The main body text says it returns to you "after a successful throw" whereas the Recovery trait says it returns to you after an unsuccessful Strike.
Is a "a successful throw" referencing or otherwise include a Strike?
Is it even possible to not have it return (short of being intercepted by an enemy)?
The boomerang description IMO is just lore description without any mechanical use because "after a successful throw" means nothing mechanically.
What really defines it is the Recovery trait.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And boats don't specifically state that they float in the rules, yet they still do, somehow.
The boat float is a logical thing but not always we can use the logic in PF2e rules.
Anyway by the logic Boomerangs only returns when the didn't hit something and that is what the Recovery trait says (yet a boomerang also can fail to hit due armor/shield AC too but the game abstracts this considering that if a Recovery weapon fails (but not a critical failure) is because you miss the target and not because it was blocked/parry.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The boomerang description IMO is just lore description without any mechanical use because "after a successful throw" means nothing mechanically.
So the fact that it literally says "returning to the wielder after a successful throw" doesn't do anything because reasons? It's obvious what is intended here if you just read it as English instead of as a technical definition.
By this logic, does the special text on every other weapon that has some also not do what it says because it's "lore description"?
What really defines it is the Recovery trait.
The recovery trait does what it says it does. The fact that it's there doesn't mean this item can't also do something else separate from it.
It is ambiguous and GMs will have to make a table ruling.
So the fact that it literally says "returning to the wielder after a successful throw" doesn't do anything because reasons?
That reason being that it doesn't say it returns after a successful Strike.
You can throw successfully and miss the target.
It might be a better argument to say that the boomerang doesn't return if you critically fail the Strike roll. That would be an unsuccessful throw.
So yeah, Boomerang returning on both a hit and miss is absolutely to good to be true as that equates to having another runeslot with the Returning rune.
I'm not sure that it falls into too good to be true though. Having a particular weapon that mimics the effect of a property rune - especially Returning - doesn't feel overpowered. The Tethered trait is similar, though at a higher action cost.
So the fact that it literally says "returning to the wielder after a successful throw" doesn't do anything because reasons?That reason being that it doesn't say it returns after a successful Strike.
That's part of my problem. A successful throw might be just that: a non-combat action that sends the boomerang into the air and have it return.
There's plenty of ambiguity.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Count me in the "It's just flavor text" crowd.
A throw is not a mechanical term and as such can hardly be used as a rule argument. Also, it doesn't make sense for a boomerang to return when you hit so I'd need a bit more than a non conclusive sentence to consider it behaves against common sense.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think we're missing the forest for the trees here; Sometimes weapon descriptions do contain important mechanical information, and even if in the boomerang's case it's just flavor text it shouldn't distract from the mechanical function of the weapon. The text should receive minor errata to clear up the confusion.
If someone knocks it out of your hand, disrupting the throw, I would not expect it to jump off the ground and into your hand.
The fact it has almost identical stats to the other weapon with the recovery trait, the chakri—one that does not return to the wielder on a successful hit—implies to me that it should not return, either.
The cost seems especially off. A thrown weapon that automatically returns to you should probably be more expensive than one that doesn't, no? Particularly when the one that automatically returns has 20ft more of range and they're both martial. But they both cost 2 sp.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Count me in the "It's just flavor text" crowd.This seems plausible, but it begs the question:
Are there any other weapons with rules text in their description block? Off-hand, I can't recall one, but I don't have time to investigate at the moment.
Yes. War of Immortals has the Fighting Oar:
A fighting oar is a sturdy boat oar, typically made of wood, whose haft and blades are reinforced for use in combat. A fighting oar adds its item bonus from weapon potency runes (if any) as an item bonus on Piloting Lore and Sailing Lore checks made to pilot a rowed vehicle (for more information on vehicles, see here).
The Battle Saddle from Treasure Vault would be another one, since that's where it explains that you can use it's Parry trait either for you or your mount.
So rules text can very clearly be in that block, and it's not just flavor. So that leaves two possibilities for the boomerang:
1. They wrote flavor text that does nothing despite saying that it does something and expect people to pick up on it not actually doing anything because it uses the word "throw" instead of "strike".
2. It's simply a terminology error that didn't get caught by editing but the obvious plain English reading of the text is what they intend it to do.
I know which one of those I'd bet on given that such mistakes are fairly common.
Shields and their various weapon add-ons could easily be considered another. I can't imagine someone ignoring the text about straps and handedness, calling it "just flavor text," and be taken seriously.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
(first fork of the dilemma) 1. They wrote flavor text that does nothing despite saying that it does something and expect people to pick up on it not actually doing anything because it uses the word "throw" instead of "strike".
To be fair, this is less ridiculous than you make it sound. I can't imagine any way of describing what a boomerang is and does that won't include that it returns to you when thrown correctly. That's the defining feature of a boomerang. I don't know if there's a way to write acceptable flavor text for the weapon that won't cause this issue.
On the more grognard-y side, it's also worth noting you do have to throw them in a pretty specific way to get them to come back; it's likewise fictional rule-of-cool that the things will return to you cleanly if they hit something along the way anyways. It returning on miss but not hit is plenty accurate to how it would actually function.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So rules text can very clearly be in that block, and it's not just flavor. So that leaves two possibilities for the boomerang:
1. They wrote flavor text that does nothing despite saying that it does something and expect people to pick up on it not actually doing anything because it uses the word "throw" instead of "strike".
