Gravity Weapon and Acid Flask

[Ruzza]

Baarogue wrote:

it is literally the RAW. Blowhard all you want, but that's the way it is

Unfortunately, stating that damage (i.e. 1=1) equates to weapon die does not mean that it is RAW. That would then mean that any other case of flat damage would also mean that they function in a nebulous realm of dice. Darksol may be acidic in their responses, but you cannot in good faith call this RAW. The blowgun exists as an anomaly in the ruleset when viewed through this lens.

[Baarogue]

Ruzza wrote:

Baarogue wrote:

it is literally the RAW. Blowhard all you want, but that's the way it is

Unfortunately, stating that damage (i.e. 1=1) equates to weapon die does not mean that it is RAW. That would then mean that any other case of flat damage would also mean that they function in a nebulous realm of dice

No, it is RAW in this case of the blowgun because it occurs in the damage column on the weapon chart, which is what PC1 p. 276 is referring to. It doesn't follow that ALL cases of flat damage are a "damage die." Though maybe that's what Darksol meant when he made what I thought was a non sequitur about Weapon Specialization ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

And I don't mind how acidic he gets. That's just his way, especially when he's cornered. I've been salty sometimes here too, so I should be able to take it

[Trip.H]

While I tend to be more RaW strict than most, I would also allow the Blowgun's 1 damage to function as if it were a weapon damage die (as it kinda is defined as such).

The game includes weapons like the Alchemical Crossbow that have listed weapon damage, but also define other damage in their text. In that case, the Xbow has a 1d8 damage die, but most shots will also deal +1d6 due to being bomb-boosted.

-----------------------

The Blowgun's entry does not conform to a diceroll, that is true.

Yet I agree that the standardization of that "1" being the weapon's listed damage die instructs the reader to use that "1" as a damage die.

Restated another way:

The gamesystem chose to define the Blowgun as having a weapon damage die of "1." IMO, that is a case of being specifically instructed to ignore the general rule of a weapon damage die being defined as a variable amount.

Additionally, weapons like the Alchemical Crossbow demonstrate that when the devs want to exclude damage from the "weapon damage die," they can and do put such damage inside the text. Implying that if the Blowgun was intended to not have/function with "weapon damage die" effects, then it would not have a listed damage, and instead define that "1" damage inside its text.

[Darksol the Painbringer]

Baarogue wrote:

"Did you also accept the Daikyu being Reload '-'? Sounds like you did because this is basically the same thing."

lol, you claim I used a strawman in the same post you throw that out there? Hilarious

"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?"

Since it isn't in the Increasing Die Size progression list, if you want to be a stickler then its die size simply doesn't increase, staying at 1. Where is your 0 even coming from? More generous GMs might raise it, but that's their call and not in the book nor something I'm arguing for or against. It is irrelevant

"it's not RAW"

>This entry lists the weapon’s damage die and the type of damage it deals
>Blowgun Damage 1 P

it is literally the RAW. Blowhard all you want, but that's the way it is

For it to be a strawman, you'd have to not be arguing that you are using the table entry as-is for the basis of your claim. Since that is precisely what you are arguing, and I am throwing out another example to express the problems that arise in strictly doing so, I would hardly call my counterclaim a strawman.

It's a genuine question that the rules don't have an answer to, and lacking an actual dice expression (which such rules are based off of) creates anomalies like this, which aren't present in any other existing weapon. (Even Improvised Weapons still function better by comparison.) Gravity Weapon, Striking runes, et. al. being other more common examples of effects requiring damage dice not functioning for effects that simply don't have damage dice. And it's not like they couldn't put in specifics in the item description. Also, you can't sit there and tell me you don't know how I'm not getting 0 from a decrease in value from 1.

Again, "1" is not a damage die, any more than "75" is if I were to cast Implosion on an enemy. Every dice expression in the game has been "XdY," and we have a rules section clarifying dice scaling and the ranges it covers. If Blowguns doing 1 damage is a dice expression, so is Implosion's flat damage or Weapon Specialization's bonus likewise being a dice expression.

