|
Okay, so I can't find a definitive answer to this after tinkering with a build regarding how this should be interpreted or even any questions/threads that speak to it so I figured I'd ask, well, there is one other question by RD regarding how Splash interacts with Weapon Spec and I supposed that is more or less just about the same but that was years ago and I figured I'd refresh the topic and survey what peoples thoughts are.
I'm working on a Halfling Slinger Ranger with Gravity Weapon.
Using a Scatter Sling that has Scatter 5ft. Gravity Weapon stipulates you get Bonus Damage on your Strikes and the Scatter Damage IS the result of a successful Strike, and I know it would only apply once per target no matter what but do the creatures within 5ft of the Target of the Strike also take the extra Damage on the Splash Damage they take equal to my number of Weapon Damage Dice since the Damage Bonus from the Spell does NOT stipulate that it is a Bonus to Damage Rolls?
In other words, do you all think we should:
1) Always interpret "Bonus to Damage" as "Bonus to Damage Rolls"
2) Apply a Bonus to Damage to effect that Deal Damage (with an eligible Weapon/Attack) to effect that are and are NOT done via a Roll.
How many things in the game actually say that they increase splash damage specifically?
The only one that I can think of off-hand is Calculated Splash. I think there is at least one other Alchemist feat that changes splash damage. Makes it persistent damage instead, or something like that.
But if that is all, then it seems to me like changing the amount of splash damage is intended to be a very jealously guarded thing to do. Not something that is done by every damage boosting effect in the game.
|
|
I suppose the limited number of ways to specifically alter Splash is certainly worth noting for sure but that feature doesn't actually increase or apply any bonuses to the Splash Damage, instead, it changes the formula for the base Splash Damage that is generated specifically by Alchemical Bombs.
Splash is a lot more common nowadays versus the CRB as Scatter Weapons have been put out and way more Spells have been published that deal Splash damage in one way or another.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Splash damage is already "added" damage, so it shouldn't be increased by things like this. You aren't directly attacking adjacent creatures, they are just taking a specified amount of damage. The same would go for things like Crushing Grab, where the target takes a set amount of bludgeoning damage, and things like Inspire Courage wouldn't increase it.
If you could increase splash damage in this way, it would make Alchemists insanely powerful. They can already add their Int onto splash damage, so adjacent targets can take up to 11 damage, but adding something like Gravity Weapon into the mix would increase that to 19, and that also opens the door to so many additional buffs. It would scale very fast, and soon alchemists would be doing over 20 guaranteed damage to multiple creatures every time they strike.
|
|
Something "feeling" like it is too powerful is often indicative of the truth and I'm not the number-crunching type but I'm really curious what the best possible scenario for this would look like even if you're applying Gravity Weapon to a fully cooked Infused maximum available at-level Bomb pulled from a Property Runed Throwser Bandolier that then has Gravity Weapon, Inspire Courage, and Weapon Spec (plus whatever else) applied to it would look like.
I can't help but feel like this is simply a case of different authors mistakenly writing "Bonus to Damage" instead of "Bonus to Damage Rolls" but I just don't know since that type or wording hasn't ever been changed or cleaned up when, if it were a mistake, it would be very low hanging fruit to fix.
If you could increase splash damage in this way, it would make Alchemists insanely powerful.
I look at the same interactions and come to a similar but different conclusion. Allowing bonus damage to affect splash damage generally makes Alchemist less special.
Alchemist has feats and abilities to increase their splash damage.
If everyone can get that through Stoke the Heart, Inspire Courage, Gravity Weapon, ... Why is Calculated Splash and Expanded Splash interesting any more?
There are also problems with the wording of 'bonus to damage rolls'. It kinda indirectly fixes adding the damage to splash damage, but it also prevents interactions with things that directly do a fixed amount of damage. Like low rank castings of Daze and Haunting Hymn. From a design standpoint, it would be a much better idea to directly say that damage bonuses don't apply to splash damage. Hopefully the Remaster addresses this considering that we have been pointing out these interactions for years now.
|
|
I'm not the number-crunching type but I'm really curious what the best possible scenario for this would look like even if you're applying Gravity Weapon to a fully cooked Infused maximum available at-level Bomb pulled from a Property Runed Throwser Bandolier that then has Gravity Weapon, Inspire Courage, and Weapon Spec (plus whatever else) applied to it would look like.
Human Dragon Barbarian with Alchemist/Ranger Dedication, max INT including apex item.
Raging Thrower to apply rage to bombsRage for a +16 untyped bonus to damage
Weapon Spec for a +6 untyped bonus to damage
Gravity Weapon for +2 per weapon damage die, so a +8 Status bonus to damage
Expanded Splash for a +6 untyped bonus to splash damage
Use Furious Finish in the same round as Rage for a +10 Circumstance bonus to damage. Make sure the bomb is already in hand.
