I just stumbled over something odd in the Horse companion's support benefit. It looks like the rules are not intended as written.
It says:
"Your horse adds momentum to your charge. Until the start of your next turn, if you moved at least 10 feet on the action before your attack, add a circumstance bonus to damage to that attack equal to twice the number of damage dice. If your weapon already has the jousting weapon trait, increase the trait’s damage bonus by 2 per die instead."
So first of all (as another player pointed out to me) it seems very likely that this should only apply if the character is actually mounted, because otherwise it makes no sense out of several reasons.
Secondly this benefit per RAW applies to all attacks including spell attacks. Is that really intended? Intuition says otherwise.
I thought about some pros and cons, although I am pretty sure that this is just a mistake.
Arguments against RAW interpretation:
1. Animal companions usually apply to weapon attacks. Also it makes no sense that riding on a horse adds momentum to a spell.
2. As written here spells would get one additional damage per damage die. This is both ridiculously powerful and also pretty random: Spells usually have more damage dice than weapon attacks and there are huge differences between spells. There are spells that get one additional damage die every two levels and there are those that add more than one damage die per level. Admonishing Ray for example deals 2d6 damage per level. The expected damage is 7 damage per level. With the benefit it's 9. That's 28%.
If someone attacks with a ranged attack like a shortbow (1d6) of course damage would also increase by 28%, but the additional damage in total is still lower because the spell still gets more damage dice per level. You can usually make more strikes than spells each round but the support benefit counts only for one of them.
Arguments pro RAW interpretation:
1. Horses are the only common mount companion and mounts do NOT only make sense to non spellcasters (or even only to melee characters). Additional mobility is also helpful for spellcasters or ranged attacks in general. It seems a little unfair that weapon fighters get a pretty strong support benefit and casters just don't get anything if they have a mount.
2. The rules clearly say "attacks". There are a lot of other companions whose support benefits are explicitly restricted to strikes. I wonder why it should have been forgotten only for this companion and if there is any reason why it says "attack" and not "strike" here. Possibly it was supposed to work for another attack ability which was not a spell?
Would be great to have some clarification on that.
|
Well, there exist plenty of Spells that are both Attacks and also have Damage Dice so... yeah it applies. It does "feel" off given the context of the description but the terms used to define how it applies do not exclude Spells (and similar effects that are also Attacks and have Damage Dice).
I'm not sure I actually agree with some of the premises you noted either since after a quick review I found the Ape, Arboreal Sapling, Badger, Cave Gecko, Elephant, Rhino, T-rex, and Vulture ALL have wording that is permissive of non Strike Attacks that deal damage. In all, that's about 1/3 of the available ACs which to me seems as though it is common enough to not be considered a bug but rather a feature made to help ACs be useful for PCs who use more than dead-standard Strikes to damage foes.
So in short, this ambiguity regarding if "attack + deal damage" is far greater in scope than just worrying about it applying to the Horse alone.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
https://paizo.com/threads/rzs4380u?Musings-on-the-Beastmaster-and-support#8
Marked for errata in 2020.
If it benefits caster damage, just assume it's a mistake.
Edit: somebody should start up a Google doc or something with all the forum errata that's accumulated without reprints
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Was about to post the ridiculousness of my horse disintegrate sorcerer build holding a lance in one hand again...
I just stumbled over something odd in the Horse companion's support benefit. It looks like the rules are not intended as written.
It says:
"Your horse adds momentum to your charge. Until the start of your next turn, if you moved at least 10 feet on the action before your attack, add a circumstance bonus to damage to that attack equal to twice the number of damage dice. If your weapon already has the jousting weapon trait, increase the trait’s damage bonus by 2 per die instead."So first of all (as another player pointed out to me) it seems very likely that this should only apply if the character is actually mounted, because otherwise it makes no sense out of several reasons.
Secondly this benefit per RAW applies to all attacks including spell attacks. Is that really intended? Intuition says otherwise.
Your intuition is correct, since the wording on the second sentence implies it has to be a damage roll with a weapon:
Until the start of your next turn, if you moved at least 10 feet on the action before your attack, add a circumstance bonus to damage to that attack equal to twice the number of damage dice. If your weapon already has the jousting weapon trait, increase the trait’s damage bonus by 2 per die instead.
With the bolded part, it's pretty obvious it has to be attacks with a weapon, not a spell, otherwise the rules reference makes no sense if it was for everything that was an attack. It should also have to be melee attacks, not ranged attacks, since you moving faster does not add momentum to your projectile's velocity, even as a thrown weapon.
