If I cast Gravity weapon and then throw an acid flask, what happens? Does the status bonus to damage apply to persistent damage? I am thinking not, but am struggling to find the rules explaining what a bonus to damage applies to. Any help would be greatly appreciated.
I believe that you would add no bonus damage. An Acid Flask only deals 1 acid damage (and persistent damage and splash damage). Lacking any weapon damage dice, I don't think it would add any damage.
You add the Gravity weapon damage to the 1 acid damage.
It's RAI but I consider that each version of Acid Flask is equivalent to a weapon dice (so Lesser is 1 dice, Moderate is 2 dices and so on):
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am ... struggling to find the rules explaining what a bonus to damage applies to.
The general case for bonus damage is somewhat undefined.
The specific case of Gravity Weapon is slightly more clear since it only applies to weapon Strike damage.
For a bomb, the Strike damage is the initial damage that it deals. Not the persistent damage. The damage from Persistent Damage would be coming from the Persistent Damage condition, not from Strike.
It probably also wouldn't apply to the splash damage. But that one is a bit less clear.
I am ... struggling to find the rules explaining what a bonus to damage applies to.The general case for bonus damage is somewhat undefined.
The specific case of Gravity Weapon is slightly more clear since it only applies to weapon Strike damage.
For a bomb, the Strike damage is the initial damage that it deals. Not the persistent damage. The damage from Persistent Damage would be coming from the Persistent Damage condition, not from Strike.
It probably also wouldn't apply to the splash damage. But that one is a bit less clear.
This is where I got to with my thinking/looking at the rules as well. Thank you everyone for your thoughts!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The answer is clear: no weapon dice = no damage bonus.
It would be like asking if Gravity Weapon applies while using a Silver weapon with Grapple trait to grab an enemy with a weakness to Silver.
The answer is clear: no weapon dice = no damage bonus.
It would be like asking if Gravity Weapon applies while using a Silver weapon with Grapple trait to grab an enemy with a weakness to Silver.
So you add Gravity Weapon bonus to Blight Bomb but not for Acid Flask?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So you add Gravity Weapon bonus to Blight Bomb but not for Acid Flask?The answer is clear: no weapon dice = no damage bonus.
It would be like asking if Gravity Weapon applies while using a Silver weapon with Grapple trait to grab an enemy with a weakness to Silver.
Or a Blowgun?
This seems like a 'taking it too far' kind of effect to a ruling made to try and fix a different problem.
That different problem being that bonus damage shouldn't apply to splash damage. Since most (but not all) splash damage is a fixed amount of damage, then there are a lot of people who use this wording of 'bonus to damage rolls' as a way to justify excluding splash damage from being affected in most cases.
But it just causes more problems when we start looking at things like bonus damage to weapons or pre-Remaster spells that do a fixed amount of damage and should have the bonus damage applied.
I totally understand that bombs are in a unique spot of having a clear dmg dice signifier via the bomb tier. The "Acid flask w/ Gravity Weapon yes/no?" is a GM charity question. It's already understood that Gravity Weapon is written to key off dmg dice, and that a quirk of acid flask is lacking multiple dmg dice. RAW, Gravity Weapon would boost Acid Flask by 2 (1 x 2) or 0, depending if the GM considers flat non-rolling dmg to be equal to 1 dmg die.
It's not really a bother to ask one's GM for the gimmie to grant the spell compatibility with acid flasks, but that's not something that can be done here. RAW can be discussed in the abstract / objectively, and I do not see any valid interpretation that allows for acid flasks to get x dmg dice matching the bomb tier / persistent dmg.
So, yes. I would allow Gravity Weapon to work with Blight Bombs, but not Acid Flasks. As the Alchemist has the option of bombs, this question adds nuance to their bomb selection instead of invalidating the usage of the spell. All the d4 bombs suddenly are not as far behind the d6 / d8 bombs, ect. That's a good complexity to arise from the rules, IMO, not a bad one.
_________________________
_________________________
The "Gravity Weapon on splash dmg?" question is one that has come up before, and it really has no foundation. A status bonus to damage on a weapon strike is limited to the actual weapon Strike (the bomb throw) and has no interaction with the secondary splash effect.