Total bonus damage: 46, with the bomb's 4 base damage that's 50 splash damage.
Needed Feats:
Raging Thrower
Ranger Dedication
Basic Hunter's Trick (Gravity Weapon)
Multitalented (Alchemist Dedication)
Basic Concoction (Anything)
Advanced Concoction (Calculated Splash)
Advanced Concoction (Expanded Splash)
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So about half the damage of an average Heightened Fireball, a half dozen feats worth of investment to deal it to adjacent creatures a few times per day and only once per combat by using your entire turn and locking you out of all other Class abilities from Barbarian for the entire combat?
Do you think that's powerful?
Raging Thrower to apply rage to bombs
Bombs are not thrown weapons. They are ranged weapons with the Bomb trait. They don't have the Thrown trait.
|
|
So about half the damage of an average Heightened Fireball, a half dozen feats worth of investment to deal it to adjacent creatures a few times per day and only once per combat by using your entire turn and locking you out of all other Class abilities from Barbarian for the entire combat?
Do you think that's powerful?
No, but a full Alchemist with Gravity Weapon and applying their weapon spec damage to every bomb strike they make, which has absolutely no limit, would be, especially against groups of enemies. Sure a fireball can wipe out a huge chunk of an army but an alchemist can sustain the damage constantly. It would also mean that even on a miss they can do 20ish damage to a target, which is more than a Fighter using Certain Strike (8 weapon spec + 7 Str).
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Raging Thrower to apply rage to bombsBombs are not thrown weapons. They are ranged weapons with the Bomb trait. They don't have the Thrown trait.
They still don't have the Thrown trait.
And the ones we are looking at here have the Splash trait - which explicitly says that you don't add your Strength bonus to the weapon damage even if it does have the Thrown trait. It isn't explicit, but it is a pretty good indicator that adding Rage damage from Raging Thrower to a Bomb's direct damage was not intended - and certainly not to the splash damage.
|
|
They still don't have the Thrown trait.
And the ones we are looking at here have the Splash trait - which explicitly says that you don't add your Strength bonus to the weapon damage even if it does have the Thrown trait. It isn't explicit, but it is a pretty good indicator that adding Rage damage from Raging Thrower to a Bomb's direct damage was not intended - and certainly not to the splash damage.
Raging thrower doesn't mention the thrown trait, only that it's a thrown weapon, the trait is irrelevant. And the whole point of that post is the hypothetical max damage on a single attack IF all those bonuses applied to splash damage.
Raging thrower doesn't mention the thrown trait, only that it's a thrown weapon, the trait is irrelevant.
"Traits are irrelevant" is an odd stand to take in PF2.
Traits are often used to create categories of things that feats and abilities interact with. Or other rules language. That is honestly their main purpose. Attaching rules to a trait directly is actually a secondary thing that they sometimes do - and one that causes much confusion to new players.
An attack action is an action with the attack trait.
A skill feat is a feat with the skill trait.
Magic items are items with the Magical trait.
Invested items are items with the Invested trait.
An Agile weapon is a weapon with the Agile trait. (And is referenced exactly as 'an agile or finesse weapon' in Sneak Attack, Precise Strike, and Devise a Strategem)
So why would Raging Thrower not call 'weapons with the Thrown trait' "thrown weapons"?
not all attacks have the attack trait. Or, to be more specific, if something has the attack trait, it is (usually)* an attack, but the opposite isn't always true.
As much as I would love to agree with you, it is currently defined such that an action with the attack trait is an attack.
And Bombs being described as a thrown weapon implies that they should have the Thrown trait. Since they don't it feels like that choice of descriptive wording was very possibly a mistake. The writer who wrote up the Bomb entry in the CRB didn't realize the weight that using the name of a trait would have on the mechanics of the item.
Saying:
a Bomb is a thrown martial weapon
a Bomb is a lobbed martial weapon
a Bomb is a tossed martial weapon
are all equivalent from a narrative description point of view. One of them sounds a lot more normal and typical for English speakers - that first one involving the word 'thrown'. However, that is also the one that implies that the Bomb should have the Thrown trait - and will cause it to be ambiguous with other abilities that are trying to interact with an item category of 'Thrown weapons'.
Human Dragon Barbarian with Alchemist/Ranger Dedication, max INT including apex item.
Raging Thrower to apply rage to bombs
Rage for a +16 untyped bonus to damage
Weapon Spec for a +6 untyped bonus to damage
Gravity Weapon for +2 per weapon damage die, so a +8 Status bonus to damage
Expanded Splash for a +6 untyped bonus to splash damage
Use Furious Finish in the same round as Rage for a +10 Circumstance bonus to damage. Make sure the bomb is already in hand.
