung Puncture cares about is whether it's a piercing weapon. If Piercing = Yes, then 1d4 rounds of fatigue.
There is no order. If you have a basket and the watermelon gives you room for one more fruit it doesn't matter if the water melon is in first second or third. It would be impossible for the clause "one other critical hit effect " to ever work if you could just apply it again and again and again because of an alleged order
This is a reasonable interpretation, but it does say that it's "in addition to any other critical effect;" last time I took off my socks to do higher math, I added things sequentially. The implication is that it happens after you do the other effects.
According to how it's written, I take it that I do the weapon's effect, then I do the "one extra" effect, then I check to see if it was piercing, then apply the feat (which, again, isn't, and will never be, a property of the weapon, it's a property of my feat choices).
From my reading I think the 3 would stack.
So weapon has the Wound Crit effect.
Ominous adds 1 extra Crit effect.
Lung puncture does not add a Crit effect, it imposes the condition.
With abilities being specific about things being a 'Crit effect', Lung Puncture does not call it a Crit effect.
Think of it like Rend, it is not an additional attack, it is an additional effect when triggered.
Technically Lung Puncture doesn't have a save. The only thing Lung Puncture cares about is whether it's a piercing weapon. If Piercing = Yes, then 1d4 rounds of fatigue.
It doesn't have a save but it is still a critical hit effect with a weapon and an item level. That's how critical hits work in this game. If some kind of armor stopped critical hit effects from items with x i level or less it would still be effective.
This is a reasonable interpretation, but it does say that it's "in addition to any other critical effect;" last time I took off my socks to do higher math, I added things sequentially. The implication is that it happens after you do the other effects.
Addition and multiplication don't care about order of operations at all. You can add it forward to back, add the middles, find the numbers that add up to ten then add the rest etc.
By your argument you cannot make the clause "one other critical hit effect " mean anything. Because you simply add one other critical hit effect at a time. If your interpretation renders an obvious prohibition as a null set that is a bad interpretation.
According to how it's written, I take it that I do the weapon's effect, then I do the "one extra" effect, then I check to see if it was piercing, then apply the feat (which, again, isn't, and will never be, a property of the weapon, it's a property of my feat choices).
So you do the exact same thing as player B, but player B does them in a different order, and you get more effect than player B does.
Addition does NOT work like that. Addition shouldn't care about the order of operations. If you add things in a different order from someone else and you get a different number one of you messed up.
This is a very hard and very objective no. If a watermelon fits in a basket with one other fruit , then you cannot put a watermelon then one other fruit in a basket with another fruit. You've exceeded the limit.
Critical Hit Effects
If your attack roll is a natural 20 and your attack total is equal to or greater than your target’s AC, your attack is a critical hit. A critical hit means that you roll your damage twice (adding to each roll all your usual bonuses, including any additional damage from special abilities) and then add the rolls together to determine the damage dealt.
Some weapons have an additional critical effect that applies when you score a critical hit. These effects are as follows.
Critical hit effects are by definition tied to the weapon.
So far , this argument
1) requires At best, that something without a specified order to be done in a certain way
2) Must assume that the order matters
3) Has to create a critical hit effect independent of the weapon delivering the hit, which is a new thing.
ALL of those are unlikely. Together they're incredibly unlikely.
Lung puncture states that it is a critical hit effect in its description.
Ominous power states that it only works with one other critical hit effect.
RAW there cannot be another critical hit effect included with the two.
Now, balance wise? Critical hit effects are pretty low power, so I'd allow it. I just don't think it's rules legal.
Lung puncture states that it is a critical hit effect in its description.
Ominous power states that it only works with one other critical hit effect.
RAW there cannot be another critical hit effect included with the two.
Now, balance wise? Critical hit effects are pretty low power, so I'd allow it. I just don't think it's rules legal.
By RAW, the weapon can only have one crit effect + Ominous. Again, you could read it that Lung Puncture is not an effect of the weapon.