__________________
__________________
Effects based on a weapon's number of damage dice include only the weapon's damage die plus any extra dice from a striking rune. They don't count extra dice from abilities, critical specialization effects, property runes, weapon traits, or the like.
https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=2304
Technically speaking, bombs are outright incompatible with Gravity Weapon and "damage dice" effects. It seems to be an automatic GM gimmie to allow bombs to be considered to have dmg dice matching their primary Strike damage, but RAW there is no rule within bombs that gives the consumable item the effect of ~"considered to have damage dice".
Essentially, bomb damage is like the Alchemical Crossbow. Just because it's a part of the weapon Strike, does not mean the extra d6 of the weapon is considered a damage die. Only the base and rune boosted d8s are "damage dice." And bombs are explicitly incompatible with striking runes.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Technically speaking, bombs are outright incompatible with Gravity Weapon and "damage dice" effects.
Not sure how you are figuring that.
On your first weapon Strike each round, you gain a status bonus to damage equal to twice the number of weapon damage dice.
Are bombs a weapon? Do you use a Strike action with them? Yes, and yes.
So how is it not compatible? You most definitely do count the first damage dice from the base weapon as a damage dice. A short sword with no runes would have Gravity Weapon add 2 points of damage.
Worst case that I can see is that Gravity Weapon would only ever add 2 bonus damage to any tier of bomb. But even that ruling gets wonky when the Bomb deals multiple damage dice of damage on its own.
You might be arguing that the ruling is undefined and undetermined and that the GM will have to make a table ruling on how to run it. But I am not seeing how it could be incompatible and causing Gravity Weapon to add no damage.
The "Gravity Weapon on splash dmg?" question is one that has come up before, and it really has no foundation. A status bonus to damage on a weapon strike is limited to the actual weapon Strike (the bomb throw) and has no interaction with the secondary splash effect.
I would agree with that specifically for Gravity Weapon because it specifies that the bonus damage is to Strike.
It gets muddier in the general case.
If an Alchemist is under the effect of Stoke the Heart and they hit an enemy with a bomb that deals 1 point of splash damage. Does the splash damage get boosted?
How about if they miss (but don't critically miss) the attack roll? Does the bonus damage apply to the Strike still?
How about if it is instead a Gunslinger with Meteor Shot ammunition that deals 3d6 fire damage with the Splash trait in a 5-foot emanation around the target?
I'm not seeing any rule that says that bonus damage doesn't apply to splash damage generally. Are you?
Do you also allow striking runes on bombs?
Personally, no. But the only rule I can use to back that up is in the Usage: Etched rules saying that you can only etch runes on a permanent item.
There are plenty of people who disagree with me (for example) and feel that you can add Striking runes to a bomb. Usually via a Thrower's Bandolier so that they aren't destroying actual runes with each bomb thrown.
But what does that have to do with anything. Bombs still do at least one dice of weapon damage.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So you add Gravity Weapon bonus to Blight Bomb but not for Acid Flask?The answer is clear: no weapon dice = no damage bonus.
It would be like asking if Gravity Weapon applies while using a Silver weapon with Grapple trait to grab an enemy with a weakness to Silver.
Yes. No dice = no bonus.
After the Thrower's Bandolier, the bomb rune question was put to bed RaW anyways.
Iirc the phrasing was that "consumables cannot benefit from runes", period.
And if bombs cannot benefit from striking runes, then it's not a leap for a GM to rule that they do not function with "damage dice" effects.
_________________
For your bizarre insistence on questioning the boosting splash damage, I'd ask you to swap the splash damage for persistent or other indirect damage and see if you really think it should apply.
That's not even needed for your example. Why *would* Stoke the Heart boost splash damage? "Bonus to damage rolls" is even more obviously nonapplicable than "status bonus to damage." The Strike missed, the fact that damage is still occurring due to splash is irrelevant.
It would boost bomb Strike damage, as it's not keying off something that the bomb lacks.
As a weird unique type of damage, the only throw-side ways to boost splash damage that I know of all explicitly call out the splash mechanic by name.
