| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Nobody is pretending the one hand use doesn't count. It is the baseline assumption of the weapon, and not anything not specifically to do with it's traits, so it naturally gets side-lined when comparing weapon traits.
Edit: If we were talking about the effect of Deadly Simplicity on the One Hand profile of the weapon, then we'd be talking more about it. As is, it just doesn't factor in because the question is whether Two Hand and Deadly Simplicity interact.
Also:
And then we arrive at the reality that some folks are going to discount every class feature that doesn't fit their preference and arrive at conclusions like "Paizo must have messed up this feats balance" instead of realizing the possibility (and probability) that Paizo did just fine and the issue is not a feat/class feature that isn't properly balanced but a class feature/feat you're just not a fan of.
If you can change a few words in your argument and give it the opposite meaning, it's probably not a good argument.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Technically, weapon die size increases can only increase by one step, no matter what. This would make the simple staff and the bastard sword illegal weapons, since they break that rule.
| 1 person 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.
Yup, the staff could increase in damage and would be fine.
I think cost influences traits to some degree.
Staff is free and lacks traits, composite bows gets traits for free by being expensive and it's the same with the exquisite sword cane.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you can change a few words in your argument and give it the opposite meaning, it's probably not a good argument.Then literally no argument is a good argument.
Why my argument is superior, in my opinion, is that I give the professional game writers the benefit of the doubt that they have thought all this through and come to the conclusion that the current state of the rules is as balanced as it can get - where the counter-argument, whether applied to the weapon stats or the feat/feature, boils down to assuming the professionals are wrong if any number of players of the game think something should be different. It's just more probable.
That is if you assume that anyone's baseline assumption after reading both rules is to think that they aren't intended to work together. You have no basis for claiming that the game writers did not intend for these two rules to interact in the way that you don't think they should, except for your own opinion. That is what you mean when you say that you give the writers the benefit of the doubt for seeing it your way, right?
So in other words, your argument is superior because it is based on your own opinion, and not mine. Which is to say that you think your argument is superior because it is superior. Nice.
Show me anything that shows that the writers intended them to not interact.
|
Technically, weapon die size increases can only increase by one step, no matter what. This would make the simple staff and the bastard sword illegal weapons, since they break that rule.
Then so would the Fatal trait, which explicitly says you "increase" the damage die to the value. Do you really think the designers intended to have two completely un-usable traits?
Show me anything that shows that the writers intended them to not interact.
We have, the rule about only increasing the damage die once.
What do you think is more likely:
The game designers using the term "change" instead of "increase" with the intention that the Two-Hand trait be able to stack with other damage die increases, and thinking it's so obvious that they wouldn't need to add a clarification in the trait to explicitly state that they stack.
OR
The person writing the Two-Hand trait accidentally used the word Change instead of Increase and it got by the editors.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What do you think is more likely:
The game designers using the term "change" instead of "increase" with the intention that the Two-Hand trait be able to stack with other damage die increases, and thinking it's so obvious that they wouldn't need to add a clarification in the trait to explicitly state that they stack.OR
The person writing the Two-Hand trait accidentally used the word Change instead of Increase and it got by the editors.
The first one. Since they did it twice.
Hands
Source Core Rulebook pg. 279 2.0
Weapons requiring two hands typically deal more damage. Some one-handed weapons have the two-hand trait, causing them to deal a different size of weapon damage die when used in two hands. In addition, some abilities require you to wield a weapon in two hands. You meet this requirement while holding the weapon in two hands, even if it doesn’t require two hands or have the two-hand trait.
Different; not increased. Again you could have a one-handed weapon with d10 damage and a two-hand trait of d4.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Compare to the deadly trait that explicitly calls out it doesn't stack with Deadly Simplicity
On a critical hit, the weapon adds a weapon damage die of the listed size. Roll this after doubling the weapon's damage. This increases to two dice if the weapon has a greater striking rune and three dice if the weapon has a major striking rune. For instance, a rapier with a greater striking rune deals 2d8 extra piercing damage on a critical hit. An ability that changes the size of the weapon's normal damage dice doesn't change the size of its deadly die.
The two-hand trait lacks this line, or anything else that implies it doesn't work with Deadly Simplicity.
