| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Deadly Simplicity is a die step increase while Two Hand is a Die Size substitution. Holding your Staff in two hands sets it's die to d8, then Deadly Simplicity steps that up to d10.
Relevant Rules:
Two Hand trait. The most relevant line is, "Doing so changes its weapon damage die to the indicated value." This indicates that Two Hand is not an "increase" in die size, instead "setting" the die to a specific size.
I would agree with that. This would also apply to Champion's Deific Weapon.
I thought there was something like this that only increased the die size if it was below a certain die size - similar to how Deadly Simplicity and Deific Weapon are limited on unarmed attacks. But I can't remember what it is.
Also, this only applies to the normal strike die size. Not something like a Deadly trait die size.
For instance, if a cleric of Nethys with a staff moves it to 2 handed, does it change to D8, does it change to D8 and then get upgraded to D10?I don’t think there is an exact rule on it. I would allow it for a cleric that wanted to use a staff two handed. I would NOT allow it for someone trying to use it to double dip increases with magus twisted tree for a d10 deadly d6 staff.
I mean, they'd be spending two feats for the privilege, and it would be at 4th level minimum to do so (with cleric archetype and basic dogma). Not to mention saddling their Magus with the Divine list/cleric focus spells to supplement their schtick instead of the occult or nature.
I think that's a fair and equitable trade.
It does not work because of the general rule that "You can’t increase your weapon damage die size more than once." (Damage, Increasing Die Size, Core Rulebook pg. 279)
That is if you count, "Doing so changes its weapon damage die to the indicated value," as equal to, "increase the damage die size of that weapon by one step."
I do not. In my eyes they are separate mechanics and don't interact that way.
Changing the weapon damage die to an increased value is indeed increasing its damage die size IMO.
I see it as no different than going from wielding a short spear to a longspear, just all in one item. Similarly, the Bastard Sword is just going from Longsword to Greatsword. More hands= More power as a baseline after all. Basically the same as saying, "d8/d10 with two hands" or similar.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Seems odd, since Twisting Tree already increases the normal die to 1d6, meaning Deadly Simplicity would do nothing.
But honestly, isn't having an Agile d6/parry, reach, and trip d8 Weapon you can freely switch between while also casting spells from it enough? Why would you also want to increase the damage to d10?
Oh right, players only want to break the game and don't care about game balance at all ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Twisting tree isn't really relevant to the conversation, it functions differently (as it's already explicitly an increase).
So if Two Hand and Deadly Simplicity interact in any way, shouldn't taking Deadly Simplicity make it so that the Staff stays at a d6 die size, since you can only increase the die size "once"?
Or is it simpler to just treat Two Hand as adjusting the weapons basic weapon damage die to a specific number, rather than treating it like an increase?
Deadly Simplicity increases the die size of the weapon, it does not change any of the weapon's traits.
This means a staff that normally has a damage die of 1d4 and has the two-hand 1d8 trait would have a damage die of 1d6 because of Deadly Simplicity, and the two-hand 1d8 trait.
It's nice of a GM to rule otherwise, but it's not supported by the text of the rules.
Same as a katar's deadly die staying 1d6, rather than getting increased by Deadly Simplicity.
Ruling that Deadly Simplicity doesn't alter the two hand weapon die does devalue that trait, so you can't say that it has no bearing on that trait. Instead of a relative two size increase, you only get one size in exchange for having no free hands.
I agree that the Katar's deadly die wouldn't be increased, but that isn't really a good comparison or especially relevant. Deadly is specific in the size of die that is added, and doesn't care about the size of die the weapon happens to be dealing. Apples to oranges in other words.
|
|
Only one effect can increase die size, and the larger effect takes effect over any lesser effect. Just like everything else in the game. It is not devaluing the trait but rather the feat. If there were a rule that stated that the Two Hand trait didn't count as increasing the die size then it would be fine. But there's no rule stating that, so we have to go with the rules we got.
And the rules we got say they don't stack.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Only one effect can increase die size, and the larger effect takes effect over any lesser effect. Just like everything else in the game. It is not devaluing the trait but rather the feat. If there were a rule that stated that the Two Hand trait didn't count as increasing the die size then it would be fine. But there's no rule stating that, so we have to go with the rules we got.
And the rules we got say they don't stack.