The other way to boost splash damage is foe-side, alter/adding weakness, ect.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
As consumables, bombs can’t have runes etched onto them, have talismans attached to them, or benefit from runes granted in other ways (such as from spells or from items that replicate runes from other items).
For anyone who was wondering.
This has been an interesting discussion. Talk about an edge case.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Everyone stop looking at the Alchemist and his weird half-baked science fair project, you trying to poke holes in his theory is making the guy self-conscious and sad that he didn't work harder.
Besides, I heard the Alchemist went on a DOPE trip to Florida during Summer Break and is going to come back a changed man, just you wait, the new remastered Alchemist is going to be the coolest kid in school, and everyone's going to love him and he will most certainly not still suffer from the same exact acne, lack of self-esteem, performance anxiety, severe drug problem, personality disorder, overambitious attitude, and sloppy handwriting that has him skating by with merely passing grades and no dates.
Everyone stop looking at the Alchemist and his weird half-baked science fair project, you trying to poke holes in his theory is making the guy self-conscious and sad that he didn't work harder.
Exactly. Everyone should be looking at the Blowgun instead.
As consumables, bombs can’t have runes etched onto them, have talismans attached to them, or benefit from runes granted in other ways (such as from spells or from items that replicate runes from other items).For anyone who was wondering.
This has been an interesting discussion. Talk about an edge case.
That is a very good find. I'll remember that. It certainly answers the question about a Bomb's interaction with a Thrower's Bandolier.
However, that doesn't really answer the question about a Bomb's interaction with status bonuses to damage such as that from Gravity Weapon.
It definitely is an edge case, but I am asking from the perspective of having a character who is a ranger playing in a party with an alchemist who likes to make a lot of bombs.
I am personally inclined to agree that the damage dice of an acid flask never increases, but would probably give it and the blowgun the benefit of the doubt as counting as 1 dice. I would rule that most other bombs do have damage dice that have a set number that lines up well with a spell like gravity weapon and would allow a ranger to use gravity weapon with bombs effectively. I would only allow the bonus damage to initial damage, not splash damage or persistent damage, as that seems most inline with the effect the spell would have on any other single attack.
Everyone stop looking at the Alchemist and his weird half-baked science fair project, you trying to poke holes in his theory is making the guy self-conscious and sad that he didn't work harder.Exactly. Everyone should be looking at the Blowgun instead.
Fun fact, Striking Runes wouldn't work on a Blowgun either for the same reasons Gravity Weapon wouldn't apply to a non-dice-based Alchemist Bomb. No dice = no damage bonus.
Blowguns are forever trapped at dealing 1 point of damage period, even if it is a +4 Major Striking Blowgun.
The most expensive paperweight in the game, I think.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Everyone stop looking at the Alchemist and his weird half-baked science fair project, you trying to poke holes in his theory is making the guy self-conscious and sad that he didn't work harder.Exactly. Everyone should be looking at the Blowgun instead.
Fun fact, Striking Runes wouldn't work on a Blowgun either for the same reasons Gravity Weapon wouldn't apply to a non-dice-based Alchemist Bomb. No dice = no damage bonus.
Blowguns are forever trapped at dealing 1 point of damage period, even if it is a +4 Major Striking Blowgun.
The most expensive paperweight in the game, I think.
Which indicates that your ruling of 'no dice = no damage bonus' is a ruling with problematic repercussions and doesn't work as intended.
Which indicates that your ruling of 'no dice = no damage bonus' is a ruling with problematic repercussions and doesn't work as intended.Everyone stop looking at the Alchemist and his weird half-baked science fair project, you trying to poke holes in his theory is making the guy self-conscious and sad that he didn't work harder.Exactly. Everyone should be looking at the Blowgun instead.
Fun fact, Striking Runes wouldn't work on a Blowgun either for the same reasons Gravity Weapon wouldn't apply to a non-dice-based Alchemist Bomb. No dice = no damage bonus.
Blowguns are forever trapped at dealing 1 point of damage period, even if it is a +4 Major Striking Blowgun.
The most expensive paperweight in the game, I think.
Yep.