If a player tried to argue this, I would apply it only to melee spell attack rolls, and that's it. And even that is being generous, given RAW making it pretty obvious that it's for weapons only.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's such a quick fix, though. Literally, you just change "your attack" to "your next weapon attack," and it works as intended.
https://paizo.com/threads/rzs4380u?Musings-on-the-Beastmaster-and-support#8
Marked for errata in 2020.
If it benefits caster damage, just assume it's a mistake.
Edit: somebody should start up a Google doc or something with all the forum errata that's accumulated without reprints
Great! Thanks a lot for the clarification.
I am a little disappointed though that a mounted spellcaster just waists their support benefit then. Feels like saying: "Casters don't belong on a horse!"
It should also have to be melee attacks, not ranged attacks, since you moving faster does not add momentum to your projectile's velocity, even as a thrown weapon.
I heard that before but the link clearly says strike. I also think a ranged weapon should get that benefit, because a mounted archer is a pretty typical thing. And while they do not get momentum as said in the text you have better options to attack the enemy from a good angle if you are on a horse.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It should also have to be melee attacks, not ranged attacks, since you moving faster does not add momentum to your projectile's velocity, even as a thrown weapon.
That's... not true, though. I mean, professional athletes who are doing javelin throw have a run-up for a reason, you know?
Note: Firing a bow or throwing a weapon while moving absolutely does add velocity (and momentum) to the weapon.
Or subtract, depending on direction. :-P
Note: Firing a bow or throwing a weapon while moving absolutely does add velocity (and momentum) to the weapon.Or subtract, depending on direction. :-P
It's vector addition, really.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also, isn't there still the bug that you don't actually have to be mounted on the Horse in order to benefit from its Support Ability?
AoN still shows it, but maybe it was 'fixed' in unofficial errata somewhere.
Note: Firing a bow or throwing a weapon while moving absolutely does add velocity (and momentum) to the weapon.
Unless at or near the speed of light...
It should also have to be melee attacks, not ranged attacks, since you moving faster does not add momentum to your projectile's velocity, even as a thrown weapon.That's... not true, though. I mean, professional athletes who are doing javelin throw have a run-up for a reason, you know?
Three things:
1. (Nitpick) Being a professional means you have to be paid for it, and it has to be a sustainable source of income. Participating in the Olympics doesn't mean you get paid, meaning you aren't technically a professional athlete, compared to an athlete in a sport like Football or Soccer. Even if they earn money from winning medals, it has to be done as an occupation to be considered professional, by definition. Odds are, you can't realistically sustain your own living expenses solely by participating in the Olympics, meaning they aren't professional. Skilled, sure. But not professional.
2. This is in relation to being mounted. Javelin throwers aren't mounted when they perform their throw. While this can be argued that it's because they can't realistically both control the horse and throw the javelin simultaneously (as far as regulations are concerned), odds are it's because being on horseback doesn't give you the same means of preparation as simply being on the ground running by yourself.
3. The Horse Support Benefit functions identical to the Jousting trait, which is applied to a melee weapon, not a thrown or projectile weapon, meaning even if it realistically applies, game mechanics say no.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm far more concerned that one must dismount and move before gaining the support benefits.
After all, it is the horse that is moving, not you. You're just along for the ride.
Three things:Things to consider provided in-line...
1. (Nitpick) Being a professional means you have to be paid for it [lengthy bit snipped]
-- Professional in common context means "someone who does the thing for a living", which fits pre-modern warriors as well as PF2e PCs very well
2. This is in relation to being mounted. Javelin throwers aren't mounted when they perform their throw.
-- this is not true. Mounted javelin throwing is common to many martial cultures. Javelin throwing in the Olympics is not mounted, but that is irrelevant to PF2e
While this can be argued that it's because they can't realistically both control the horse and throw the javelin simultaneously (as far as regulations are concerned)...
-- that could be argued, but it would be wrong. Mounted warriors (bow, sword, javelin, spear, rifle, lasso, etc) control the horse with their knees. It's easier done with a saddle but primitives did it bareback as well.
3. The Horse Support Benefit functions identical to the Jousting trait, which is applied to a melee weapon, not a thrown or projectile weapon, meaning even if it realistically applies, game mechanics say no.