Do you have a rules reference for the bolded bit? Because I can't find that particular rules reference. Are you referencing Duplicate Effects? If that is the case, which effect is the higher level effect? Would it be the trait on a lvl 0 piece of equipment? Or the 1st Level feat? Does the priority change if the Staff is enchanted, and thus a higher level? Do you have to have a rune on a staff to use Two Hand instead of Deadly Simplicity? Some other option? If so, then what rules tell you how to handle that situation?
I will argue that Two Hand does not count as an "increase" in die size, at least in the same way that Deadly Simplicity does.
If it did, it would already conflict with the increasing die size rule as written:
When an effect calls on you to increase the size of your weapon damage dice, instead of using its normal weapon damage dice, use the next larger die, as listed below (so if you were using a d4, you’d use a d6, and so on). If you are already using a d12, the size is already at its maximum. You can’t increase your weapon damage die size more than once.
Since Two Hand is almost always a "two step" die increase, it already breaks the established rule for increasing die sizes, doesn't it? So if that is the case, isn't it possible that it is worded as changing the die to the indicated size so that it is not beholden to that particular rule?
Irrelevant. There is no guarantee made anywhere in the game that Thing A will maintain the same value if you have Thing B alongside it, and especially not when Thing B does not as worded have any interaction with Thing A (which to restate for clarity is that Deadly Simplicity does not do anything at all to any weapon traits at all, whether it's Two-Hand, Deadly, or anything else, and the reason is because Deadly Simplicity does not say that it does.)
How can you say that the two can't interact with each other in any way, when they both modify the same statistic of the weapon? Sure, Deadly Simplicity doesn't call out modifying the two hand trait, and vice versa, but they do both clearly alter the die size of the weapon, no?
If they both modify the same statistic shouldn't they interact in some way?
So what you are saying is, the Two Hand die size is special trait dice and not the weapons basic damage die.
Okay, then how does a Striking rune interact with a two handed staff?
1d8+1d4 damage then?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If they both modify the same statistic shouldn't they interact in some way?Not when they don't say they do or even vaguely imply it in any way.
There is no ambiguity in the rules here. Deadly Simplicity does not state any interaction with trait dice. It only applies to the damage die, which is a separate column on the weapon table from the traits because those are not the same thing.
This weapon can be wielded with two hands. Doing so changes its weapon damage die to the indicated value.This change applies to all the weapon's damage dice, such as those from striking runes.
I agree, there is no ambiguity here. Deadly Simplicity works with the two-hand trait. The two-hand trait is not a die-size increase. Nothing even implies it's a die-size increase. You could have a d10 weapon with Two-hand d4.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If they both modify the same statistic shouldn't they interact in some way?Not when they don't say they do or even vaguely imply it in any way.
There is no ambiguity in the rules here. Deadly Simplicity does not state any interaction with trait dice. It only applies to the damage die, which is a separate column on the weapon table from the traits because those are not the same thing.
This weapon can be wielded with two hands. Doing so changes its weapon damage die to the indicated value.This change applies to all the weapon's damage dice, such as those from striking runes.I agree, there is no ambiguity here. Deadly Simplicity works with the two-hand trait. The two-hand trait is not a die-size increase. Nothing even implies it's a die-size increase. You could have a d10 weapon with Two-hand d4.
A weapon that does less damage while taking your free / shield hand ?
Possible by RAW, but we all know it will never happen.
Yep, the words do matter, and the two-hand trait *changes* the weapon die, while deadly simplicity *increases* the weapon die. Given the fact that the two-hand trait is explicitly NOT an increase, there's no reason deadly simplicity wouldn't work.Okay, then how does a Striking rune interact with a two handed staff?
1d8+1d4 damage then?
It interacts exactly as the two-hand trait says it does.
Which is not the 1d8+1d4 you're asking about.
The reason why a two-hand trait affects all the dice from striking runes is the same reason deadly simplicity doesn't "stack" with the two-hand trait; what words the rules actually use.
Let me see if I can try to explain the opposing point (I think both are valid interpretations, even if I personally lean towards one over the other).