[Ruzza]

Baarogue wrote:

No, it is RAW in this case of the blowgun because it occurs in the damage column on the weapon chart, which is what PC1 p. 276 is referring to. It doesn't follow that ALL cases of flat damage are a "damage die."

I wanted to link the sidebar you're referring to and provide some context to this as to why I still would say that this is not RAW and is certainly open to GM interpretation.

You're saying that under the "Damage" heading for weapons, what follows is its damage die. It would then stand to reason that since "1" is in the blowgun's Damage heading, that its damage die is 1. However, this still exists as an anomaly in the system as if we're taking that idea at face value, someone needs to define what that damage dice actually is.

Further down, damage dice are defined as the dice from 1d4 through to 1d12. This even makes certain not to include 1d20 or 2d6 as damage dice because of how they would interact strangely with the rules. I would say that "1 damage equals 1 damage dice" is incompatible with the idea that "The rules support this."

Now, I fully agree that peopel can and should rule as they want at their tables, but I strongly oppose the idea that "1 damage is 1 damage dice is a statement supported by RAW." It is, to the best of my reading, RAI.

[Baarogue]

Ruzza wrote:

Baarogue wrote:

No, it is RAW in this case of the blowgun because it occurs in the damage column on the weapon chart, which is what PC1 p. 276 is referring to. It doesn't follow that ALL cases of flat damage are a "damage die."

I wanted to link the sidebar you're referring to and provide some context to this as to why I still would say that this is not RAW and is certainly open to GM interpretation.

You're saying that under the "Damage" heading for weapons, what follows is its damage die. It would then stand to reason that since "1" is in the blowgun's Damage heading, that its damage die is 1. However, this still exists as an anomaly in the system as if we're taking that idea at face value, someone needs to define what that damage dice actually is.

Further down, damage dice are defined as the dice from 1d4 through to 1d12. This even makes certain not to include 1d20 or 2d6 as damage dice because of how they would interact strangely with the rules. I would say that "1 damage equals 1 damage dice" is incompatible with the idea that "The rules support this."

Now, I fully agree that peopel can and should rule as they want at their tables, but I strongly oppose the idea that "1 damage is 1 damage dice is a statement supported by RAW." It is, to the best of my reading, RAI.

Darksol is just repeating himself now and not making much sense so I'll respond to you

1. That's not a sidebar. It is a rules entry. Do you own the book or have access to it, because I feel like you're getting the wrong impression by reading it from AoN. This applies to the blowgun's entry on the weapon tables as well
2. The "further down" you're referring to isn't defining damage dice. That's already defined with the initial sentence under "Damage", "This entry lists the weapon’s damage die and the type of damage it deals"
What you're referring to further down is the Increasing Die Size progression, which as I answered Darksol, doesn't have any bearing on the rule. Just because "1" doesn't fall on that progression doesn't invalidate it as the blowgun's "damage die." That just means it doesn't fall on the die progression, which could mean its die doesn't increase. I don't know where Darksol is pulling a decrease to 0 from instead, but w/e. It's best to ignore him when he starts posting nonsense like that in desperation
3. Nobody is stating "1 damage is 1 damage die." We're stating that since the "1" occurs in THAT column on THAT table, which the rules state: "This entry lists the weapon’s damage die and the type of damage it deals", then THAT is why "1" is the blowgun's "damage die." This has no bearing on any other flat damage from any other source, let alone some random 75 that Darksol is pulling from who-knows-where, unless it is published in a future book for a future WEAPON in the same format on its weapon table. There are no further implications from ruling 1 as the blowgun's damage die. Spells and Weapon Specialization aren't on the weapon tables, so their damage doesn't qualify as "damage die" under that rule

And the thing is, Darksol KNOWS how ridiculous his arguments are getting at this point. He's grasping at nonsensical straws to "win" this argument now that he's entrenched himself. I haven't seen a lot of your arguments yet but from what I've seen you seem like a more rational sort. Look in the BOOK - not AoN, READ the rule, look at the tables, and SEE why we're ruling it this way for the blowgun, and ONLY the blowgun

[Ruzza]

There is no need to attack other posters in general, but if you are responding to my posts, it's rather distracting for you to hold this conversation with me as the middle man. I have said my piece on this. I own both the book and PDF but linked it to make it easier to access for others in the thread.

