I've had this discussion in a few places elsewhere but there are a lot of moving parts to it. I don't really have one single question about the subject but I'd like to see if someone sees a flaw I missed in my interpretations or just if someones has different ideas.
This is a relevant thread but it's from a time with a lot less options (just the inventor's weapon modifications completely turns it on its head).
So trip, grapple, shove and disarm are not attack rolls but are attacks (plus force open and escape, I forgot about these until I double checked while writing this post). Usually strike is the only attack that deals damage but not always.
Without any feats, trip deals 1d6 damage on a crit.
Force open may deal damage to an object.
With feats, crushing grab and brutal bully add a damage component to some non strike attacks.
Harder they fall also does but with a different wording that closely mirrors the trip crit success.
We know a maneuver executed with a free hand is an attack but not an unarmed attack. However there are both weapons and unarmed attacks with maneuver traits (ie: dhampir's fangs and fangwire), which presumably makes weapon attack maneuvers and unarmed attack maneuvers something possible (I've been told on another site that this isn't the case but no explanation for why that was so feel free to give your opinion on that).
We know for sure that none of this damage is a hit (that's a keyword for a success on a strike) nor a damage roll (ditto).
Most additional damage effects are worded to add damage on either a hit (ie:corrosive weapon) or a damage roll (ie:twin weapon).
However there are a handful of stand out effects that are worded differently.
Enlarge gives a status bonus to melee damage.
Forceful gives a circumstance bonus to damage equal to the number of weapon damage dice on an attack (not a strike).
The weapon specialization class feature (shared by classes but not identical) gives additional damage with weapons and unarmed attacks.
We should pretty much agree on everything so far unless I've misunderstood something very basic. That being said here's how I'm interpreting it:
Additional damage/status bonus to damage requires damage to be dealt in the first place to be applied (except when using Certain Strike but that's not relevant now since it's a strike).
Crushing grab and brutal bully modify the maneuver they apply to and make it a source of damage, if they weren't they would be a free action instead of a passive effect. Crushing grab also calls itself an attack "You can make this attack nonlethal with no penalty."
Crit trip and harder they fall might not be the same as crushing grab and brutal bully. The former say "the target takes dmg" while the latter say "you deal dmg". I believe this is meant to represent hitting the ground, not damage dealt with the implement used to trip.
Because of this I think forceful and weapon spec add damage to brutal bully and crushing grab but not trip or harder they fall.
I believe Enlarge adds damage to all 4 of the situations, as it has the broadest wording (bonus to melee damage).
Melee damage is the result of a melee Strike. Actions like Grab or Trip are not melee Strikes, so even if they inflict damage in some way, you don't get any melee damage bonus to them.
Think of the damage those maneuvers inflict as a secondary effect. It's like Shoving someone into a pit. Surely you wouldn't argue that the effects you listed would add to the falling damage, just because a Warhammer was used for the shove.
So the rules for damage and damage rolls mention "melee damage rolls", not melee damage.
I haven't seen "melee damage" specifically anywhere in the rules except in enlarge and similar size effects.
This seems congruent with how certain strike functions: it removes all damage dice but keeps all flat sources of damage (weapon spec being one of the most notable).
Even if it's the failure condition of a strike action, it's not a damage roll but it's still melee damage.
So the rules for damage and damage rolls mention "melee damage rolls", not melee damage.
I haven't seen "melee damage" specifically anywhere in the rules except in enlarge and similar size effects.
This seems congruent with how certain strike functions: it removes all damage dice but keeps all flat sources of damage (weapon spec being one of the most notable).
Even if it's the failure condition of a strike action, it's not a damage roll but it's still melee damage.
Certain Strike specifically tells you which damage applies. Crushing Grab also specifically tells you how much damage it deals.
There's nothing else added to the damage in both cases. Crushing Grab's damage is equal to your strength modifier. And that's it. Same goes for critical success on a Trip: It already lists its damage (1d6) qand nothing else is added to it.
Traits do not turn the weapon attacks into maneuvers. They allow the maneuver without a free hand.