And yeah, it's the same argument with Devastating Fusion.
You're choosing two critical effects, but they're crit effects of the weapon, not a crit effect added by a feat because you did a particular type of damage. The rider feat is "in addition to any other effect." Emphasis on the "any."
I don't know why this would be written in this way if it wasn't intended to work. Paizo has been pretty careful with crit riders so far.
I think it's worth a FAQ-ing.
I don't see how applying them in different orders changes the outcome:
Because your ones aren't fungible.
If I add
1 and 1 and... then I can't add 1 more = 2
I add Ominous power (can be added with one other crit effect)
Then I add Lung puncture
Ominous power can work with lung puncture. Lung puncture can work with Ominous power.
Then try to add Unarmed mauler... it can't go in. Lung puncture's+1 is ominous power and ominous powers +1 is lung puncture.
I still think it's unclear, but let's review a new circumstance.
The Demonic Painclaw does Slashing and Piercing damage, and has the Bleed 1d6 crit effect. Can we then add both Blood in their Eyes and Lung Puncture? Both feats say that they add the effect in addition to any other crit effect, and don't have any restriction on number of crit effects.
EDIT: The Junksword spell's kinetic damage option does Bludgeoning and Slashing, potentially with the Staggered or Stunned crit effect, depending on the spell level. This could lead to Staggered/Stunned, Slam Down, and Blood in their Eyes.
This could also happen if we ever get solarian crystals that specify a particular type of kinetic damage add, or in cases where a character is able to change half of their attack damage with some power or another.
The intent might not be to allow further stacking, but these feats just have a lot of strangeness to them.
The feats don't specify a limit to how or how many can stack.
One of them DOES.
in addition to other critical hit effect the weapon has.
One. Not one and one and one and one and one and one. One. Uno. Single. Adding one... and then one more is trying to cheese MATH for a mechanical advantage.
No. Math is not subjective. If ANYTHING more than one goes into the pot omimous power gets out.
Where does it say that lung puncture gives the critical effect to the weapon?
All critical effects are on the weapon doing the hit. The rules are nested. These feats use the rules for critical hit effects, critical hit effects use the rules for critical hits.
Some weapons have an additional critical effect that applies when you score a critical hit. These effects are as follows.
There is no non weapon bleed or stun or burn critical hit effect, its all on the weapon or it doesn't exist/ is unspecified.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm going to make my usual plea here:
Can we please acknowledge that there is a degree of ambiguity in the language? Mark it for a FAQ. There is a benefit in writing "I don't read it the way you do, I read it this other way" so that Designers can see the various ways people are reading it. But using complex arguments about the definitions of wording to divine that your interpretation is correct isn't doing the game as a whole any favors. It is not going to provide a simple answer to the next person who says "huh, which way is this supposed to work?"
This particular issue (how do things that say you can use "#X instead of the normal limit of one" stack) isn't new. I first came across it with the Copaxi race/Tempered Pilgrim theme combo.
A copaxi quickly adapts to and adopts new forms of communication. Each time a copaxi gains a rank in Culture, they learn 2 languages rather than 1 language.
In addition, whenever you take a rank in Culture, you learn to speak and read two new languages instead of one.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm going to make my usual plea here:
Can we please acknowledge that there is a degree of ambiguity in the language? Mark it for a FAQ. There is a benefit in writing "I don't read it the way you do, I read it this other way" so that Designers can see the various ways people are reading it. But using complex arguments about the definitions of wording to divine that your interpretation is correct isn't doing the game as a whole any favors. It is not going to provide a simple answer to the next person who says "huh, which way is this supposed to work?"
This is pretty much exactly my point, thank you.
This particular issue (how do things that say you can use "#X instead of the normal limit of one" stack) isn't new. I first came across it with the Copaxi race/Tempered Pilgrim theme combo.