--The game mechanics do not say no, that was the point of this thread. Perhaps they should say no, but they don't. Personally, I would allow the damage increase benefit for ranged and melee attacks while mounted as long as the attack is roughly in the same direction as the move. I will not allow the bonus while stationary or for mounted spell attacks. My reasoning on "why not" for spell attacks is that the attack is not propelled by the caster and so will not gain any momentum from movement.
IMO (just one person's opinion) the above is easy to handle in-game, takes real pre-modern combat into account, and is cool / fun to play
How is that supposed to counteract my point? Doing things for a living means it provides a sustainable source of income to provide for expenses accrued from one's life. Being an Olympic Athlete does not earn pay unless you win medals, which counts more as prize money than a source of sustainable income.
Okay, fine, you had me with the lasso bit. Too bad PF2 doesn't let you do things like move and strike simultaneously, unless you have a special ability that lets you move and perform a Strike at any point during your move; but those are practically non-existent. So for the purposes of this thread, no, you can't.
Really? You're going to take that last sentence of it doubling the benefits of Jousting as not otherwise functioning identical to the Jousting trait?
All it says is "increase the trait's damage bonus by 2 per die." It doesn't say "increase the trait's damage bonus by 2 per weapon damage die." To me, that's easily read as saying that you stack the bonus per any type of die from horse with the bonus per weapon damage die from Jousting.
It doesn't double Jousting's benefit either. Jousting is +1 per weapon damage die, and it adds 2 per die to that.
The trait itself refers to weapon dice, so it's inferred from the trait description.
Just as well, Jousting already adds a Circumstance bonus to damage, meaning they don't stack, which is why Jousting has to have a specific callout for it.
The trait refers to weapon dice, but the horse support benefit does not. There's an assumption on your part that because they stack, they must be calculated the same way; there is as far as I'm aware not a general rule or trend indicating that, so I see no reason why they couldn't be calculated differently but added together nonetheless.
That they're both circumstance bonuses, as you've said, is why that clause exists, not because they're both calculated on weapon damage dice.
To be clear, my stance, as outlined in the thread that most likely spawned this one, is that RAW is that it's calculated based on all dice, but that it's an outlier compared to the ubiquity of per-weapon-damage-dice features and should probably be errata'd. But that RAW still stands.
The clause is pointless, then, since the horse benefit rules already add it to any roll, and it's a higher value. The base rules of stacking designate the clause useless.
1. (Nitpick) Being a professional means you have to be paid for it, and it has to be a sustainable source of income. Participating in the Olympics doesn't mean you get paid, meaning you aren't technically a professional athlete, compared to an athlete in a sport like Football or Soccer. Even if they earn money from winning medals, it has to be done as an occupation to be considered professional, by definition. Odds are, you can't realistically sustain your own living expenses solely by participating in the Olympics, meaning they aren't professional. Skilled, sure. But not professional.Have to say I really don't get what you are trying to prove with this point. Firstly, most everyone competing competing in the Olympics ARE professional athletes both by their own standards and by anyone's standards. Secondly, he didn't say Olympic athletes, he said professional athletes. And the best in the world at the javelin throw certainly are professional athletes. And lastly, those that are the best in the world at it definitely do a run-up when throwing their javelin. If you are going to (intentionally) nitpick then you really shouldn't be so completely wrong about it.
The nitpick is that people use the term "professional" to mean something that doesn't match the context the word is normally used for. At least, in relation to what the textbook definition is. And it irks me.
When people say things like "Don't worry, I'm a professional X," as if being paid regularly to do a task means you are good or proficient at said task, or "Don't swear, that's not professional" means not cursing discounts you as being hired help, it's baffling, and doesn't match the intentions behind the statement. Saying things like "Don't worry, I am skilled at this," or "Don't swear, that's not courteous," gets the point across without using an improper word. Hence a nitpick
You can disagree with that ideal all you wish, but to quote Princess Bride:
You keep using that word (professional). I don't think it means what you think it means.
As for whether people get paid for javelin throws, I'm not sure if that is the case outside the U.S. I used the Olympics as a means of comparison for highly skilled javelin throwers who don't get paid to participate as a means of demonstrating skilled doesn't mean professional.
The clause is pointless, then, since the horse benefit rules already add it to any roll, and it's a higher value. The base rules of stacking designate the clause useless.The trait refers to weapon dice, but the horse support benefit does not. There's an assumption on your part that because they stack, they must be calculated the same way; there is as far as I'm aware not a general rule or trend indicating that, so I see no reason why they couldn't be calculated differently but added together nonetheless.