Compare to the deadly trait that explicitly calls out it doesn't stack with Deadly SimplicityOn a critical hit, the weapon adds a weapon damage die of the listed size. Roll this after doubling the weapon's damage. This increases to two dice if the weapon has a greater striking rune and three dice if the weapon has a major striking rune. For instance, a rapier with a greater striking rune deals 2d8 extra piercing damage on a critical hit. An ability that changes the size of the weapon's normal damage dice doesn't change the size of its deadly die.That can be explained by friendly reminders being helpful right up until someone treats them as proof that the part of the rules missing the friendly reminder must be different as a result.
A friendly *reminder*? Where else does it say that?
Alright lets talk about the lance. Specifically the jousting trait.
Jousting
Source Core Rulebook pg. 283 2.0
The weapon is suited for mounted combat with a harness or similar means. When mounted, if you moved at least 10 feet on the action before your attack, add a circumstance bonus to damage for that attack equal to the number of damage dice for the weapon. In addition, while mounted, you can wield the weapon in one hand, changing the damage die to the listed value.
So according to people on this thread going from a d8 to a d6 is an increase? Or is the d8 the increase from the d6 and you can never increase the base stats of the weapon?
Or it just makes the base damage a d6 for all effects and calls it a day.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Pretending that the one-handed use doesn't count doesn't help your point look reasonable. If it were balanced as a two-handed weapon so that it stood up to other two-handed weapons and then also had the option to be one-handed functionally it would be unbalanced by definition.
Luckily no one has made this argument.
As for the comparison to the bastard sword, you're forgetting that damage type is also a balancing factor and bludgeoning is generally speaking the better of the 3 types.
Looking at other weapons, I don't really see a precedent for this being the case. The Warhammer and Longsword for instance have essentially identical trait budgets despite one being bludgeoning and the other being slashing.
But if you're concerned about damage type. The Hooked Hammer and Khakkara are also bludgeoning weapons and deal d6/d10 damage while also having two additional traits.
And then we arrive at the reality that some folks are going to discount every feature that doesn't fit their preference
There's no discounting anything here. I'm just using the goal line you set to compare it to other weapons.
instead of realizing the possibility (and probability) that Paizo did just fine and the issue is not a weapon that isn't properly balanced but a weapon you're just not a fan of.
Again, the numbers speak for themselves. There's no judgement call here. The staff clearly has a smaller overall power budget than other, similar weapons. With or without deadly simplicity.
This was probably done on purpose, to make staves an inferior primary weapon given that they can also be made into spell staffs, but I don't see any point in pretending the numbers aren't what they are.
PF2 is not written in that level of technical language, nor is it intended to be read in that level of technicality. Different and increased are synonyms in this context.
Unfortunately, this doesn't really help us discern the rules intent here, as both interpretations can be examples of trying to understand the mechanics in an inuitive/casual fashion.
From the Inventor Playtest
Enhanced Damage Your innovation is more powerful than other weapons of its kind. Increase your innovation’s weapon damage die by one step (d4 to d6, d6 to d8, d8 to d10, d10 to d12). As normal, you can’t increase your die by more than one size, so this modification isn’t cumulative with complex simplicity.
So Playtest Inventor wielding a Lance while mounted. What dice do you use?
Jousting
Source Core Rulebook pg. 283 2.0
The weapon is suited for mounted combat with a harness or similar means. When mounted, if you moved at least 10 feet on the action before your attack, add a circumstance bonus to damage for that attack equal to the number of damage dice for the weapon. In addition, while mounted, you can wield the weapon in one hand, changing the damage die to the listed value.
|
|
Alright lets talk about the lance. Specifically the jousting trait.Jousting
Source Core Rulebook pg. 283 2.0
The weapon is suited for mounted combat with a harness or similar means. When mounted, if you moved at least 10 feet on the action before your attack, add a circumstance bonus to damage for that attack equal to the number of damage dice for the weapon. In addition, while mounted, you can wield the weapon in one hand, changing the damage die to the listed value.So according to people on this thread going from a d8 to a d6 is an increase? Or is the d8 the increase from the d6 and you can never increase the base stats of the weapon?
Or it just makes the base damage a d6 for all effects and calls it a day.
No. You're obviously trying to strawman here, but here we go. We are not saying the word "change" means increase, we are saying that since the dice is increasing (higher value than the initial dice) with the two-hand trait, it is an "increase" of the damage die. In the case of Jousting, since the die is decreasing (lower value than the initial dice) it is a "decrease" in the damage die.