** spoiler omitted **
I thought this one was mostly settled because they're basically saying the exact same thing, just using numerals instead of words. The Copaxi and Tempered Pilgrim abilities both say "2 instead of 1." If one said "one extra language for each point of Culture," then they would stack.
I admit that one threw me when I first read Copaxi and I started to make an ultraglot before realizing that they didn't stack.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm going to make my usual plea here:
Can we please acknowledge that there is a degree of ambiguity in the language?
No. Because there isn't any.
Epistemic nihilism is a fallacy, not a goal. I am all for acknowledging ambiguity where it exists, and it exists in a LOT of the English language and probably more than it should in paizos rulesets, but "the ominous fusion in addition to one other critical hit effect the weapon has" is as objective as English can be. One other is ONE other. One other and one other ...and one other and one other and one other is NOT one.
The raw is unambiguous.
The RAI is very clearly a prohibition on stacking that critical ability with more than one.
The power level is different whether you add A+B and C clearly can't fit or you add C+B+A all in the basket.
The interpretation that one other means one other allows potentially infinite additions, turning a prohibition into a power multiplier.
There is no raw, rai, or other support for a position allowing all three of these to work. Looking at this argument I would be inclined to give up even TRYING for clear language because clearly no matter how hard you try to do anything munchkins gonna munchkin.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There is no raw, rai, or other support for a position allowing all three of these to work. Looking at this argument I would be inclined to give up even TRYING for clear language because clearly no matter how hard you try to do anything munchkins gonna munchkin.
That's a little cold, BNW.
I don't like assuming that Paizo wrote something extremely differently as a mistake. You're right that the Ominous fusion part of this is pretty cut and dry, but the feats are written strangely (not expressly giving the crit to the weapon, adding to "any other" effect) and in a way that's not repeated anywhere else.
Plus, I've already identified another way of getting three critical effects... unless the feats saying "any other effect" (singular) means only one, ever... but that's not clear, either.
I actually don't care about crit effects; if that nuar crits something, they're probably dead or will be dead next round. "Munchkin" is completely secondary to my curiosity about the intent of the feats. If I were to take the feat, it would be for laughs.
I don't think that asking about the intent of a rule is wrong.
(did we ever get an answer on Unstoppable Strike, by the way?)
|
|
I don't know that I got my point across. I'm not saying that one interpretation is wrong, or incomplete, or against the spirit of the game. I'm saying that people can read the rules and question how those three abilities are supposed to interact. At which point it becomes a question for designers and (until they answer) individual GMs.
Just because I can trace out an answer that is internally consistent that does not mean someone else can't trace out a different answer that is also internally consistent. We need to take the time to read each other's posts and say "oh yeah. I see how you got there." After that it's fine to continue "but here's why that reading would cause knock-on problems."
I've been referencing Sean K. Reynolds' "if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck" post a lot lately. Among the many great things in that post is a list of what may affect the wording of an ability. Here' one item:
* And part of it is sometimes we make mistakes and don't write things as clearly as we should, or forget some obscure combination in this very complex game, or an author use a pre-errata wording of an ability when writing a new ability.
That's a little cold, BNW.
I
Am I wrong though?
the ominous fusion in addition to one other critical hit effect the weapon has.
The idea that that means something other than one other critical effect is sheer torture of the english language and math. I'm not denying that there are other ways to pile crits onto things, but that one is specifically verbotten from being piled on.
Still not being addressed, the fact that critical effects are ALWAYS on a weapon by the rules. Even if your critical doesn't need an item level, it may interact with something that does.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Am I wrong though?
Yes? You were wrong in saying "munchkins gonna munchkin" because this post isn't about anything munchkiny. You know as well as I do that a 9th level melee soldier who crits something is pretty much applying crit effects to a fine paste on the floor and nearby walls. This is about discerning the intent of these feats that use distinctly different language, which you assume is just a different way of saying the same thing as we're used to, but I am asking, which can't hurt.
the ominous fusion in addition to one other critical hit effect the weapon has.