You are combining things that should and shouldn't be combined.
Additional damage and extra damage are not damage bonuses. They are not part of the damage calculation chart, they are added on the side. So Rage damage and Weapon Spec are not supposed to be added to the Splash but to your Strike damage.
Then you have abilities like Inspire Courage and Stoke the Heart that give a bonus to damage rolls, that Splash isn't as it's no roll but fixed damage.
Now, Gravity Weapon gives a status bonus to damage, and I think you found one that works.
There are extremely few abilities that can add to Splash damage, Gravity Weapon is clearly an outlier. Still, it's at most 8 damage to the first Strike of the round (which should hit half of the time). So, in my opinion, it doesn't break the game.
Well, if you are going to double down on the idea that a Strength 18 Fighter throwing a bomb really hard doesn't do any more damage than the bomb normally does - but the Strength 10 Barbarian can angrily throw a bomb and have its fire be more fiery and its acid be more acidy - then I don't know what to tell you.
It doesn't sound like RAI to me.
|
|
Okay so the discussion about Bombs specifically is relevant to the discussion for sure, no doubt, but I want to gently nudge the discussion toward the Scatter Trait and also the function of non-bomb Splash Attacks/Spells/Effects back to the general wording of any benefit or Effect that includes "since the issues with Bombs has been discussed at length already in dozens upon dozens of threads before.
Another thing that I want to make a note of for correction is that Inspire Courage and Stroke of the Heart explicitly apply to "Damage Rolls" so naturally this would NOT apply to Splash/Scatter.
I'm SURE this isn't a comprehensive list (I gave up after only one page of searching with 70+ remaining to load) as the Archives don't really seem to have a filter function that is suitably able to filter (as far as I know how to use it at least) for instances where something does NOT include "Damage Rolls" but here is a short list of things that I was able to find that include the "Bonus to Damage" or "Additional Damage" wording that could apply to the kind of Spells/Scatter/Effects that I'm discussing only:
Weapon Specialization (Various)
Inventor Overdrive Class Feature (Potentially QUITE potent with Scatter Weapons)
All varieties of Runes that apply Elemental Damage such as Flaming/Corrosive/Etc
Advantageous Assault
Dragonslayer Oath
Demonbane Warrior
Deadly Aim
Gravity Weapon
Conduct Energy + Resonant Weapon Rune/Weapons
Fulminating Shot (This one, in particular, seems ESPECIALLY powerful with Scatter Weapons)
Striking Retribution
This was a very surface-level search but all of these either simply apply "Additional Damage" or "Bonus to Damage" without stipulating "Roll" and can apply to either Spells or Ranged Weapons with the Scatter Trait.
Again, I question if the difference in phrasing is intentional and is meant to convey that SOME things should only apply the extra Damage on things that include a Roll while others that don't include that term should apply to EVERYTHING that deals Damage that otherwise meets the requirements of said Feature/Ability/Feat/Etc OR if it was just merely human error in editing the content that created a failure to ensure that every time they meant to publish something that added Damage to these things that they didn't ensure the wording/phrasing was identical and included "Roll" in the mechanical definition of how it works.
To be SUPER clear on this subject, I'm not directly appealing toward one side of a ruling or another as being correct as I really don't think there is enough evidence for ANY interpretation to be deemed RAW or RAI but merely trying to bring attention to it, maybe get one of the lead devs attention to the matter, and to survey what everyone in the community thinks about the subject and how they would rule it for their table. I don't have a game going on right now but as I mentioned up-thread I have a PC concept that I've fallen in love with that I want to play when I next have the chance and they directly interface with this question which is where all of this came about, the difference between dealing 2 Splash Damage in 5 feet or 6+1d6 elemental damage (potentially even more) even at as low a level at 7 to enemies nearby can be pretty freaking huge, all this with a simple Halfling Scattersling, a Weapon I picked merely because I thought it sounded pretty cool. I'd love to be able to deal out some impressive extra AoE as a kind of rider to my Strikes and all things considered, doing this would involve quite a bit of intentional build direction for what really amounts to making the whole build hinge on a floating question mark, especially when you consider that this leans into friendly fire viability too.
Well, if you are going to double down on the idea that a Strength 18 Fighter throwing a bomb really hard doesn't do any more damage than the bomb normally does - but the Strength 10 Barbarian can angrily throw a bomb and have its fire be more fiery and its acid be more acidy - then I don't know what to tell you.
It doesn't sound like RAI to me.
The Raging Thrower Bomber is not better than the Fighter Bomber or the Precision Ranger Bomber. Is there any reason to forbid it?
As the logic of dealing extra Fire damage when you rage... I don't see it really so I don't see why it'd be different for Bombs. As for the Giant Barbarian, I clearly see how using an oversized Bomb can lead to extra damage.