This is pretty vague tho. You can make a maneuver attack with your hands full because you are using the weapon for the maneuver. That's also why you get the weapon's reach on that attack, it's the reach trait of the weapon.
When the Grapple trait spells out "You can use this weapon to Grapple with the Athletics skill even if you don't have a free hand." it seems to me as if the weapon becomes the implement of the maneuver, not a token you hold that allows you to grapple with a virtual free hand to stick to grapple's original wording.My reading of this is that maneuvers done through a trait are unarmed/weapon attacks. But I also understand that this is the most shaky part of the reasoning.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also make sure that you aren't being confused by the "Attack" trait name. That trait would be better if it was named something like "MAP Applies".
There are actions, such as Escape, that have the Attack trait that are not attacks. And there are actions that are attacks that don't have the Attack trait.
So a Trip with a weapon has the Attack trait, but it is not an 'attack with a melee weapon'. It is a combat maneuver done using a melee weapon. Even if you end up rolling damage for it, it would not be melee damage because it was not part of a melee attack - even though the action has the Attack trait and was performed with a melee weapon.
Hopefully that clears some things up. Because it is certainly confusing enough to write.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So a Trip with a weapon has the Attack trait, but it is not an 'attack with a melee weapon'.
... So you're making an attack, using a melee weapon, but it's not an attack with a melee weapon?
That feels a little bit tortured for me to buy into.
There are actions, such as Escape, that have the Attack trait that are not attacks. And there are actions that are attacks that don't have the Attack trait.
You mean actions with the attack trait that aren't strikes right? Because if you're arguing that actions with the attack trait are not attacks, I don't agree with that.
There are three relevant terms here. Attack, attack roll, and strike.
Attacks are just a category of ability, which means it counts as an attack and increments MAP. If something says it's an attack, it's an attack, and if it isn't, it isn't. That might sound circular, but it seems like some people are suggesting you can have attacks that aren't attacks, which obviously doesn't make sense so it's worth emphasizing.
Attack rolls are a specific kind of check that some attacks, i.e. strikes and attack spells, require. Admittedly this gets a little confusing for some people, because not all attacks will involve attack rolls. The very first errata emphasized this distinction intentionally to differentiate how different types of attacks work.
A Strike is a specific action which is both an attack and requires an attack roll.
As another example, Telekinetic Projectile is a spell, but also an attack that requires a spell attack roll.
Trip meanwhile is an attack, but it does not involve an attack roll and instead has you make a skill check.
Escape is the example I use to illustrate. I think there are or at least could be others.
Escape has the Attack trait.
Escape is not a hostile action, nor is it an attack in the common meaning of the word.
So there do exist actions that have the Attack trait that are not attacks.
There are also attacks that are not Strike actions. Such as spell attacks, Feint, and Scare to Death (which is an example of an attack that doesn't have the Attack trait).
Trip meanwhile is an attack, but it does not involve an attack roll and instead has you make a skill check.
Specifically, this one was the cause of the errata.
Things that give bonuses to an attack roll would not affect Trip action rolls. But bonuses that affect Athletics rolls would.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...
There are actions, such as Escape, that have the Attack trait that are not attacks. And there are actions that are attacks that don't have the Attack trait.
...
Nope. Having the attack trait or not having it is what makes an action an attack or not an attack. It's the definition of 'attack.' So having the attack trait is both necessary and sufficient for an action to be an attack.
An attack is any check that has the attack trait.
Thus Escape and any other action with the attack trait is an attack, and any actions without the attack trait are not attacks.
-----
Here's the entire entry which I think might be a useful reference for this discussion.
• Page 446: Attack Rolls. There was some confusion as to whether skill checks with the attack trait (such as Grapple or Trip) are also attack rolls at the same time. They are not. To make this clear, add this sentence to the beginning of the definition of attack roll "When you use a Strike action or make a spell attack, you attempt a check called an attack roll."
To clarify the different rules elements involved:
An attack is any check that has the attack trait. It applies and increases the multiple attack penalty.
An attack roll is one of the core types of checks in the game (along with saving throws, skill checks, and Perception checks). They are used for Strikes and spell attacks, and traditionally target Armor Class.