The idea that that means something other than one other critical effect is sheer torture of the english language and math.
Maybe. Maybe not. I'd like to find out for sure. Language is weird; it can be interpreted in a lot of ways; assuring me that you know for sure how it's meant to be read just makes me more curious.
Still not being addressed, the fact that critical effects are ALWAYS on a weapon by the rules. Even if your critical doesn't need an item level, it may interact with something that does.
I've actually been meaning to ask you about that, because I can't find a rule that says that critical effects are only applied by a weapon. In fact, there are effects like Seize the Advantage envoy improv and vanguards gaining an EP off of scoring a critical effect, that would be REALLY WEIRD to have as a weapon's effect. I would be very surprised to hear that the vanguard has to choose between their weapon's crit effect and gaining an EP.
The crit rider feats don't actually say that they give their trait to the weapon, it's just that they happen in addition to any other effect.
You think it's torturing the language or whatever. That's fine. I just want the intent of the feats to be clarified, because, as much as I love the English language, sometimes it's very strange.
I think the focus has been on the wrong thing.
Yes, I agree the Ominous thing would only stack with 1 crit effect, no question there. I agree that the math and rules for Ominous sets a max of 2 Crit effects. With that, I can not add another Crit effect after it.
The main issue I see here is the Lung Puncture feat.
When you score a critical hit with a weapon that deals piercing damage, in addition to any other critical hit effect you would apply, you also impose the fatigued condition on the target for 1d4 rounds.
To me, that reads that I get my weapons usual crit effects, be they 0, 1, 2, 5 or what ever number they manage to get. (The attack in question would be 2) The feat then adds an extra condition to the attack, not a 'crit effect' but a condition.
The language gives the impression its a bonus condition to the crit, the Language to Ominous Power makes it clear its a 'Crit Effect'.
I can understand the ambiguity of it going either way but unless there is an Errata then I would say there is no Definitive answer to how it works.
On a side note, the math someone placed of the 1+1+1=3 is inaccurate. When one of the conditions stipulates basically a max of 2 effects, you wouldn't be able to add a 3rd
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You know as well as I do that a 9th level melee soldier who crits something is pretty much applying crit effects to a fine paste on the floor and nearby walls.
It's not the result so much as the method that bothers me here. Applying to ONE other crit effect, and attempting to get "creative" with the math of what is one more thing is "what is is" territory of sophistry.
1+1 =/= 1+1+1
This is about discerning the intent of these feats that use distinctly different language, which you assume is just a different way of saying the same thing as we're used to, but I am asking, which can't hurt.
And you go in with the assumption that a different language always results in a different rule. And it doesn't. Paizo is not written in machine code. Its written by a lot of different human beings , staff, long time free lancers, first time freelancers. It is then edited by different people for lots of different reasons: everything from grammar to attempts at clarity to needing to cut a few words so they can fit the feat and the pretty picture of the ysoki on the same page.
Maybe. Maybe not.
No. Definitely not. That is what the words mean. Words have meaning. There has been zero demonstrated or suggested way for that not to mean one other thing except arguing 1+1 = 1+1+1 because the one came first.
If you will not accept that, you will have to have every single rule in the book explained to you, clarified, and the clarification clarified and explained. The level of clarity you insist is neccesary to avoid confusiuon is simply not posible.
You have to TRY to get to the meaning behind the words. You do not do that with a grammar chainsaw while TRYING to make extra pieces of the puzzle fit: the pieces WILL fit or fall apart as you push them if you push them hard enough. That's not a surprise and it's not indicative of anything besides someone pushing hard.
I've actually been meaning to ask you about that, because I can't find a rule that says that critical effects are only applied by a weapon.
Can you find any example of a critical hit effect being applied from elsewhere? Not just something that happens on a crit. A critical hit effect.
In fact, there are effects like Seize the Advantage envoy improv and vanguards gaining an EP off of scoring a critical effect, that would be REALLY WEIRD to have as a weapon's effect.