IMO it's about the damage dice going 1d4, 1d3, 1d2, all the way down to 1. So a die-upgrade would bring it up to 1d2 (though perhaps even 1d4, I don't recall if PF2's die-ladder mirrors the one PF1/3.X used to have.)| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Which indicates that your ruling of 'no dice = no damage bonus' is a ruling with problematic repercussions and doesn't work as intended.Everyone stop looking at the Alchemist and his weird half-baked science fair project, you trying to poke holes in his theory is making the guy self-conscious and sad that he didn't work harder.Exactly. Everyone should be looking at the Blowgun instead.
Fun fact, Striking Runes wouldn't work on a Blowgun either for the same reasons Gravity Weapon wouldn't apply to a non-dice-based Alchemist Bomb. No dice = no damage bonus.
Blowguns are forever trapped at dealing 1 point of damage period, even if it is a +4 Major Striking Blowgun.
The most expensive paperweight in the game, I think.
It's really not. The important things that have damage dice still function, whereas things that don't have damage dice do not. When the rules are expressly written to include certain kinds of things and exclude other kinds of things, and don't create problematic rules interactions, the idea that it doesn't work as intended when it actually effects everything that it's intended to effect, doesn't really track.
Just as well, it's not really an issue, and you trying to make one exist when it doesn't even affect 99.99% of games is such a non-factor that I can't even take the argument seriously. This is like that time I argued that a spell that can target 20 creatures but having a range of touch doesn't function to its listed optimal potential; there comes a point in time to just let the stupidity go since it doesn't matter if it is adjusted or not.
IMO it's about the damage dice going 1d4, 1d3, 1d2, all the way down to 1. So a die-upgrade would bring it up to 1d2 (though perhaps even 1d4, I don't recall if PF2's die-ladder mirrors the one PF1/3.X used to have.)
Funny you should mention that, since by RAW, Blowguns cannot also benefit from die size increases, as the result of 1 is not factored into the die size increase chart, nor can we be certain that it would increase to 1D2, 1D3, or 1D4. Or even straight to 1D6.
I seriously want to know who is using a Blowgun at 20th level as their primary weapon for this to be an issue, and as for alchemical bombs, those things are so poorly written as a mechanic that I think I would have much rather preferred pre-errata Battle Medicine over that garbage.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
And if bombs cannot benefit from striking runes, then it's not a leap for a GM to rule that they do not function with "damage dice" effects.
No, that does seem like a leap. The former is based on a specific rule about consumables, which doesn't really have anything to do with the latter.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I seriously want to know who is using a Blowgun at 20th level as their primary weapon for this to be an issue
That's somewhat beside the point. You can't handwave away a rules problem just because you think it will only affect a very small percentage of the players.
As far as RAW goes, there is no reason that you couldn't etch Striking runes onto a Blowgun. And there is no RAW saying that it doesn't have its effect.
Again, you could argue that the effect is undefined since there is no damage dice listed, but that is a different argument than saying that the runes are incompatible or that they have no effect.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Player Core pg. 276
"Damage: This entry lists the weapon’s damage die and the type of damage it deals: B for bludgeoning, P for piercing, or S for slashing."
Player Core pg. 281
Blowgun Damage 1 P
As per the rules, 1 is the damage die of a blowgun as that is the damage entry: whatever is in the entry IS the damage die as that is how they define the entry.
The question of runes and weapons that do 1 damage feels theoretical not practical. Putting striking runes on a blow gun is such a massive waste of resources that it is probably good to discourage players from doing it. Potency runes and propert runes will do much, much more for a blow gun. Even if you have gravity weapon, paying for the extra 2 to 4 points of damage that possibly could happen if the GM allowed striking runes isn’t going to add enough damage to get you past corresponding resistances and it just isn’t worth it.
But bombs gain extra damage dice on their own. Acid flask is probably in a “not worth it” space, stuck at 1 damage, but the rest of them are appealing enough that I could see the value in alchemists picking up gravity weapon or sharing bombs with their dex-based Ranger friends.
I seriously want to know who is using a Blowgun at 20th level as their primary weapon for this to be an issueThat's somewhat beside the point. You can't handwave away a rules problem just because you think it will only affect a very small percentage of the players.