So Playtest Inventor wielding a Lance while mounted. What dice do you use?
Obviously a d8.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Except that "Increasing Die Size" is a very specific thing in PF2,Alright lets talk about the lance. Specifically the jousting trait.Jousting
Source Core Rulebook pg. 283 2.0
The weapon is suited for mounted combat with a harness or similar means. When mounted, if you moved at least 10 feet on the action before your attack, add a circumstance bonus to damage for that attack equal to the number of damage dice for the weapon. In addition, while mounted, you can wield the weapon in one hand, changing the damage die to the listed value.So according to people on this thread going from a d8 to a d6 is an increase? Or is the d8 the increase from the d6 and you can never increase the base stats of the weapon?
Or it just makes the base damage a d6 for all effects and calls it a day.
No. You're obviously trying to strawman here, but here we go. We are not saying the word "change" means increase, we are saying that since the dice is increasing (higher value than the initial dice) with the two-hand trait, it is an "increase" of the damage die. In the case of Jousting, since the die is decreasing (lower value than the initial dice) it is a "decrease" in the damage die.
Increasing Die Size
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.
1d4 ➞ 1d6 ➞ 1d8 ➞ 1d10 ➞ 1d12
the two-hand trait does not use this wording or this list for its effects because it's not an increase and "decreasing die size" is something you just made up. You can houserule it obviously, but it's not RAW.
So Playtest Inventor wielding a Lance while mounted. What dice do you use?Obviously a d8.
and when the Inventor wields it in two hands it deals...?
|
|
d10. Why though? Because it's an increase and a decrease, and they cancel each other out. There's no rule about decreasing die size but logically you can do it, as it's just the opposite of an already established rule. Or are you suggesting Grasping Reach doesn't "reduce" your die size as it states because there's no rules about it?
Additionally, as people have stated the rules aren't written as a legal document. Restating the same rule over and over isn't helping prove your point.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
But I still don't understand why an Inventor wielding a Lance has a d6➞d8/d8➞d10 weapon and the Inventor wielding a Staff has a d4➞d6/d8➞d8 weapon when all of the effects in place are IDENTICALLY WRITTEN.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
You did when you said "And a d10 two-handed weapon with no other usable traits (in two hands) is clearly below par relative to other martial weapons."
That's not discounting what the weapon can do, it's noting how its damage and trait spread compare to other similar weapons.
Again, note the comparison to the Bastard Sword and Hooked Hammer.
Or, you're wrong about what the numbers are because Paizo says "that's worth 0.5" and you say "that's worth 0."
I'm not commenting on worth at all. A staff (with deadly simplicity applied in either fashion) does less damage than martial weapons with a similar number of traits and has fewer traits than martial weapons that do the same damage. That's not ascribing any worth, that's just a summary of the items.
Yes it does, because we've also been given the advice about what to do with ambiguity... and it's not read things as being the more powerful of the multiple ways there are to read them
There is no sentence in the CRB or GMG mandating that in a case of ambiguity to always pick the weaker/worse interpretation. You've invented that wholesale.
Instead we're told
A) That the rules should be read casually/intuitively rather than legalistically, which doesn't really help us here because both interpretations have casual logic that justifies them.
B) That if something is too good to be true, it probably is. This is a subjective assessment and clearly something you're concerned about, but clearly for other posters in this thread Deadly Simplicity does not reach that bar.
|
|
But I still don't understand why an Inventor wielding a Lance has a d6➞d8/d8➞d10 weapon and the Inventor wielding a Staff has a d4➞d6/d8➞d8 weapon when all of the effects in place are IDENTICALLY WRITTEN.
Because that's how the rules are written. What you should do is acknowledge that's how it currently works and advocate for clarification rather than continuing to try to convince people that the rules are wrong by twisting people's words.
My point of view? That's the rule, I don't want to agree to something that has no evidence to show it's not the intent.
Is it intended? I don't know, there's not enough to say either way.
Would I complain if you were right, and they do stack after all? Not at all. Clarification is good and I welcome it even if it proves me wrong.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
I can almost guarantee the authors did not intend that section to be as subjective as you're willing to treat it.
It can't not be. Someone has to make a value judgement whenever they're applying the rule.