Not everything that HAPPENS when you critically hit is a critical hit effect (the double damage for example, would prevent ominous power from triggering with another crit effect if that were the case)
just like you don't need to roll a d20 to verbally attack someone. But things like ominous staggered bleeding etc. are nested rules, and they're nested in the critical hit effect. Lung puncture is specifically listed in that catagory. Critical hit effects
The crit rider feats don't actually say that they give their trait to the weapon, it's just that they happen in addition to any other effect.
They do. The ones listed above do anyway,
Unarmed Mauler (Ex) Your unarmed strikes gain the wound critical hit effect
apply the critical hit effect of the ominous fusion in addition to one other critical hit effect the weapon has.
Ominous fusion: The weapon gains intimidation as a critical hit effect
Lung Puncture (Combat) in addition to any other critical hit effect you would apply, you also impose the fatigued condition on the target for 1d4 rounds.
Other= this is a critical hit effect too.
Under Crits
Some weapons have an additional critical effect that applies when you score a critical hit. These effects are as follows.
There isn't a context for anything that is specifically a critical hit effect to exist except on a weapon. It's a specific game term.
You think it's torturing the language or whatever. That's fine. I just want the intent of the feats to be clarified, because, as much as I love the English language, sometimes it's very strange.
It would work a lot better if you loved it for what it is and not what you want it to be. Words have meaning. It has to be discerned in context, not run through a grammar chainsaw until it can either mean Only one thing or nothing.
You know as well as I do that a 9th level melee soldier who crits something is pretty much applying crit effects to a fine paste on the floor and nearby walls.It's not the result so much as the method that bothers me here. Applying to ONE other crit effect, and attempting to get "creative" with the math of what is one more thing is "what is is" territory of sophistry.
1+1 =/= 1+1+1
It was only when that obviously didn't work that the attempt to add the three shifted to the possibility of crit effects not working through the weapon.
This is about discerning the intent of these feats that use distinctly different language, which you assume is just a different way of saying the same thing as we're used to, but I am asking, which can't hurt.And you go in with the assumption that a different language always results in a different rule. And it doesn't. Paizo is not written in machine code. Its written by a lot of different human beings , staff, long time free lancers, first time freelancers. It is then edited by different people for lots of different reasons: everything from grammar to attempts at clarity to needing to cut a few words so they can fit the feat and the pretty picture of the ysoki on the same page.
Maybe. Maybe not.No. Definitely not. That is what the words mean. Words have meaning. There has been zero demonstrated or suggested way for that not to mean one other thing except arguing 1+1 = 1+1+1 because the one came first.
If you will not accept that, you will have to have every single rule in the book explained to you, clarified, and the clarification clarified and explained. The level of clarity you insist is neccesary to avoid confusiuon is simply not posible.
You have to TRY to get to the meaning behind the words. You do not do that with a grammar chainsaw while TRYING to make extra pieces of the puzzle fit: the pieces WILL fit or fall apart as you push them if you push them hard enough. That's not a surprise and it's not indicative of anything besides someone pushing hard.
I've actually been meaning to ask you about...
just like you don't need to roll a d20 to verbally attack someone. But things like ominous staggered bleeding etc. are nested rules, and they're nested in the critical hit effect. Lung puncture is specifically listed in that catagory. Critical hit effects
Ok, can I ask for a book/page number? When I looked up the feat in the book, there was no mention of it being in a specific catagory.
I ask so I can better educate myself on your view.
If I can read it in an official book I can accept your point.
just like you don't need to roll a d20 to verbally attack someone. But things like ominous staggered bleeding etc. are nested rules, and they're nested in the critical hit effect. Lung puncture is specifically listed in that catagory. Critical hit effects
Ok, can I ask for a book/page number?
p 182. Its just the line i've been quoting repeatedly.