As far as RAW goes, there is no reason that you couldn't etch Striking runes onto a Blowgun. And there is no RAW saying that it doesn't have its effect.
Again, you could argue that the effect is undefined since there is no damage dice listed, but that is a different argument than saying that the runes are incompatible or that they have no effect.
I actually believe it affects a non-existent percentage, because there is no table using Blowguns at 20th level. Heck, I can extend this to 4th/5th level, where the Striking Runes become available. Legit, there are more tables using Mithril Waffle Irons as weapons compared to Blowguns, that is how non-existent of an issue this is.
I'm not saying you can't etch the runes onto the weapon. I am saying that it will not increase the number of damage dice. It would be akin to etching a Keen rune onto a Warhammer (or at-best, a weapon shifted into a Warhammer); it might be doable, but it still does nothing.
That's basically exactly what my argument is: There is no dice value involved, therefore an effect that scales based on dice value does not apply. That's precisely what "No dice = no damage bonus" means.
Player Core pg. 276
"Damage: This entry lists the weapon’s damage die and the type of damage it deals: B for bludgeoning, P for piercing, or S for slashing."Player Core pg. 281
Blowgun Damage 1 PAs per the rules, 1 is the damage die of a blowgun as that is the damage entry: whatever is in the entry IS the damage die as that is how they define the entry.
Dice is always expressed as XdY in the book. If this was truly meant to be a "damage dice" expression, then it lacking that format kind of ultimately fails that point. Especially when we have a table stating that the minimum dice expression value is always a D4, which kind of debunks the whole "this is still a dice expression" argument.
Yeah. If it makes this easier to accept, we can assume that Blowgun's damage dice is 1d1.Player Core pg. 276
"Damage: This entry lists the weapon’s damage die and the type of damage it deals: B for bludgeoning, P for piercing, or S for slashing."Player Core pg. 281
Blowgun Damage 1 PAs per the rules, 1 is the damage die of a blowgun as that is the damage entry: whatever is in the entry IS the damage die as that is how they define the entry.
If that's how it was supposed to be expressed, it should have been written that way, and yet it's not; and no, "pointless to be written as a dice expression" isn't an argument since we have effects written based on dice expressions, and it's not like they couldn't fit it in the table, so that excuse doesn't work either.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
That's basically exactly what my argument is: There is no dice value involved, therefore an effect that scales based on dice value does not apply. That's precisely what "No dice = no damage bonus" means.
More specifically, your argument is that this ruling is the only possible one supported by the rules text and that any other ruling is incorrect.
And that is what I am taking exception to. There are other rulings that are just as valid, if not more valid. Such as treating 1 as the damage dice value (which graystone nicely supported with rules text), or considering it to be 1d1.
The argument smells strongly of Argument from Ignorance: There is no RAW, so my ruling must be the only correct one.
The question of runes and weapons that do 1 damage feels theoretical not practical. Putting striking runes on a blow gun is such a massive waste of resources that it is probably good to discourage players from doing it.
There is also the 2 points per damage dice boost of Thaumaturge Implement's Empowerment. A Chalice/Mirror/Wand Thaumaturge that happens to pick up a Blowgun should have their ability work.
Warning players against spending a bunch of resources for a trivial damage increase is certainly a good idea, but that doesn't change the RAW.
However, that doesn't really answer the question about a Bomb's interaction with status bonuses to damage such as that from Gravity Weapon.
The rules are rather clear, and even mention bombs specifically as they don't have weapon damage die and can't fit into the ranged weapon equation.
https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=2302
For damage rolls with spells, alchemical bombs, and similar items, you don't add an attribute modifier unless otherwise noted.
Spell (or similar effect) damage roll = damage die of effect + bonuses + penalties
The only time a status bonus to damage changes a number is for this equation. Only on the Strike.
Splash should be considered an effect just like a debuff, that instead deals damage. It's not at all a part of the Strike.
________________________
________________________
Which leads back into the "bombs and damage dice effects" question.