"Bonus to Damage" or "Additional Damage"
Additional damage is not bonus to damage. It's a completely separated category which includes a lot of different things from Rage, Sneak Attack, Weapon Specialization and Runes.
And it's defined nowhere. As such you can decide that you add it to Splash but it's obviously too good to be true. Once you remove additional/extra damage, you end up with far less bonuses and I think it's ok to accept that.when you consider that this leans into friendly fire viability too.
Backfire Mantles for the whole party (that's what most non-Bomber bombers do already).
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think the idea that "Additional Damage" doesn't stack with more instances of "Additional Damage" makes sense though because if that were the case then the VAST majority of all Damage calculations/formulas that exist and are used in calculators would just be flat out incorrect and invalid for every Barbarian since you'd almost never apply their Weapon Specialization benefit as they will be adding a higher value due to their Rage benefit in something like 90% (plus) of their Damage rolls.
I also found yet ANOTHER snag too because there is also the phrase "extra damage" from things like Sneak Attack and Ki Strike....
|
|
I think I understand what you mean now, thank you for clarifying. The whole thing really has my brain muddled trying to sort it all out let alone try to decide on what I feel is best let alone correct given that for something that should 110% have been STRICTLY controlled as mechanical terminology there are so many different ways that stuff like this could be interpeted at fitting into the single calculation/formula for Damage that was published, be it for the purpose of helping carve out niches in ways bonuses to damage can be accomplished or if it is really just a "close enough" deal with the style of writing between individuals.
Something as critically important to the system as how to calculate how much Damage each effect deals should be published with strict phrasing enforcement and if there are variations then there should be guidance on what the variation of the language means, how/where it applies, and what the formula looks like, instead though we simply ended up with at least 4 different ways that more damage can be bolted onto something that falls under the very general and vague umbrella of "bonuses" in the Damage Formula that was supplied, or at least, that's how I feel about it.
|
|
You are combining things that should and shouldn't be combined.
It was a hypothetical maximum damage assuming all that damage did apply to Splash, which is the entire topic of this thread... I made it clear in my first post that it should NOT apply to splash as it would be too powerful, and that post is my proof that it is.
|
|
CK, I get your meaning for sure but I think that I still question if even with everything you applied that it in any way could be considered too powerful. You're talking about a fully specialized PC trying to take advantage of this doing about 50 Splash Damage at 10ft at level 20, a schtick they can pull off once per Combat, when any number of Kinetecist Feats by level 20 can for 2 or 3 Actions, every other round, can do WAY more than that on average while also doing so in a MUCH larger radius.
The scale of power we are talking about is related to how much AoE damage are you dishing out so you should be comparing apples to apples and the example "abuse" of stacking bonuses on Splash Damage ends up costing a TON of Feats, completely removes ALL impactful Barbarian combat Class Features for the rest of said combat and it is decidedly less powerful than what a mere single Spell added to your Book/Rep. can do or what a Feat empowers others to do pretty much all day.
Just a quick thought, wouldn't some of the things causing bonus damage only grant extra damage only on a hit?
I think I'm closer on the side of bonus damage not affecting additional splash damage values unless clearly applying, but it would be worth noting some feats affecting damage may require hits.
Just a quick thought, wouldn't some of the things causing bonus damage only grant extra damage only on a hit?
I think I'm closer on the side of bonus damage not affecting additional splash damage values unless clearly applying, but it would be worth noting some feats affecting damage may require hits.
I think this cuts closer to the PoV that helps understand why I think almost all of what's been mentioned here does not work to boost splash damage.
Splash as a trait does two things.
It removes the Str modifier.
It adds an additional effect. On Crit, hit, miss, all creatures w/in 5 ft of the target take the listed splash damage.
The way I see that, it's like a 2nd, independent attack/effect is created.
It's definitely not a part of the Strike, and any enhancements to **a character's** said strike damage would only affect the actual strike itself.
This is most clearly understood from the splash on miss.
It's the bomb that's doing the splash, not the character. Even w/ Gravity Weapon, I'd increase the on-hit bomb Strike damage, but not the splash.
The Alch Feat language reflects this:
You have calculated all the angles to maximize a bomb’s splash. When you throw an alchemical bomb with the splash trait, you can cause the bomb to deal splash damage equal to your Intelligence modifier (minimum 0) instead of the normal amount.
"you can cause the bomb to deal..."
It's phrased that indirectly because of this odd case. It's not giving a bonus to damage or anything like that. It's improving the bomb's ability to splash.
---------
Edit: to be clear, I'm super in agreement w/ bombs being thrown martial weapons, even if they don't have the trait on their page.
IMO it's that "splash is completely separate from the Strike" issue that makes it very difficult to boost the splash itself.