I think we both have understood that as written the feat doesn't state that its effect is a weapon critical hit effect which is the single point causing the discussion.
Even before that there was an attempt to add 1 and 1 and then 1 again. There have been two tracts to try to get to the same result.
just like you don't need to roll a d20 to verbally attack someone. But things like ominous staggered bleeding etc. are nested rules, and they're nested in the critical hit effect. Lung puncture is specifically listed in that catagory. Critical hit effects
Ok, can I ask for a book/page number? When I looked up the feat in the book, there was no mention of it being in a specific catagory.
I ask so I can better educate myself on your view.
If I can read it in an official book I can accept your point.
It's a Combat Feat from COM.
http://www.aonsrd.com/FeatDisplay.aspx?ItemName=Lung%20Puncture
Pulling back the curtain a little, each of the feats is fairly minor in effect... these are largely not super strong effects. I think Slam Down is the one that has the most practical utility, Lung Puncture applying a minor but broad penalty to a lot of rolls, and with Blood in their Eyes being nigh useless (Dazzled is one of the least debilitating conditions).
The lack of a saving throw for any of these (therefore not relying on item level for the weapon), as well as their minor effects, is what led me to the potential conclusion that they were meant to just be slapped on to any other crit effect for having the feat.
I respect BNW's conclusion, and I admit that it could be the correct one, but I try to notice trends in writing, and these three feats are much different than any other crit effect writing in the game, and "writer variation" is a possible, but not inevitable explanation.
So, like, forget the Gloom Gunner Nuar. Now we have a... drow... with... a Devastating Nanite Demonic Painclaw. The Devastating fusion lets you use two crit effects; it doesn't say you are limited to only one extra crit. Does this now let you use Bleed 1d6, Nauseated, Blood in their Eyes, AND Lung Puncture? Or does the Devastating fusion saying that you can use two crit effects somehow limit it to only those? I'm legit asking, because four effects on a crit is a lot.
I'm not asking these questions because "I want it to be" more crits. I'm asking these questions because I legit read it this way the first time and was surprised that other folks read it a different way. I want to know what the intent of these feats are, and only Paizo can answer that.
I have a bit more reading to do but I do see BNW point of view though Drac does make a good point on the reading.
I think for now its a ST call for their own game since there in no Errata for it (Yet). I have some COM reading to do since the major culprit to the debate (The feats) are in there and I want to get a better feeling for the language in the book, see if there are any clues to help give clear info
Slam down
Benefit: When you score a critical hit with a weapon that deals bludgeoning damage, in addition to any other critical hit effect you would apply, you also apply the knockdown critical hit effect. If the attack would already apply a knockdown critical hit effect, you can choose to also move the target 1d4×5 feet directly away from you.
Lung Puncture
Benefit: When you score a critical hit with a weapon that deals piercing damage, in addition to any other critical hit effect you would apply, you also impose the fatigued condition on the target for 1d4 rounds.
Blood in their eyes
When you score a critical hit with a weapon that deals slashing damage, in addition to any other critical hit effect you would normally apply, you also impose the dazzled condition on the target. The condition lasts until ended by any action or effect that would end the bleeding condition.
Melt defenses
Benefit: When you score a critical hit with an attack that deals acid damage, instead of applying the normal critical hit effect, you can disrupt the target’s defenses for 1d4 rounds. Attacks against a creature whose defenses have been disrupted in this manner target EAC, regardless of the attacks’ damage type.
Ok. I have read through the Feats in the COM. The above 4 are the feats I spotted that effect criticals. (If I missed any, it was 6 am when I looked) I Copy/pasted these straight from my PDF, not a web site.
Melt defenses add to the idea that other stuff can happen with a crit (At the cost of the Crit Effects (CE)). The fact that Slam down specifically naming the Knockdown CE can open up the idea that the other 2 are applied conditions rather then a CE.
Since the Fatigued and Dazzled are basic conditions, inflictable by spells and other abilities, they are directly not classed as a CE in the description.