That they're both circumstance bonuses, as you've said, is why that clause exists, not because they're both calculated on weapon damage dice.
To be clear, my stance, as outlined in the thread that most likely spawned this one, is that RAW is that it's calculated based on all dice, but that it's an outlier compared to the ubiquity of per-weapon-damage-dice features and should probably be errata'd. But that RAW still stands.
Why would it be pointless? The horse benefit's a higher value, but it still won't stack with the Jousting trait by default. Adding the clause lets them stack.
I may be wrong about this, but I think a source of confusion may be this: The horse benefit says, "Increase the trait’s damage bonus by 2 per die instead," not "Increase the trait’s damage bonus to 2 per die instead." So the horse benefit (were it based on weapon damage dice) triples the Jousting trait's bonus, rather than doubling it as you said earlier, and rather than overriding/replacing the Jousting trait's 1 per weapon damage die with its 2 per damage die, it adds them together, so the clause doesn't uselessly reiterate the pre-existing stacking rules.
It's a plausible ruling, but the problem is that there is no fundamental difference between the two statements you provided, as in both cases, you are using a different value (2) instead of the normal value (1). If the word "instead" was removed, it would make sense to come to that conclusion. But because either sentence replaces it to the same specific value, it still becomes a pointless clause.
If you increase a number to another number, your final result is the second number. If you increase a number by another number, you instead add those two numbers together. As in, if I increase my speed of 50mph by 10mph, I am now moving 60mph.
"Instead" doesn't have any effect on the amount Jousting's circumstance bonus is changed. It's telling you to increase Jousting's circumstance bonus instead of adding the normal 2 per die circumstance bonus, which is the default for the horse's Support benefit as described by the sentence immediately before the one I was quoting.
If Fleet said, "Your ground speed is now 30ft. If your speed was already 30ft or higher, instead increase your speed by 5ft," you would not be left with a speed of 5ft if your starting ancestry was elf.
That's a misnomer because both values are variable equations, and not a flat value like you are using in the first part of your Fleet example. We are not adjusting a flat value, we are exchanging a variable equation in place of the original one.
Let me break it down:
If we assume X is equal to the number of damage dice, Jousting is 1X, and Horse Support Benefit is 2X. The clause says that "if your weapon already has the Jousting trait (1X), increase the the trait's damage bonus by 2 per dice instead." So, instead of Jousting being 1X it becomes 2X, because the statement replaces Jousting from being 1X to 2(1X). It doesn't become 3X, because the statement doesn't say add 2X to the Jousting trait, it says to increase it by 2X instead. Instead of what? Instead of 1X. That is how the word "instead" functions in this sentence. If it was meant to function as you intended, they would have to either remove the word "instead" (the word creating the exchange), or change the value to 3.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If we assume X is equal to the number of damage dice, Jousting is 1X, and Horse Support Benefit is 2X. The clause says that "if your weapon already has the Jousting trait (1X), increase the the trait's damage bonus by 2 per dice instead." So, instead of Jousting being 1X it becomes 2X, because the statement replaces Jousting from being 1X to 2(1X). It doesn't become 3X, because the statement doesn't say add 2X to the Jousting trait, it says to increase it by 2X instead. Instead of what? Instead of 1X. That is how the word "instead" functions in this sentence. If it was meant to function as you intended, they would have to either remove the word "instead" (the word creating the exchange), or change the value to 3.
Actually, the statement pretty much explicitly does say "add 2X to the Jousting trait". That's the difference between "increase by" and "increase to". The "instead" is instead of providing the standard benefit of the horse's support ability.
- Normally, it's "Until the start of your next turn, if you moved at least 10 feet on the action before your attack, add a circumstance bonus to damage to that attack equal to twice the number of damage dice."
- If your weapon already has the jousting weapon trait, it's "increase the trait’s damage bonus by 2 per die" instead. You start with a jousting damage bonus of 1. You increase that damage bonus by 2. The result is a damage bonus of 3, because when you increase 1 by 2, you get 3.
Ironically, I think this means that if you can justify using the horse's support trait to buff spell attacks, and then you pick up a lance, suddenly, the support trait no longer works on spell attacks, but it is what it is.
You're being fairly consistently wrong here, on a number of different points. You might want to step back a bit before you dig your hole any deeper.