Rules As Written has a very different meaning than you are implying. You are asking for us to interpret rules in a way that makes things easier to understand. I think it's fine to do so, but this falls under RAI, not RAW.

[Baarogue]

Ruzza wrote:

There is no need to attack other posters in general, but if you are responding to my posts, it's rather distracting for you to hold this conversation with me as the middle man. I have said my piece on this. I own both the book and PDF but linked it to make it easier to access for others in the thread.

Rules As Written has a very different meaning than you are implying. You are asking for us to interpret rules in a way that makes things easier to understand. I think it's fine to do so, but this falls under RAI, not RAW.

No, I'm asking you to read the rule that is written on page 276. It says plainly that the entry in the damage column is the "weapon's damage die", and that's it. No interpretation needed. Not RAI, but as actually written

Also lol at me pointing out Darksol's bullying as attacking him. Nah, he knows what he's doing and I'm just one of the people who isn't cowed by it. But yeah I should have stuck to responding to your points instead of getting distracted. My bad

[Ruzza]

You're saying that the weapon's damage die is 1. That I understand, but am I to interpret that as 1 of any die or of 1d1? If my PFS Cleric of Picoperi who takes the Deadly Simplicity feat, how does my blowgun's damage dice change? If the RAW states, as you say, that its weapon dice is simply 1, then shouldn't I be able to refer to the rules to adjudicate this without interpretation?

[Baarogue]

Ruzza wrote:

You're saying that the weapon's damage die is 1. That I understand, but am I to interpret that as 1 of any die or of 1d1? If my PFS Cleric of Picoperi who takes the Deadly Simplicity feat, how does my blowgun's damage dice change? If the RAW states, as you say, that its weapon dice is simply 1, then shouldn't I be able to refer to the rules to adjudicate this without interpretation?

I read it as simply a value of 1. No rolling. Its "damage die" is simply 1. Paizo expressed that as 1 instead of "d1" in 1e. Apparently they didn't see any reason to change that now. If you slap a striking rune on, it does 2 damage

If you're playing with a strict, absolutely by-the-books drill-GM, then the fact it doesn't fall on the Increasing Die Size progression list is unfortunate because they're justified in not increasing its die from 1. As I said above, a generous GM might increase it, but that's their call. At PFS I would defer to my venture-captain, who is usually at the game with me. I suspect he would increase it to d4 because that is the "next larger die" even if 1 is not mentioned in the examples, since that is what the text of the rule says to do. Any time an example doesn't account for every situation, go with the text of the rule. The templates for area effects don't account for many situations, such as the widen spell feat, but the text tells us what to do so we can work it out

I agree that it would be grape if they put 1 in the Increasing Die Size progression list below d4 to account for the blowgun. But maybe they left it off on purpose and they truly intend for it to be stuck at 1. I'm not saying some clarification or other mention wouldn't be welcome, especially for anyone wanting to play that cleric. I just believe it's clear the way it is for purposes of striking runes, gravity weapon, the ranged weapon damage calculation formula posted upthread, and anything else that refers to a "weapon damage die"

[Ruzza]

That's what I'm getting at, while there is an elegance to solving the problems in that way, that would be RAI, not RAW. I would not expect every GM to state with certainty that the "1" in the damage column for blowguns means that it counts as a damage dice when it is asking me to take extra logical steps to come to a conclusion.

In the end, while it may make sense, I would hardly say that the rules as written support it. However, the intention may very well. I know that as a long time PFS GM, I often have players cite the Paizo forums when it comes to rule disputes and RAW is a very loaded term. This is easily an issue that can be interpreted from many different angles and there isn't enough clarity to say that the rules clearly state anything in one direction or the other.