The whole point of the rule (and similar sections) in the first place is to encourage players and GMs to make value judgements over trying to adhere to the strict letter of the law. To say it's not intended to be subjective is missing the whole point of the system.
If they really meant to only have that passage of text apply when the person wanting things to work in the most favorable way the text can possibly be construed also felt like maybe they were asking for too much in doing so, then they wasted the space it's written on and the time it took to write it out.
Not really. It's a guideline and a reminder to be skeptical of weird rules ambiguities and cheese, not a hammer. It serves that purpose just fine.
which again, this isn't a case of because only one increase is unambiguous and replacing a die with a larger die is unambiguously an increase
That's unambiguously reading the rules too legalistically. It's pretty clear the developers intended for you to just treat the weapon as a d8 weapon when wielded in two hands, because that's how the trait functions. The notion that Paizo was specifically planning on having certain weapons not benefit fully from die-size increasing effects because of a weird wording quirk in how a trait functions but didn't want to bother actually spelling it out anywhere just doesn't hold up. "Technically it counds as a die-size increase" just reeks of the very overengineered rules lawyering we're trying to do away with.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I can almost guarantee the authors did not intend that section to be as subjective as you're willing to treat it.
Provide any sort of proof, and we can talk about it. Otherwise, this is just meaningless. Unless you are a stealth writer for the CRB, in which case this is possibly the worst way to interact with your player base I can possibly imagine.
If they really meant to only have that passage of text apply when the person wanting things to work in the most favorable way the text can possibly be construed also felt like maybe they were asking for too much in doing so, then they wasted the space it's written on and the time it took to write it out.
I'm not 100% sure what you are saying here. Are you saying that the rule is useless because it doesn't mean anything in particular? Because I believe it Does have a particular meaning, that Two Hand alters the base weapon die to a specified die while an increase increases the die in a way that is not "natural" to the weapon.
Because every "that's too good to be true" can be met with "I don't think so" no matter what the actual context is, so it seems a lot more likely to me that the authors intended that passage to encourage folks to read the rules as being more conservative whenever they come across ambiguous (which again, this isn't a case of because only one increase is unambiguous and replacing a die with a larger die is unambiguously an increase).
Die replacement with a larger die is an increase. But it is not an Increase by die step as noted by Increasing Die Size. At least, that is how I read the rule.
Increasing Die Size specifies an effect that, "calls on you to increase the size of your weapon damage dice." Two Hand and Jousting are the only die change effects that I can find that don't use the word Increase once. So it is not in fact an effect that calls on you to increase the size of your weapon damage dice. Instead it is an effect that, "changes its weapon damage die to the indicated listed value."
This is a pretty specific difference, and leads me to believe that Two Hand is written specifically to Not apply to Increasing Die Size.
Grasping Reach notes that it is a decrease in die size.
Deadly Simplicity notes that it is an increase in die size.
Fatal notes that it is an increase in die size.
Jousting calls on you to change the die size to the indicated value. It is the only other effect that uses this wording, and is also a weapon Trait coincidentally.
So isn't it possible then that the designers were fully aware that noting Jousting and Two Hand as increases would preclude them from working with other die size increases, like Fatal or Deadly Simplicity, and worded them differently specifically to allow them to work with those effects, and those like them in the future?
You'll give the designers the benefit of the doubt that they won't write rules you don't like for whatever reason. But you won't give the designers the benefit of the doubt that them choosing to word the Two Hand and Jousting traits, and those two traits only as far as I can find, the way they did as a deliberate move to allow them to work with die increases? That perhaps what you see as "casual language" is instead a calculated and deliberate move to differentiate two traits that are meant to alter the base damage die of a weapon as though that new die were the original die instead of a statistic that is benefiting from a bonus?
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
If a hypothetical simple weapon had two different sides, one which was d6, and the other was d4 with more traits and you could switch between sides by changing your grip, would deadly simplicity not work for both sides?
Why is there this rule about damage die size increases not stacking if you can circumvent it by using die size change and then die size increase ?
Why is there a rule about status bonuses not stacking if you can circumvent it with a circumstance bonus and then a status bonus?
Same answer to both questions; Because they're two separate things.
|
Why is there this rule about damage die size increases not stacking if you can circumvent it by using die size change and then die size increase ?Why is there a rule about status bonuses not stacking if you can circumvent it with a circumstance bonus and then a status bonus?