If we assume X is equal to the number of damage dice, Jousting is 1X, and Horse Support Benefit is 2X. The clause says that "if your weapon already has the Jousting trait (1X), increase the the trait's damage bonus by 2 per dice instead." So, instead of Jousting being 1X it becomes 2X, because the statement replaces Jousting from being 1X to 2(1X). It doesn't become 3X, because the statement doesn't say add 2X to the Jousting trait, it says to increase it by 2X instead. Instead of what? Instead of 1X. That is how the word "instead" functions in this sentence. If it was meant to function as you intended, they would have to either remove the word "instead" (the word creating the exchange), or change the value to 3.Actually, the statement pretty much explicitly does say "add 2X to the Jousting trait". That's the difference between "increase by" and "increase to". The "instead" is instead of providing the standard benefit of the horse's support ability.
- Normally, it's "Until the start of your next turn, if you moved at least 10 feet on the action before your attack, add a circumstance bonus to damage to that attack equal to twice the number of damage dice."
- If your weapon already has the jousting weapon trait, it's "increase the trait’s damage bonus by 2 per die" instead. You start with a jousting damage bonus of 1. You increase that damage bonus by 2. The result is a damage bonus of 3, because when you increase 1 by 2, you get 3.
Ironically, I think this means that if you can justify using the horse's support trait to buff spell attacks, and then you pick up a lance, suddenly, the support trait no longer works on spell attacks, but it is what it is.
You're being fairly consistently wrong here, on a number of different points. You might want to step back a bit before you dig your hole any deeper.
I don't need to step back on anything. You're leaving out the word "instead" and focusing on the word "by" on purpose to support your point. Talking about being consistently wrong, and here we are using the RAW inconsistently wrong to try and make someone look stupid.
Because seriously, if I increase by 2 instead, then that is in substitution of the original value, not in addition to it, as you claim. The word "instead" is explicitly used to symbolize this.
If I increase by 1 by default, and the clause says I increase by 2 instead, then the end result is increasing by 2. If they intended it to be 3 per dice, as you claim, then the wording doesn't support that result whatsoever.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What's the big deal? They're clearly meant to work together. If that wasn't the case, there's be no need for the language they chose to use.
If you have a jousting weapon and move 10 feet with a weapon that deals two dice of damage, you get +2 circumstance bonus to damage.
If you are ALSO using the support benefit of a horse animal companion, the support benefit says you increase by 2 instead. Therefore, if you have a jousting weapon, have activated your companion's support benefit, and move 10 feet with a weapon that deals two dice of damage, you get a +4 circumstance bonus to damage instead.
Try not to overthink it.
What's the big deal? They're clearly meant to work together. If that wasn't the case, there's be no need for the language they chose to use.
If you have a jousting weapon and move 10 feet with a weapon that deals two dice of damage, you get +2 circumstance bonus to damage.
If you are ALSO using the support benefit of a horse animal companion, the support benefit says you increase by 2 instead. Therefore, if you have a jousting weapon, have activated your companion's support benefit, and move 10 feet with a weapon that deals two dice of damage, you get a +4 circumstance bonus to damage instead.
Try not to overthink it.
The language is redundant and pointless, not unlike Flurry of Blows stating that it can only be used once per round due to the Flourish trait.
Make two unarmed Strikes. If both hit the same creature, combine their damage for the purpose of resistances and weaknesses. Apply your multiple attack penalty to the Strikes normally. As it has the flourish trait, you can use Flurry of Blows only once per turn.
If we are meant to know and apply traits to things, and the ability already has the relevant trait, which explains the very thing that the bolded part does, it's simply a waste of textbook space that could have been used for other, more important clarifications.
Also, you're confusing what I'm arguing; I am all for your interpretation, because that is the RAW. A jousting weapon with 2 dice while benefitting from the Support Benefit getting a +4 damage bonus is what I am actually stating.
But people are stating you'd get a +6 circumstance bonus to damage instead because they're treating the bonuses as additive instead of substitutive, which is just plain wrong based on the sentence framing and how it interacts with the English language.
I'm not confusing anything. I'd have to have read your respective arguments in the first to risk becoming confused by them. ;P
As you say, it is not additive. The word "instead" makes at the end makes an additive interpretation an impossibility.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The word "instead" makes at the end makes an additive interpretation an impossibility.
On the other hand, the word "increase" explicitly tells you that you're adding. That's what increase means.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't need to step back on anything. You're leaving out the word "instead" and focusing on the...