Some skill actions have the attack trait, specifically Athletics actions such as Grapple and Trip. You still make a skill check with these skills, not an attack roll.
The multiple attack penalty applies on those skill actions as well. As it says later on in the definition of attack roll "Striking multiple times in a turn has diminishing returns. The multiple attack penalty (detailed on page 446) applies to each attack after the first, whether those attacks are Strikes, special attacks like the Grapple action of the Athletics skill, or spell attack rolls." There is inaccurate language in the Multiple Attack Penalty section implying it applies only to attack rolls that will be receiving errata.
That last part was, in fact, addressed in the 3rd printing.
• Page 446: While there are numerous places in the Core Rulebook that indicate that non-Strike attack actions like Shove and Trip take a multiple attack penalty on their checks, in one spot in the definition of multiple attack penalty, it mentions that you take your multiple attack penalty on attack rolls. This caused some confusion as to whether it applies to skill checks or other rolls you might make as part of an attack action despite the other references, so to clear that up, change "attack roll" to "check" in both places.
...
There are actions, such as Escape, that have the Attack trait that are not attacks. And there are actions that are attacks that don't have the Attack trait.
...Nope. Having the attack trait or not having it is what makes an action an attack or not an attack. It's the definition of 'attack.' So having the attack trait is both necessary and sufficient for an action to be an attack.
An attack is any check that has the attack trait.Thus Escape and any other action with the attack trait is an attack, and any actions without the attack trait are not attacks.
For game mechanics alone, this might make sense. But when we start talking about it in standard conversation English instead, then it stops making sense any more.
It leads to strange things like Escape being an attack - often equated to being a hostile action. And casting a Fireball at someone not being an attack. Trying to scare someone so badly that they literally die is not an attack, but feinting against them is.
If 'Hostile Action' was better defined, this might not be so much of a problem. But it really isn't. So people sometimes use the Attack trait instead.
...
There are actions, such as Escape, that have the Attack trait that are not attacks. And there are actions that are attacks that don't have the Attack trait.
...Nope. Having the attack trait or not having it is what makes an action an attack or not an attack. It's the definition of 'attack.' So having the attack trait is both necessary and sufficient for an action to be an attack.
An attack is any check that has the attack trait.Thus Escape and any other action with the attack trait is an attack, and any actions without the attack trait are not attacks.For game mechanics alone, this might make sense. But when we start talking about it in standard conversation English instead, then it stops making sense any more.
It leads to strange things like Escape being an attack - often equated to being a hostile action. And casting a Fireball at someone not being an attack. Trying to scare someone so badly that they literally die is not an attack, but feinting against them is.
If 'Hostile Action' was better defined, this might not be so much of a problem. But it really isn't. So people sometimes use the Attack trait instead.
Hate to be this guy right now, but fwiw Feint does not have the attack trait. I had to double check that because I remembered it not having it, but you got me second guessing. Lol
...Trying to scare someone so badly that they literally die is not an attack, but feinting against them is...
A Feint is emphatically not an attack. Even in plain language outside of the context of rules mechanics, a feint is a deceptive move to distract the target from a coming attack.
...Trying to scare someone so badly that they literally die is not an attack, but feinting against them is...A Feint is emphatically not an attack. Even in plain language outside of the context of rules mechanics, a feint is a deceptive move to distract the target from a coming attack.
Would a feint break an invisibility or a fascination?
Should it?
Hate to be this guy right now, but fwiw Feint does not have the attack trait. I had to double check that because I remembered it not having it, but you got me second guessing. Lol
They might have seen this entry on nethys, it also threw me for a loop.
For game mechanics alone, this might make sense. But when we start talking about it in standard conversation English instead, then it stops making sense any more.
I get what you're saying but take another look at the OP. I was looking at interactions between feats and effects that have very specific wordings, that's a situation where being precise by the rules is a must.
...Trying to scare someone so badly that they literally die is not an attack, but feinting against them is...A Feint is emphatically not an attack. Even in plain language outside of the context of rules mechanics, a feint is a deceptive move to distract the target from a coming attack.Would a feint break an invisibility or a fascination?
Should it?