[Darksol the Painbringer]

Baarogue wrote:

Also lol at me pointing out Darksol's bullying as attacking him.

Ah, yes, because I am debating your argument and denying its legitimacy based on that, I am considered a "bully." Meanwhile, you are personally attacking me by calling me names, when I have done no such thing to you.

[Unicore]

The whole blowgun tangent is a partial aside to the main point of this conversation that has really pulled the whole discussion aside. The closest point to relevancy is that the damage category on the chart for weapons is generally supposed to indicate “damage dice” unless a specific rule indicates otherwise. The fire poi lists 1d4 bludgeoning+1d4 fire but contains specific text identifying the bludgeoning damage as the damage dice, so gravity weapon would treat it like any other weapon in how it increases. Alchemical bombs have an entry of “varies.” There is no specific text in the alchemical bomb text explaining what part of the damage expression specifically is the damage dice. GMs are left to interpret. With many bombs, the numbers line up reasonably with looking at basic, immediate damage as the damage dice. Nothing about gravity weapon is dependent on striking runes specifically, so the inability to add runes to bombs isn’t really telling one way or another.

Some bombs, like the blow gun, have a flat number here, with no specific text to help clarify how to proceed, and GMs are again left to figure it out on their own. Various other sections of the rules guide some GMs in specific directions, but there is not consistent interpretation on that, so it is all guesses at RAI.

[Darksol the Painbringer]

Unicore wrote:

The whole blowgun tangent is a partial aside to the main point of this conversation that has really pulled the whole discussion aside. The closest point to relevancy is that the damage category on the chart for weapons is generally supposed to indicate “damage dice” unless a specific rule indicates otherwise. The fire poi lists 1d4 bludgeoning+1d4 fire but contains specific text identifying the bludgeoning damage as the damage dice, so gravity weapon would treat it like any other weapon in how it increases. Alchemical bombs have an entry of “varies.” There is no specific text in the alchemical bomb text explaining what part of the damage expression specifically is the damage dice. GMs are left to interpret. With many bombs, the numbers line up reasonably with looking at basic, immediate damage as the damage dice. Nothing about gravity weapon is dependent on striking runes specifically, so the inability to add runes to bombs isn’t really telling one way or another.

Some bombs, like the blow gun, have a flat number here, with no specific text to help clarify how to proceed, and GMs are again left to figure it out on their own. Various other sections of the rules guide some GMs in specific directions, but there is not consistent interpretation on that, so it is all guesses at RAI.

To me, the Fire Poi is a good example of having a specific trumps general by listing the fire damage as separate and not related to the weapon any more than a Flaming Rune is.

Alchemical Bombs, on the other hand, are too varied to have an answer, as some do dice damage, some do flat damage, and some don't even do damage at all, or merely inflict conditions. Or a combination of all of these things.

But Gravity Weapon is relatively clear in that it requires dice to function, as it's bonus is dependent upon the number of dice being rolled. "No dice = no bonus" still rings true in this case.

[Ravingdork]

I agree with Graystone. Just because you don't own a 1-sided die, like me, doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.

1 in the damage column of a weapon table denotes the damage die. Essentially, it's just shorthand for 1d1.

[Finoan]

Ravingdork wrote:

I agree with Graystone. Just because you don't own a 1-sided die, like me, doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.

Blowgun damage: 1d1 ⇒ 1

It exists on the forums for PbP.

[Ravingdork]

Probably should have said "unlike me." I was intending to imply that I do own a 1-sided die.

[Farien]

Ravingdork wrote:

Probably should have said "unlike me." I was intending to imply that I do own a 1-sided die.

Marbles are becoming harder to find these days. Good to know you haven't lost yours yet.

[Dork Smurf]

Farien wrote:

Ravingdork wrote:

Probably should have said "unlike me." I was intending to imply that I do own a 1-sided die.

Marbles are becoming harder to find these days. Good to know you haven't lost yours yet.

Not all of them anyways.