Instead of what?
So doing all this with a striking longsword with give you a circumstance bonus of +4 circumstance bonus to damage from the horse
Repeating with a striking lance from your horse you tentatively get a +4 circumstance bonus to damage. But the lance trait now gives you a +6 circumstance bonus to damage. (Rather than a +2 as the horse has increased it). Sadly the two bonuses don't stack, so you just use a +6 circumstance bonus to damage.
So it really doesn't matter what instead was referring to. You don't get both benefits anyway.
It still doesn't make the lance worthwhile. The mount gives you a +1 circumstance bonus to AC so you may as well wield an two handed weapon. You don't get reach on a size medium mount. So you are still much better off with a greatsword for d12 damage.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The word "instead" makes at the end makes an additive interpretation an impossibility.On the other hand, the word "increase" explicitly tells you that you're adding. That's what increase means.
Not necessarily, though "increase by" certainly does (which is the phrasing here).
"Your horse adds momentum to your charge. Until the start of your next turn, if you moved at least 10 feet on the action before your attack, add a circumstance bonus to damage to that attack equal to twice the number of damage dice. If your weapon already has the jousting weapon trait, increase the trait’s damage bonus by 2 per die instead."
To me it seems to only makes sense one way:
Without jousting: +2 circumstance bonus to damage per weapon die
This is straightforward.
With jousting: +3 circumstance bonus to damage per weapon die via the trait's damage being increased, replacing Support's direct bonus.
Instead of the above +2 bonus (and because it won't stack with the circumstance bonus of jousting), increase the trait's bonus to damage by 2 per die, (which is 1 per die to begin with) ending up with +3 circumstance bonus per weapon die. This is a way to bypass the "doesn't stack" issue and get the net benefits of both abilities (which makes sense to me given horse, lance, etc.). This all also could've been done by instead increasing the Support bonus to three. (That might have been the more straightforward route, but there's an iota of forward-proofing by letting the lance get in its jousting damage).
You're using 2 INSTEAD of 1. The 1 is INCREASED to 2.
It's the only interpretation that makes any sense and accounts for both "instead" and "increase" being used in a correct and logical manner.
If it was meant to sum to 3, they wouldn't have needed to use the word "instead" at all.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You're using 2 INSTEAD of 1. The 1 is INCREASED to 2.
It's the only interpretation that makes any sense and accounts for both "instead" and "increase" being used in a correct and logical manner.
If it was meant to sum to 3, they wouldn't have needed to use the word "instead" at all.
That's untrue.
Source: Former English teacher, me."Your horse adds momentum to your charge. Until the start of your next turn, if you moved at least 10 feet on the action before your attack, add a circumstance bonus to damage to that attack equal to twice the number of damage dice. If your weapon already has the jousting weapon trait, increase the trait’s damage bonus by 2 per die instead."
It all hinges on what the "instead" references.
If it were as you say, RD, "instead" would refer to "2 per die instead of 1 per die" (the norm for Jousting trait). Except that reading has two problems: there's no "1 per die" nor connection to the normal Jousting benefit in that paragraph. "Instead" cannot contrast w/ an absent referent. Moreover there'd be no net difference w/ that interpretation. Paizo could have left that sentence out and the results would be the same because circumstance bonuses don't stack. It's like saying "instead of two per die, use two per die"...???
Yet if "instead" refers to "use the trait's damage bonus (w/ a +2 added on) instead of the normal Support bonus" the sentence makes complete sense (by referring to the previous sentence w/ its "instead"). And the net effect is to let a lancer get their Jousting bonus while mounted (because otherwise they don't stack).
Which is to say that the paragraph breaks down like this:
If horse does Support, add X.
If weapon has Jousting trait, instead of adding X, add two to its Jousting trait damage.
(I think if you reread the paragraph with this in mind you'll see how it that scans cleanly. Focusing solely on the last sentence can mislead as one hunts for an absent referent.)
Yes, the original "instead" would be much better placed if put in front of "increase...", maybe better phrased as "then instead..." so that its referents are clearer.
ETA: And apologies to any English language learners having to follow along if your other languages use different grammar!
|
You're using 2 INSTEAD of 1. The 1 is INCREASED to 2.
It's the only interpretation that makes any sense and accounts for both "instead" and "increase" being used in a correct and logical manner.