While the Feint action has neither the Auditory nor Visual traits, it is against Perception. I'd argue, though this isn't really supported by RAW, that if the target cannot perceive the Feinter that the Feint Action shouldn't work...
Fascination might oughta make Feint easier, though...
So the rules for damage and damage rolls mention "melee damage rolls", not melee damage.
I haven't seen "melee damage" specifically anywhere in the rules except in enlarge and similar size effects.
This seems congruent with how certain strike functions: it removes all damage dice but keeps all flat sources of damage (weapon spec being one of the most notable).
Even if it's the failure condition of a strike action, it's not a damage roll but it's still melee damage.
The problem is the damage rules are only vaguely defined.
Just the one section for spells, spell attacks, strikes and other attacks.There actually aren't any rules for applying a fixed amount of damage like say 4 points from a Crushing Grab. We are just told to do it.
We just don't have any choice but to make a guess and fit it into the damage rule that we do have.
There is no real basis to exclude the damage bonus from Enlarge applying to Crushing Grab. Melee damage or even melee is not a defined rules concept. They are just natural language.
Read the rules and try to define the following terms for me. I can't find anything precise. You might get close to something reasonable for the first lot:
- Damage Category
- Damage Type
- Other properties of damage eg Silver/Cold Iron, Magic
- Static Damage
But these are just not clear at all:
- Damage Instance
- Additional Damage
- Extra Damage
- Damage Bonus
would the damage bonus from inspire courage apply to these non-Strike sources of damage?
Damage roll is a defined term based on a weapon's damage dice so trip and THTF is not eligible, sorry.
if there were any Forceful Trip weapons (but there are not), but not to Brutal Bully or Crushing Grab if there were any Forceful weapons with any of the maneuver traits (but there are not).
There's the new hooked rune granting trip, the inventor weapon innovations granting grapple, trip, shove or disarm, and technically mental forge from mindsmith if you used a shifting rune to alter the base stats of the weapon to a forceful weapon (this is technically legal but I'm not sure if it's intended).
(As a largely unrelated question: does a critical THTF trip deal THTF's effect in addition to or instead of the normal damage from a critical Trip? I.e. does it deal 1d6 + sneak attack, or 2d6 + sneak attack?
I thought otherwise until I just re read that but the feat effect dictates an effect added to trip and doesn't replace the normal effects (or it would need to remind you that the target becomes prone), so you've got a case for getting that extra d6.
Melee damage or even melee is not a defined rules concept. They are just natural language.
I may be extrapolating but my interpretation is that melee damage is damage applied through a weapon or unarmed attack that has a reach (including the "no reach" 5ft reach). Like you can point blank shot with a bow but that is still a range attack. On the other hand, melee is a category of weapons and unarmed attacks rather than a range.
That should also exclude stuff like an effect on touch. Even if the language seems counterintuitive in a vacuum, the implications make sense to me: enlarge makes you bigger and stronger which is both good for hitting or wrestling, but it doesn't make a hypothetical fiery body effect burn hotter.In an edge case that doesn't come up often, that interpretation would make weakness, non-strike, non-attack damage count as melee weapon damage even if no attack has been done.
If you have a weakness to something that doesn't normally deal damage, such as water, you take damage equal to the weakness value when touched or affected by it. If more than one weakness would apply to the same instance of damage, use only the highest applicable weakness value. This usually happens only when a monster is weak to both a type of physical damage and a given material.
Damage roll is a defined term based on a weapon's damage dice so trip and THTF is not eligible, sorry.
I agree that the modifiers that apply to Damage Rolls, don't apply to a fixed damage amount. So Inspire Courage is out for Combat Grab. But Enlarge modifiers melee damage. Forceful modifies the damage of an attack. They probably work.
Yes of course, I meant that for Inspire Courage only. That just because the trip damage is a roll, it's not a damage roll, but it's still melee damage. And potentially melee weapon damage, but I'm not sure of that one.
You know what. Turns out I didn't actually understand forceful. I believed that "number of damage dice" was completely agnostic of how much dice you're actually rolling during the attack and it's just a measure of what rune you had.
I guess people add more bonus from power attack?
I'm probably not the one to ask about that one.