To me, as I read them, Puncture and Blood add a condtion, not another CE however I also accept what BNW says as what may have been intended.
Me, as a story teller, I don't know which way I would accept, though I lean more towards the way I read them. I will however easily accept them being a CE if I was a player and that was the call of the GM.
As for the Devastating Nanite Demonic Painclaw. If you treat the feats to specifically be CE, I would say yes they would all be available because of the specific language. Devastating specifically states you can pick 2 of the weapons CE, the feats add their effect/CE to the attack, not the weapon.
Edit: The weapon does the Nauseated and bleed then the feats would add their effects. For 'stack' principles or 'math' I generally see it as (Weapons CE x 2)+Feats.
Slam down is specifically a critical hit effect.
in addition to any other critical hit effect you would apply,
If I say, in addition to any other wolves I will be running through the woods tonight that means I am a wolf.
Lung puncture both specifies that it is a critical hit effect and a weapon
Blood in their eyes specifies both a critical hit effect and a weapon
Melt defenses will replace ALL of your other critical hit effects no matter how many you want to try to pile on. Making it kind of moot.
[
They weren't trying to get to a result. They were attempts to explain the result. This isn't a puzzle, we all are just reading the apparently ambiguous situation differently.
This isn't a science experiment or a computer program. it's reading comprehension. There isn't a result except the ones you come up with.
And yes, when someone tries to change math to get a specific result, and then tries a different way to get the same result, I think they're going for the result and not a neutral reading.
Here I do think you are wrong BNW.
Lung puncture both specifies that it is a critical hit effect and a weapon
Blood in their eyes specifies both a critical hit effect and a weapon
Not the CE, but the fact it sounds like you are saying the feat specifies it is added to the weapon.
Chose one weapon type (small arms, longarms, heavy weapons, etc.). You gain a +1 bonus to attack rolls with that weapon type. If your base attack bonus is at least 3 lower than your character level (or your mechanic’s class level, if you are a drone), you gain a +2 bonus instead.
Weapon focus is dependent on a weapon type. It does not imbue the weapon with addition accuracy, you get the boost.
The 3 feats specifically say when you score a crit, you apply this as well. It does not Imbue the weapon with a crit effect.
The mention of a weapon is to specify the type of weapon it effects, Weapon focus uses the listed ones, those feat do it by damage type.
I accept your argument with If I say, in addition to any other wolves I will be running through the woods tonight that means I am a wolf. however it can also mean you and a load of wolves are running in the woods. Like a reporter could say in addition to the protesters going to the park, I will be going Does not make the reporter a protester
I accept your argument with If I say, in addition to any other wolves I will be running through the woods tonight that means I am a wolf. however it can also mean you and a load of wolves are running in the woods
Your reporter example left out the word other. Which is the part that specifies that one thing is also a member of the catagory.
n addition to the OTHER protesters going to the park, I will be going
That reporter has just identified as a protestor. Which isn't impossible, something can fit into more than one catagory.
Slam Down says that if the weapon already has the knockdown effect, you can choose to push them when the knockdown effect is applied. This feat is very clear that the push is not a weapon critical effect. The way the other feats are written also support this outcome.
It isn't and they don't. Quite the opposite. The push is connected to the knockdown. The knockdown is a critical hit effect. No knockdown, no push.
It's not the math at fault. It's the context within which the math was applied. The CRB does not state that critical hit effects can only ever be found on weapons.
There was an attempt to add one and one and one by virtue of the order of operations. THAT's what's getting my hackles up.
Trying to get around the idea with a second argument that something doesn't go on the weapon is a seperate argument. One that doesn't seem to work either
You believing it does does not imbue it with this property
The rules state that the critical hit effect applies to a weapon.
Critical hit effects reference rules that reference weapons. Specifically item level, critical effect DC determination, etc.