The RaW is crystal clear on this too, but many/most GMs will agree it's not RaI to exclude bombs. It's also a case where the houserule alteration is so obvious tables are likely being run with that RaI thinking it's RaW.
The rules on "damage dice" effects are very clear. Weapons that can benefit from Striking runes is a requirement, and only that portion of the damage affected by Striking runes is relevant (to cover things like the Alch Crossbow's d6 dmg).
_____________________
I understand the temptation to say that RaI is RaW, but it's not.
The argument smells strongly of Argument from Ignorance: There is no RAW, so my ruling must be the only correct one.
That's not how rules/language works. It's not "an argument from ignorance" to require a rule to exist, lol.
You cannot add in a rule that's not there because it would make things better/simpler/make sense, and then claim it's "just as valid" a reading of the RaW.
Without a rule on the bomb / alchemy side of things to add an exception to grant them the ability to function with "damage dice" effects, they don't function with them.
While simply restating the RaW really ought not need justification, there are many other consumable items with _d_ damage rolls. Granting the benefit to only bombs is obviously special pleading that needs a written rule.
______________
______________
If I was adjudicating as a GM, I would allow bombs to work with damage dice effects, but would rule that acid flask is only ever 1, for the reasons stated before; adding more nuance to bomb selection, ect, ect.
______________
and yes, if the blowgun can benefit from Striking runes, it works with damage dice effects.
Because the blowgun has a damage entry like all other weapons, and is itself a normal weapon, I'd rule that the listed value of "1" does not prevent Striking runes from improving the weapon.
If the blowgun did not list a damage value there, but instead had a text-written special effect that did 1 damage, I would likely rule the opposite.
Because the blowgun is otherwise a normal weapon, I'd say it works with damage dice effects.
That's basically exactly what my argument is: There is no dice value involved, therefore an effect that scales based on dice value does not apply. That's precisely what "No dice = no damage bonus" means.More specifically, your argument is that this ruling is the only possible one supported by the rules text and that any other ruling is incorrect.
And that is what I am taking exception to. There are other rulings that are just as valid, if not more valid. Such as treating 1 as the damage dice value (which graystone nicely supported with rules text), or considering it to be 1d1.
The argument smells strongly of Argument from Ignorance: There is no RAW, so my ruling must be the only correct one.
With the airtight RAW, no, there really is no other interpretation.
The argument that 1 is a dice value makes no sense because every dice value in the book is written as "XdY". Simply putting in a value (X) is not "XdY," otherwise we can take every number in the game and treat it as a dice value by that logic. Weapon Specialization? It's actually a bonus 2D1, up to 4D1 based on weapon proficiency. Implosion dealing 75 damage? It's actually 75D1. Seems silly to argue that this is the case.
The argument that 1D1 is a valid dice ruling is also incorrect, as we have rules that state that 1D4 is the lowest dice value allowed. There are no D3s, there are no D2s, there are no D1s. There is also the issue of what to do when you have dice-increasing effects applying to it (such as Deadly Simplicity with a Deity's Favored Weapon), as the rules don't discuss what happens with this. Even if we can come up with a favorable compromise, that isn't RAW, nor can we even say it is RAI.
Really, this is looking more like "The Blowgun needs to be errata'd to function with the current ruleset" and far less like "The rules for weapon dice need to be changed to accommodate for Blowguns." And nobody is going to advocate for any of this because the Blowgun weapon is such a nothingburger, it might as well should not even have been printed. Mithril Iron Waffles have gotten more use out of the game than Blowguns have, and Mithril Iron Waffles aren't even a listed weapon in the game.
Ah! That's actually an excellent find! Bombs are in the same category as spells. They really don't have weapon damage dice at all. Ok, then it's solved, no effects from weapon dice after all.
Huh?
All the quoted rule says is that you don't add an attribute modifier to the damage. That gives absolutely no guidance on how anything else works.
The main thing about that rules page is that bombs are excluded from the ranged weapon equation, despite being consumable ranged weapons that you Strike with.