If it was meant to sum to 3, they wouldn't have needed to use the word "instead" at all.
That's untrue.
Source: Former English teacher, me.
I'm not following this discussion as I find it rather tedious so this is NOT supporting any particular interpretation.
But if you start arguing grammar then you've already lost. It doesn't matter at all what some former English teacher thinks something means after very carefully parsing the grammar. There is no reason to believe that the author was correct in their grammar and even less reason to believe that the reader is going to correctly analyze the grammar.
Parsing words this carefully is just a waste of time. And boring to boot. If you have to argue grammar at this length then the text is ambiguous. Note that and move on
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You're using 2 INSTEAD of 1. The 1 is INCREASED to 2.
1+2 is not 2.
It's the only interpretation that makes any sense and accounts for both "instead" and "increase" being used in a correct and logical manner.
I really don't see how you can call it "correct and logical" when your entire interpretation renders that part of the ability nonfunctional. Whenever there's ambiguity and one interpretation renders an ability dysfunctional, it seems a bit much to argue that's obviously and unequivocally the correct reading, as opposed to the one that leaves you with the rules text actually doing something.
If it was meant to sum to 3, they wouldn't have needed to use the word "instead" at all.
Instead tells you that the new benefit replaces the old benefit. Instead of applying a circumstance bonus to damage, you increase the value of the jousting trait... by 2.
"I'm not following this discussion as I find it rather tedious so this is NOT supporting any particular interpretation." - Paul J.
Expressing ignorance of the discussion before proceeding to comment on the merits of the discussion is an interesting way to "support" your case. Especially so since the latter portion of that sentence is incorrect. That argument re: "instead" is supporting the interpretation that the bonus w/ a Jousting weapon is +3 per die. Except you cut that "rather tedious" portion out in your quote.
And I think the rule's only ambiguous when looking at the final sentence alone, rather than the paragraph as a whole which makes the referents for "instead" rather clear. No need to insert one's own extrapolation.
Perhaps I should have included that summation as a tl:dr. :-P
|
|
You're using 2 INSTEAD of 1. The 1 is INCREASED to 2.
It's the only interpretation that makes any sense and accounts for both "instead" and "increase" being used in a correct and logical manner.
If it was meant to sum to 3, they wouldn't have needed to use the word "instead" at all.
Cue PTSD flashbacks to arguments on what constitutes an "increase."
I don't need to step back on anything. You're leaving out the word "instead" and focusing on the...Instead of what?
So doing all this with a striking longsword with give you a circumstance bonus of +4 circumstance bonus to damage from the horse
Repeating with a striking lance from your horse you tentatively get a +4 circumstance bonus to damage. But the lance trait now gives you a +6 circumstance bonus to damage. (Rather than a +2 as the horse has increased it). Sadly the two bonuses don't stack, so you just use a +6 circumstance bonus to damage.
So it really doesn't matter what instead was referring to. You don't get both benefits anyway.
It still doesn't make the lance worthwhile. The mount gives you a +1 circumstance bonus to AC so you may as well wield an two handed weapon. You don't get reach on a size medium mount. So you are still much better off with a greatsword for d12 damage.
Another interpretation that simply ignores the word "instead" just to try and prove its point. Nobody knows that instead supersedes the entirety of adding the 1 and 2 together that they think is the intention, but isn't actually RAW.
I think we should petition to cease having the word "instead" be in the dictionary, because nobody parses it or uses it correctly. It's up there with the word "professional" being used to mean "skilled" or "cordial," when the word is not meant to be used in those contexts based on its definition.
The word "instead" makes at the end makes an additive interpretation an impossibility.On the other hand, the word "increase" explicitly tells you that you're adding. That's what increase means.
If I increase by 2 instead of increase by 1, how much do I increase by?
The answer is not 3 in this question. You all keep saying it is, though, when the statement is substituting a value with another value, not adding a value. The RAW says you increase by 2 instead (of by 1). Not increase by 2 instead (in addition to the 1). That is an invention of your own creation, and not RAW.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
If I increase by 2 instead of increase by 1, how much do I increase by?
Hm, this response doesn't really make sense, because you're never increasing something by 1 in the first place. The only increase comes from the horse support's alternate bonus.
So to break it down step by step:
What are you increasing? The jousting trait's damage bonus.
What's the value of the jousting trait's damage bonus? 1 per die.
So increasing it by 2 raises it to 3 per die.