There's a difference between the following (where X = die size)
1.
x = 4
x += 2 ###(aka increase x by 2)
if twohanded == True:
____x = 8
print(x)
Expected output: 8
and
2.
x = 4
if twohanded == True:
____x = 8
x += 2
print(x)
Expected output: 10
If the + to die size is a passive bonus calculated at time of damage, then the latter would be how it works, and it would be a d10.
If, on the other hand, it's simply adjusting the stat known as "Damage: 1d4", then it would increase that to 1d6, which would then be overridden while held in two hands and be set to a d8.
Both are logically consistent depending on what the increased die step is affecting: the attack, or the weapon's stats?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For comparison, a monk starts out with using a single class feat to get a d8 parry, reach, trip weapon. It then will count as cold iron and silver, and even adamantine later on. They can take two further class feats to add Forceful and Deadly d10. I definitely don't see how the magus staff is "too good to be true."
Monastic Weaponry does not gain the benefits of the Magic, Metal, or Adamantine Strikes class features, nor the Diamond Fists or Deadly Strikes Feats, as they all Modify Unarmed Attacks and are not something you "use" like Flurry of Blows. Please don't try to derail this thread on that topic either, as there are very long threads discussing that already.
Basically I'm saying that point is moot. Regardless, just because one class can get something powerful doesn't excuse the too good to be true rule.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
and that's backed up by the advice the book gives on ambiguous rules that if one interpretation seems too good to be true, it is.
RAW and what's correct aside, I'm not really convinced that 'deadly simplicity works with two-hand weapons' falls anywhere near 'too good to be true' territory. It honestly feels bizarre to even invoke that here because the result is so mediocre.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Q: If: d4 > d6 > d8 > d10 > d12
And some feature changes you from a lower damage die to a higher one, what do you call that?
A: An Increase
It's a simple as that folks, just because the rule doesn't use identical wording to other features doesn't mean that's not an increase, they cannot stack.
|
|
I fundamentally disagree that deadly simplicity on two-hand staves is too good to be true. I doubt we'll agree on that part, regardless of any of the rest of it.For comparison, a monk starts out with using a single class feat to get a d8 parry, reach, trip weapon. It then will count as cold iron and silver, and even adamantine later on. They can take two further class feats to add Forceful and Deadly d10. I definitely don't see how the magus staff is "too good to be true."Monastic Weaponry does not gain the benefits of the Magic, Metal, or Adamantine Strikes class features, nor the Diamond Fists or Deadly Strikes Feats, as they all Modify Unarmed Attacks and are not something you "use" like Flurry of Blows. Please don't try to derail this thread on that topic either, as there are very long threads discussing that already.
Basically I'm saying that point is moot. Regardless, just because one class can get something powerful doesn't excuse the too good to be true rule.
Did I say that? No. I said your argument is fundamentally flawed. I also abhor the take that things that modify your unarmed attacks do so to weapons just because you took a single feat, but I have thoroughly argued that in other threads.
|
|
So you're saying you increased the Weapon Die Size to a higher one from a different effect?
Good, then we're in agreement that it doesn't work.
Saying I said something I didn't say doesn't win you an argument lol
You are *replacing* the die, not increasing. It's pretty simple.
Well, it does give the same result as increasing it. So, if you then increase it again, it would give the exact benefit that is forbidden by the RAW about die size increases not stacking.
Basically, it would be circumventing an explicit RAW limit by playing on words.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think what we're running into is a difference of understanding of the two-hand trait.
We understand quite clearly. You change the die. The number goes from a lower number to a higher number when you change the die. Therefore that's an increase, and you can only have one increase.
I consider a two-handed staff as basically a separate "stance". It enables you to make Two-Handed Staff attacks. I don't see this as a die size increase any more than I see entering Dragon Stance and using d10 kicks a die size increase over the normal d6 Powerful Fist.
That would be totally fine, except you're comparing Stances, which give brand new Unarmed Attacks to holding a weapon in two hands. Which you can do with any weapon by the way, it's just that some weapons get bonuses if you do.
The base staff doesn't enter into my equation at all. Once you two-hand the staff, you're now wielding a two-hand staff, and it has a d8 die.
The Staff is one weapon, it's the same weapon if you wield it in one or two hands, the only difference is when you use two hands you activate the trait. When you hold a weapon in two hands it doesn't suddenly become a new weapon. If I have a Longsword in one hand it's a Longsword. In two hands, it's still a Longsword. Why would a Staff be any different?