Ranged damage roll = damage die of weapon (+ Strength modifier for a thrown weapon or half Strength modifier for a propulsive weapon) + bonuses + penalties
If bombs had a variable "weapon damage die" they would have been put into that grouping. Bombs were instead put with spells, and are governed by the equation with "damage die of effect."
https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=2302
The main thing about that rules page is that bombs are excluded from the ranged weapon equation, despite being consumable ranged weapons that you Strike with.
Ranged damage roll = damage die of weapon (+ Strength modifier for a thrown weapon or half Strength modifier for a propulsive weapon) + bonuses + penaltiesIf bombs had "weapon damage die" they would have been put into that grouping. Instead bombs were put with spells, and are governed by the equation with "damage die of effect."
https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=2302
Except including bombs in the ranged weapon category would have required an extra explanation about not adding STR to damage, whereas including it with spells does not. But even that is way too convoluted a place to try to understand what damage dice means if it was a unified concept in the game.
Weapon damage dice is an undefined term in Pathfinder 2nd edition, so rules that revolve around it require interpretation at the table. As long as that is the case, there is no real RAW interpretation about the interaction of Gravity Weapon and bombs.
I think, on a personal level, I am fine giving bombs that do 1 damage the equivalent of 1 damage die, and otherwise only consider direct damage from the bomb (not splash damage or persistent damage) to count as damage dice at all, especially as the bomb damage dice lines up very closely to striking runes.
]Yes, it does: bombs are in the one list with spells, there's a damage formula for them without 'weapon damage dice':
I mean, do you not see how tortured that reads?
We've now decided that "weapon damage die" and "weapon's damage die" are separate concepts that have nothing to do with each other, and that Paizo wants players to guess that this is true and that certain weapons are designed to not function with a bunch of feats or abilities based on kind of squinting at a bit about whether or not you add your strength modifier.
Even if we accept that as the entirely correct interpretation (and tbh it might be it doesn't matter much either way), it's not written well at all.
It was never as silly as the difference of an apostrophe. Bombs were put in the "effect damage dice" category, not the "weapon damage dice" category. Most of the time that's irrelevant, until you get a spell that keys off "weapon damage dice"
_________________________
Let's try not to loose sight of the actual question. Do alchemical bombs function with "weapon damage dice" effects?
Here's the full text of "Counting Damage Dice"
Effects based on a weapon's number of damage dice include only the weapon's damage die plus any extra dice from a striking rune. They don't count extra dice from abilities, critical specialization effects, property runes, weapon traits, or the like.
Alchemical bombs are explicitly written to be denied the functionality of runes. They instead use static damage listed in the item description, obviously intended to scale similarly to weapons that can use Striking runes. Because they are separate and parallel to the norm, there is no way to say that improved bombs meet the rules for Counting Damage Dice. I'm sure there's a GM or two that would say "it's for balance; bombs don't have to pay for Striking runes, so bombs don't get to work with spells like that"
_________
As is, there is a uncross-able gap, RaW, stopping bombs from counting their _d_ damage. If a GM wants to inject a RaI rule, such as "Because bombs do not use striking runes, count the number of damage dice of any Strike damage and use that number for effects asking for the number of weapon damage dice." that is fine by me.
IMO, that wording/ injected rule works best over anything referencing the tier of bomb or +_ to hit, as those would cause non-damaging bombs to have multiple damage dice.
Even when I would never run a rule RaW, I always try to be as clinical as possible when identifying where the RaW ends, and where house-ruling/homebrewing begins.
For "bombs & Gravity Weapon" I would acknowledge that RaW no, but my table yes.
________________________________
P.S.
- Gravity Weapon itself is notably bizarre in being a weapon-buffing spell that lacks a target. The reason this spell comes up repeatedly for Alchemists is because most weapon-boosting spells/effects that key off "weapon damage dice" target a specific weapon. Which would only ever boost a single disposable bomb. Hence, many optimizing Alchemists are keen to latch onto this one spell as a potential help for the one category of weapon denied virtually all forms of enhancement.
Pair that with the Quick Draw or Hunted Shot Feat, and you already have the 2 Ranger Feats needed to re-open the Dedication lockout.
I could have sworn there's a version of the "increasing and decreasing dice" chart that lists "1" as a die, but I can't find it. I suspect it may have only been in the playtest.