Same answer to both questions; Because they're two separate things.
That does not explain why there is the rule though.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
That does not explain why there is the rule though.Why is there this rule about damage die size increases not stacking if you can circumvent it by using die size change and then die size increase ?Why is there a rule about status bonuses not stacking if you can circumvent it with a circumstance bonus and then a status bonus?
Same answer to both questions; Because they're two separate things.
Most simple answer is because there are multiple ways to increase damage die that could otherwise stack.
Example:
A Champion of Nethys with Deific Weapon who takes the Cleric archetype and deadly simplicity. Without such a rule, the staff would have a d8 die in one hand and a d12 in two.
Another example would be a ranger with Crossbow Ace and Deadly Simplicity. This rule stops their crossbow from advancing to a d12.
Its also a solid rule for future proofing purposes.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Provide any sort of proof, and we can talk about it.In this case, the proof is that the section exists at all. It should be easy to believe in the self-evident nature of the authors writing passage of text with reason. If that section is meant to be that subjective it doesn't have a reason to exist because it's just a re-worded re-statement of "The GM has final say" from further up on the page
I'd actually say it is a refinement of the GM has the final say actually. Since that section is meant as a set of guidelines the GM can use to color their judgment calls, they all naturally fall under that same guideline, and work together to help the GM make the final say.
Die replacement with a larger die is an increase. But it is not an Increase by die step as noted by Increasing Die Size. At least, that is how I read the rule.The rule in question is "You can't increase your damage die size more than once."
That does not say by more than one step; it says more than one time. So it's not at all relevant whether the two-hand replacement results in one step or more than one step - it's an increase, and you can only do that once.
Re-read my statement. I will grant you that Two Hand is a factual upgrade in damage die, an increase if you will. But it is not an effect that, "calls on you to to increase the size of your weapon damage dice," as Deadly Simplicity does. So it does not fall under the Increasing Die Size rule.
I believe this is intentional. Words have meanings. And when different words are used, especially in a game system, they can very well have different meanings.
What would be the point of wording Two Hand differently from Deadly Simplicity/Deific Weapon/Crossbow Ace if not to differentiate it from those effects? Casual language? Creating a purposefully awkward to read set of rules that are the same, but worded differently for no discernable reason despite being written at the same time, in the same book?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I believe this is intentional. Words have meanings. And when different words are used, especially in a game system, they can very well have different meanings.You are reading the game as if it were written in technical language when it is deliberately not written that way.
Okay then. What is AC? DC? A Modifier? Key Ability? An Ability Score?
All you need to qualify as technical language is "specialized content", or jargon in other words. And if you are saying that Paizo included NO technical language in the writing of the rules, that is easily disproven. I would argue to you that PF2 attempts to meld elements of "technical language" and "casual language" to help the game be more approachable to a general audience and avoid alienating potential players by using nothing but jargon to explain the rules.
But this whole point of contention is irrelevant honestly.
What would be the point of wording Two Hand differently from Deadly Simplicity/Deific Weapon/Crossbow Ace if not to differentiate it from those effects? Casual language?Yes, casual language. Synonyms exist and the authors wanted to be able to use them without the fan-base thinking it meant they were actually saying a definitely not the same thing.
Except while writing Deadly Simplicity, Deific Weapon, Crossbow Ace, the Magus Twisting Tree hybrid study and Grasping Reach. Those they just decided to use the same wording. But Two Hand? Nah, we need a synonym here to spice things up.
Alternatively, they wrote the Two Hand and Jousting traits in such a way that they allows them to replace the base damage die of a weapon without counting as an increase or decrease. The weapon's die just changes to that size. Written in plain casual language even.
Creating a purposefully awkward to read set of rules that are the same, but worded differently for no discernable reason despite being written at the same time, in the same book?It's not actually awkward to read when you're not expecting it to be technical speak.
And uh... dozen authors, numerous months or writing, not very "written at the same time" when you get down to it.
Oh, I am not saying that the rules are awkward to read in any way. I just assumed that you found them awkward to read since you are unsure enough about their meaning to invoke the "Ambiguous Rules" guideline when referencing them, and suggested as much in that comment.
To me, nothing is ambiguous in this interaction.
|
|
I still think the rules technically allow it. There is a change in size and then an increase. Nowhere in the rules is there an indication that a change should be treated as an increase when the change goes up.