While it's true that the rules DON"T state that ONLY weapons have critical hit effect, critical hit effects on a weapon are the only rules we have. If knockdown isn't the weapon critical hit effect, then you don't have rules for it.
unless you are the DM and then you just rule 0.
Seriously not cool. Going with the rules interpretation that has the most evidence behind it is NOT house ruling. It's the exact opposite. It is the best practice of rules interpretation, NOT making stuff up because you say so.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Nope. Fair enough, my brain focused on the in addition of the sentence, not other.
I see your point there. I am happy to accept the feats to be seen as Crit effects, how ever I do still stand that they are not added to the list of the weapons Crit effects.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
BNW's certainty aside, this conversation and the FAQ requests do imply that it's not quite obvious.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
BNW's certainty aside, this conversation and the FAQ requests do imply that it's not quite obvious.
I too would say that lung puncture having the language 'in addition to any other crit effects' means that it too is a crit effect.
However, I also hit the FAQ button a while ago.
Nope. Fair enough, my brain focused on the in addition of the sentence, not other.
I see your point there. I am happy to accept the feats to be seen as Crit effects, how ever I do still stand that they are not added to the list of the weapons Crit effects.
There does not appear to be a difference there.
(Note that this is a different level of certainty than 1+1= 2 that I'm maintaining for the one other and one other and one other argument. High as opposed to get me the core rulebook without the cover so I can use it like a rolled up newspaper.... )
(Critical hit effects) appear to be on the weapon. They are described as being on the weapon, they aren't described as being on anything else, there has yet to be any critical hit effect that's nonsensical in that regard, there is no critical hit effect that runs into a weird rules contradiction in that regard, and there's no example of a critical hit effect that is definitively or even tentatively not on the weapon. A critical hit effect and a critical hit effect on a weapon appear to be synonomous.
The examples that don't specifically call it out as being on a weapon just don't need that reminder: they don't have a save so they don't need a DC and there's no other variable based on the ilevel to use. It would just be wasted words to point it out every single time.
I think the problem that arises is there is no direct rule which states that CE are purely weapon effects. Some weapons have them, Fusions give it to a weapon (From the couple I have seen).
In the Core book, that was it, weapons and fusions. I haven't taken to reading EVERY book to its 100% extent.
In the COM they added those 3 feats, they effect the critical Effects. Before them, there were no feats which did it (That I am aware of) so making a clarification on it being either way should have been done.
It can be taken that they add onto the weapon, like you see it, it should also be possible they were ment to be another source to add critical Effects that were not directly on the weapon (Since they come from your skill, rather then the weapon/fusion).
I know this isn't an answer but I hope it explains why people can see it the other way. Starfinder wouldn't be the first game to add new stuff that altered how the Core Book handled things.
I think what this threat has evolved into is if they are a 'new' type of crit effect.
Definitely needs a FAQ on it I think for a definition to what the feats do.
What you would want to FAQ is "are all critical hit effects effectively on the weapon"
|
|
| 5 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
OK, so it sounds like there are two FAQ candidates here. I'll try to summarize them. If you think my wording could be clearer, please propose alternate wording. If you think the answer to the questions are "obvious," please DO NOT comment on how obtuse you think those asking the question are being.
How do multiple abilities that alter a standard limit on the number of effects stack?
Example 1: You have two abilities that allow you to apply a particular critical effect "in addition to one other critical effect." Does that allow you to have a total of three critical effects or is the maximum two? What if one of the abilities says "in addition to any other critical effect?" What if one of the abilities says "in addition to any other critical effects?"Example 2: You have two abilities that both let you gain "two new languages instead of one" when you take a rank in Culture. Do they stack for a total of three languages per rank or do they overlap and you get only two language per rank?
Are all critical hits considered to be "on a weapon?" The Core Rulebook says that when you score a critical hit with a weapon that has multiple critical hit effects, you can apply only one of those critical hit effects. I have an ability that adds an additional effect on a critical hit but does not explicitly say it is an effect placed on the weapon.