If you do 2 damage per die, you've only increased the trait's bonus by 1, not by 2.
And you do this instead of applying the horse support's normal benefits (which makes sense because the horse support's normal bonus conflicts with the jousting trait, you get an alternative benefit if you have both).
There is some language ambiguity over which part of the process instead applies to, but since one interpretation renders that part of the ability literally pointless, we can safely disregard it because it's reasonable to assume Paizo intends for the abilities it publishes to actually function.
So the end result is that a jousting weapon gives you a +1 circumstance bonus, the horse support gives you +2, but if you have both the horse support instead increases the jousting trait to +3.
To be clear, no one is ignoring instead, but it seems pretty clear to me that you apply the second bonus instead of the horse support's normal effect (i.e. the second sentence of the horse support) rather than instead of the jousting trait's bonus, because that would mean replacing the trait's effect with the same bonus you would have already had to begin with, which just doesn't really hold up logically.
Hope that helps you better understand the other side of the issue!
If I increase by 2 instead of increase by 1, how much do I increase by?Hm, this response doesn't really make sense, because you're never increasing something by 1 in the first place. The only increase comes from the horse support's alternate bonus.
So to break it down step by step:
What are you increasing? The jousting trait's damage bonus.
What's the value of the jousting trait's damage bonus? 1 per die.
So increasing it by 2 raises it to 3 per die.
If you do 2 damage per die, you've only increased the trait's bonus by 1, not by 2.
And you do this instead of applying the horse support's normal benefits (which makes sense because the horse support's normal bonus conflicts with the jousting trait, you get an alternative benefit if you have both).
There is some language ambiguity over which part of the process instead applies to, but since one interpretation renders that part of the ability literally pointless, we can safely disregard it because it's reasonable to assume Paizo intends for the abilities it publishes to actually function.
So the end result is that a jousting weapon gives you a +1 circumstance bonus, the horse support gives you +2, but if you have both the horse support instead increases the jousting trait to +3.
To be clear, no one is ignoring instead, but it seems pretty clear to me that you apply the second bonus instead of the horse support's normal effect (i.e. the second sentence of the horse support) rather than instead of the jousting trait's bonus, because that would mean replacing the trait's effect with the same bonus you would have already had to begin with, which just doesn't really hold up logically.
Hope that helps you better understand the other side of the issue!
So then let me help you educate my position then: The increase by 1 is the base Jousting trait. If we are suggesting that the Jousting trait isn't an increase in damage, but the Horse Support Benefit is, then they would technically stack anyway, since both are separate sources of increased damage. But them both being the same type of damage bonus, which is fundamentally an increase, disproves that. It's the sole reason why they tried (and failed) to implement that clause in the first place. As such, it makes sense to treat Jousting as an "increase by 1 (per dice)" and Horse Support Benefit as "increase by 2 (per dice)", which is why I disagreed with that sentiment; because an "increase by" value is already supplied. It's simply changed to a different (incorrect) number.
The second bonus (valued at 2) is what is replacing the original bonus (the 1 from the initial Jousting), which is what the word "instead" demonstrates. In this case, the 2 replaces the 1, not adds to the 1 and becomes the new replacement, since both are already considered increases to begin with. Suggesting that they add 2 to the original value instead, when the wording in relation to the content doesn't support that concept, is where the dots don't connect properly.
To be clear, I understood what they explained the first time, I simply still disagreed with it because the sentence structure used compared to other forms of media doesn't really support that logic; if the value was set to 3, or they simply removed the word "instead," it would make sense to come to their conclusion. But neither of those things were done, so it grammatically doesn't add up. The only thing that was really brought up that makes sense was the fact that the opposite interpretation would fall under the Too Bad to Be True clause, and honestly, even with that considered, with how fringe-case this is, I wouldn't particularly care if a table ruled one way or the other, since a +1 to +4 bonus in damage is practically negligible for their respective levels. But I do expect sentence structures to maintain consistency for other rules that are far more impactful; simply put, this sentence structure is beyond poorly conveyed.
And it's not like this is the first thing that Paizo wrote that doesn't add up (pun intended). Battle Medicine, Striking with Reload 0 Weapons, and plenty of other things are written poorly and create unusual or unexpected interpretations, even if some of them are sound (such as pre-nocking an arrow to ready a Strike against an enemy when a condition is met, even though RAW you can't do that). This falls under that same prospect; the only major difference is that they are not as binary as "this does/not increase by 2."