I think this boils down to whether it's:
A. Two hand wielding changes the die of the weapon.
(an increase, doesn't stack)
OR
B. The weapon uses a different die when wielded in two hands, a.k.a. the weapon innately already has that die size available.
(not an increase per se, but a different use of the same, unaltered object, does stack.)
Unfortunately the RAW reads either way IMO (as we've seen in this thread!).
---
As for balance, a two-handed d10 club w/o traits other than switching back to one-handed makes for a poor weapon. Like most simple weapons, Deadly Simplicity only gets the weapon halfway toward being equal to martial level. So I have no issues leaning toward B given the investment that's needed, though the fact this weapon can store spells does throw a wrinkle into it, as does the Magus ability to load the weapon up with traits! Doh.
That's +1 damage (ramping up to +4 at highest levels) which stacks with other bonuses and might get amplified by say Weapon Storm or Power Attack, and for what's now a great weapon for a Magus. Hmm.
|
|
That's +1 damage (ramping up to +4 at highest levels) which stacks with other bonuses and might get amplified by say Weapon Storm or Power Attack, and for what's now a great weapon for a Magus. Hmm.
Right. A Staff Magus gets a single weapon that can be a d6 Agile weapon AND a d8 reach/parry/trip weapon that they get to freely change between on a whim, while also being able to cast spells from it, with a feat that lets them not only put runes on it, but also swap out runes during daily prep to meet demand while giving it deadly d6 with a variable damage type, AND use a focus spell that can increase their reach by up to 45 feet!
Adding d10 to that is just icing on the cake. It's totally unnecessary at this point. And if it worked, it's totally worth dipping into Cleric Dedication.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
RAW and what's correct aside, I'm not really convinced that 'deadly simplicity works with two-hand weapons' falls anywhere near 'too good to be true' territory. It honestly feels bizarre to even invoke that here because the result is so mediocre.Deadly Simplicity is, roughly speaking, meant to make a simple weapon equivalent to a martial weapon.
Compare a staff with deadly simplicity applying to the two-hand die to make it 1d10 to a martial club like a greatclub. The staff doesn't get backswing or shove, but does get to not be entirely un-usable in one hand, and also has less cost and less Bulk. That means the staff is overall better than the greatclub because of how we have to weight the benefits of differing traits.
Too good to be true doesn't have to mean literally breaking the game wide open, it just has to mean it's better than it seems like it is supposed to be.
I'd value the ability to use the staff one handed and the less bulk/cost (a cost which is negligible either way past 1st level, let's be honest) as worth the feat/doctrine investment personally.
Compare a Deadly Simplicity 2 hand Staff to a deadly simplicity Longspear, another simple weapon. Same die. Staff is 5sp cheaper and 1 bulk lighter.
But the longspear has reach, a trait that I value quite highly. The Staff retains it's versatility, especially for a cleric who may have cause to carry around something in their other hand, but gives the Cleric a d10 option for their attacks, while the spear is just superior in two hands. Same argument for the Greatclub honestly. It remains superior to the Staff, even with Deadly Simplicity, in practice simply because of backswing and shove.
This gets even more reasonable for multiclass builds who have to burn 2 feats for the privilege no earlier than level 4.
TLDR: I don't see any "too good to be true" here. 5.5 avg dmg vs. 4.5 avg dmg feels pretty reasonable. Equally as reasonable as the jump from d4 to d6.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Deadly Simplicity is, roughly speaking, meant to make a simple weapon equivalent to a martial weapon.
And a d10 two-handed weapon with no other usable traits (in two hands) is clearly below par relative to other martial weapons.
The bastard sword is our comparison point for a martial weapon that only has the two-hand trait at d8/d12, a full die size ahead of the staff even if you let deadly simplicity work with both modes.
... Given that, not only is it not "too good to be true", it actually sounds like it's not good enough (per the standard you've put forward).
Honestly, contrasting it with the longspear (d8 2h with a high value trait), the dagger (1d4 with four traits) and the Battle Lute (d4 (two-hand d8) and shove), I think you've made a good argument that even just as a plain simple weapon the staff is undertuned.
Your point right here might be the best argument in the whole thread for why this maybe should work, regardless of where you fall on the RAW. You've convinced me.