Where does it mention that the word "change" circumvents the rules that are set? You are all claiming that "change" is different from "increase" but where does it define that difference? You can't claim something is a keyword if it's never defined anywhere.
I believe someone also reference a recent errata where language was swapped between "change" and "increase." If they weren't meant to be separate terms, then why make the change?
No one has used the word "Errata" at all in this thread. If you don't cite a source then I will believe this was a lie made in bad faith to convince people that it's true. And in good faith I will check the first printing vs the second when I get home, to make absolutely sure.
For the few who commented about magus, I was actually just trying to play a warpriest of nethys and wanted to actually use my gods favored weapon instead of a bastard sword. Ironically, a nearly strict downgrade and people are calling that it’s so obviously overpowered it couldn’t possibly work, which feels kind of funny.
Slight tangent, but wouldn’t attacking with a non-magical quarterstaff violate your anathema if you could be attacking with a cantrip instead? Better make sure you can get a casting of magic weapon somewhere.
I still think the rules technically allow it. There is a change in size and then an increase. Nowhere in the rules is there an indication that a change should be treated as an increase when the change goes up.Where does it mention that the word "change" circumvents the rules that are set? You are all claiming that "change" is different from "increase" but where does it define that difference? You can't claim something is a keyword if it's never defined anywhere.
I'm not claiming that change is a keyword, there are plenty of mechanics in Pathfinder that don't use keywords. My argument is essentially that wording is important, and different words have different meanings in use. By choosing to use the word change in a select few traits that alter the size of a weapon's die, I believe the authors intend for those changes to not count as a "die size increase". In my opinion purposefully so that they can be used with abilities like Deadly Simplicity that increase the die further.
I believe someone also reference a recent errata where language was swapped between "change" and "increase." If they weren't meant to be separate terms, then why make the change?No one has used the word "Errata" at all in this thread. If you don't cite a source then I will believe this was a lie made in bad faith to convince people that it's true. And in good faith I will check the first printing vs the second when I get home, to make absolutely sure.
I didn't catch a reference to any errata in the thread either. I'm not aware of such an errata.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The only "errata" I know of is this one
Page 156: In the monk's Powerful Fist class feature, in the second sentence replace “changes” with “increases” to make it clear the normal rules on increases to die sizes apply.
Now this could mean two things:
1. "Changing" a die is explicitly different than "Increasing" a die
or
2. They used the word "changes" which caused people to have this same discussion, leading them to realize the word "changes" isn't clear enough and they had to make it more explicit.
I only hope this is clarified in some way, either in explicitly stating that "changing" a damage die is not the same as "increasing", preferably in the Increasing Dice rules, or by removing all instances of "changing" dice and replacing them with "increasing" or "decreasing".
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The only "errata" I know of is this one
Page 156: In the monk's Powerful Fist class feature, in the second sentence replace “changes” with “increases” to make it clear the normal rules on increases to die sizes apply.Now this could mean two things:
1. "Changing" a die is explicitly different than "Increasing" a die
or
2. They used the word "changes" which caused people to have this same discussion, leading them to realize the word "changes" isn't clear enough and they had to make it more explicit.I only hope this is clarified in some way, either in explicitly stating that "changing" a damage die is not the same as "increasing", preferably in the Increasing Dice rules, or by removing all instances of "changing" dice and replacing them with "increasing" or "decreasing".
That would streamline things for sure.
I for one don't see an issue with the former. I don't see how two hand stacking with effects like Deadly Simplicity is problematic in the slightest. If Deadly Simplicity, and other similar abilities like Deific Weapon, are meant to bring simple weapons up to par with Martial ones, then naturally it should do so for each "mode" of that weapon.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
That comes down to a misvaluation of traits and features.
Seems less like a misvaluation and more like selective valuation on your part. Namely in applying very subjective valuations (i.e. how good is this weapon for a very specific build) and making generalizations about them, which doesn't really match how weapons are designed or balanced.
A light mace is better than a longsword for a finesse character too, but that's not a value judgement on those two weapons either, nor does it make deadly simplicity bumping it up to a d6 somehow broken because of this context specific value.
It doesn't help that this whole supposition completely falls apart if you instead compare your version of the Staff to a more appropriate weapon (presumably though that's why you've been avoiding those comparisons).