Bombs having damage die sizes or not, or even damage die counts or not may be useful for some things - such as Gravity Weapon that changes the value based on damage die count.
I don't think that either interpretation of damage die counts forbids them from having status bonuses to their damage in general though.
I also don't think that it answers the question about status bonuses and the meaning of 'damage rolls'.
I could have sworn there's a version of the "increasing and decreasing dice" chart that lists "1" as a die, but I can't find it. I suspect it may have only been in the playtest.
With the airtight RAW, no, there really is no other interpretation.The argument that 1 is a dice value makes no sense because every dice value in the book is written as "XdY". Simply putting in a value (X) is not "XdY," otherwise we can take every number in the game and treat it as a dice value by that logic. Weapon Specialization? It's actually a bonus 2D1, up to 4D1 based on weapon proficiency. Implosion dealing 75 damage? It's actually 75D1. Seems silly to argue that this is the case.
The argument that 1D1 is a valid dice ruling is also incorrect, as we have rules that state that 1D4 is the lowest dice value allowed. There are no D3s, there are no D2s, there are no D1s. There is also the issue of what to do when you have dice-increasing effects applying to it (such as Deadly Simplicity with a Deity's Favored Weapon), as the rules don't discuss what happens with this. Even if we can come up with a favorable compromise, that isn't RAW, nor can we even say it is RAI.
Even if there was, the fact that it didn't make it through the playtest doesn't change what the current RAW is, which is all that really matters, nor can we conclusively determine what the RAI should be, because some people might argue that such damage "dice" increases would change it to 1D2, 1D3, or even straight to 1D4.
And no, this isn't a question of "Blowgun will break the expected balance between the existing weapons." It's a rules question. The rules are clear that "1" isn't a dice expression any more than "2" or "3" or "4" is (remember Weapon Specialization? Does that do 2D1 bonus damage at a minimum? You might seem to think it is by this logic), nor is "1D1" listed as a valid dice expression by the rules. (Seriously, do a CTRL+F on a PDF a show me where "1D1" is placed. And no, "1D100" is not the same.)
What should be argued is that the Blowgun should be errata'd to 1D4 instead of its existing listing, and you know what? I fully support that. Because it won't change my games any, it will make the weapon more comparatively useful for its purpose, and it will retain rules consistency across the board. Everyone wins. Well, except the Paizo developers having to divert resources to change it. And again, given that Mithril Waffle Irons are used more as weapons than Blowguns, the idea that this change needs to happen is even more absurd, because you have a non-weapon being used more than an actual weapon. To heck with that, they might get more value out of putting Mithril Waffle Irons in the weapons table than Blowguns.
Or... the simplest and most logical solution is you just accept that the "1" in blowgun's damage column is its "damage die" even if it isn't expressed as usual, as the rules quoted upthread by graystone state that's what that column means
Not falling on the progression listed under "Increasing Die Size" doesn't invalidate that, it just means it doesn't fall on the increasing die size progression list
Frankly this is a pretty weird hill to die on, since it's nowhere near OP or broken to read it that way. What are you even imagining could occur? That's the only thing that could convince me to see things your way btw. No amount of hot air is going to make a difference unless you can make a case for some unforeseen abuse to spring from interpreting "1" as blowgun's "die size", because THAT is what is "airtight RAW"
Yes, let's accept a non-dice expression as a dice expression when every other weapon doesn't do this, and there is no specific trumps general to go off of. Did you also accept the Daikyu being Reload '-'? Sounds like you did because this is basically the same thing. Of course, no reason to errata a weapon nobody uses. Again, Mithril Waffle Irons have more of a place in the weapons table than a Blowgun does.
Then what happens when it is subject to damage dice increases? Can it even be subject to damage dice decreases, making it do 0? And what makes "nothing happens because there is no dice value involved" an invalid interpretation?
Nice strawman. Never said it would break the game's math, and in fact I encouraged the Blowgun to be dealing 1D4 like every other basic weapon in the game. All I said is that it's not RAW to permit it with any given rule, and that is it inconsistent RAI at-best to rule it as anything other than a non-dice expression. Meaning effects keying off of dice don't work with it.