2. It's simply a terminology error that didn't get caught by editing but the obvious plain English reading of the text is what they intend it to do.
I know which one of those I'd bet on given that such mistakes are fairly common.
Let me explain my thought:
1. Rule text can definitely be inside a weapon description but that's not the issue with the Boomerang. The issue with the Boomberang is that the description is in opposition to the weapon trait (Recovery). So you have to choose one. And when I have a description and mecanical text that are in opposition, I choose the mecanical description always.
Dispel Magic is the embodiment of such issue and it hasn't been fixed since first print. So Paizo doesn't really care when flavor text is wrong.
2. "returning to the wielder after a successful throw" is not mecanical text. Look at the Recovery trait: "When you make an unsuccessful thrown Strike with this weapon, it flies back to your hand after the Strike is complete, allowing you to try again. If your hands are full when the weapon returns, it falls to the ground in your space."
It specifies when the Boomerang returns and how. Unlike the boomerang description that is just up to the GM. After all, it may return 3 rounds later and ask for a reaction to catch it or it makes an attack against you. Who knows?
So, we are in a classic case where flavor text hints at an ability the weapon doesn't have and some players want to make up a rule to cover it. I don't think there's any discussion in this case.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Paizo doesn't really care when flavor text is wrong.
Paizo don't care to fix a lot of things.
Paizo continue to defend flavour text as relevant. Many rules don't make any sense without it.
Ignoring flavour text is a position I reject. It is just arbitrarily choosing to accept some rules and not others.
So I agree with the initial proposition the Boomerang always returns until the GM decides it doesn't.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ignoring flavour text is a position I reject. It is just arbitrarily choosing to accept some rules and not others.
It's not arbitrarily, it's forced. When rules are incompatible, you have to choose a rule. You can consider flavor text takes precedence over mecanical text and then it returns only on a successful Strike (considering that throw is a synonym to Strike) but considering it always returns is not supported by any rule.
Ignoring flavour text is a position I reject. It is just arbitrarily choosing to accept some rules and not others.It's not arbitrarily, it's forced. When rules are incompatible, you have to choose a rule. You can consider flavor text takes precedence over mecanical text and then it returns only on a successful Strike (considering that throw is a synonym to Strike) but considering it always returns is not supported by any rule.
You are being arbitrary there. Both rules are compatible. One says returns on a success the other says on a success and on a fail. There is no contradiction here. You are inventing a problem.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You are being arbitrary there. Both rules are compatible. One says returns on a success the other says on a success and on a fail. There is no contradiction here. You are inventing a problem.Ignoring flavour text is a position I reject. It is just arbitrarily choosing to accept some rules and not others.It's not arbitrarily, it's forced. When rules are incompatible, you have to choose a rule. You can consider flavor text takes precedence over mecanical text and then it returns only on a successful Strike (considering that throw is a synonym to Strike) but considering it always returns is not supported by any rule.
It's not actually incompatibility, it's just a lack of clarity.
There isn't a rule definition for "successful thrown" so define that "successful thrown" is equal to "successful Strike" is just arbitrary too also because this doesn't respect any Format of Rules with a Captalization, italicized nor Glossary and Index defining it.
Even considering it as a rule, what in the hell is a "successful thrown"? It is succesful hit a Strike with a this thrown weapon? Or it's just when you are able to execute this "action" having it hit or not (remember that some reactions can cancel ranged attacks)? We don't even have such definition to begin to consider it to be a contradictory or not.
I simply consider it as flavor because once that the designers choosed to not have a clear distinction about what's flavor and what's rule (a very bad decision IMO because only creates confusion without help with anything). So for me to consider a sentence as a rule, it needs to at least follow the Rules Format.
You are being arbitrary there. Both rules are compatible. One says returns on a success the other says on a success and on a fail. There is no contradiction here. You are inventing a problem.
You mean that the developers, instead of saying that the Boomerang always return, prefered to add a trait for it to return on failure and state in the description that it returns on success and then expect players to make up a proper ruling with that?
The rules are clearly in contradiction. If it returns on success it is clearly implied it doesn't return on failure. And vice versa. Removing the implications and calling that RAW is not a proper reading.
So, make up your mind, but the Boomerang doesn't return always, that's definitely not RAW.
I will at least take the time to +1 Gortle and others about flavor text.
Flavor text is defined by being text that has zero mechanical interaction with the system and its numbers or states. If text matters mechanically, it's not flavor text.
And I'll also echo that there is no "flavor separation" in pf2e. Body text is all rules text, there's zero way to selectively ignore/delete some of it without that being an "arbitrary choice."
Minor details in body text can and often do actually matter. If the sub-section of text in question truly does not matter at all to gameplay, then it really is flavor text, lol.
Meaning, if the GM has to make a ruling on what some body text means or what it does, then it's not flavor text.
.
And to be clear, GMs can and should rule as they see fit. If a GM wants to rule that boomerang's body text doesn't get to work because of balance concerns, that's fine.
But tbh I'm kinda just tired / sick of people blatantly misusing words and terms because it suits them in the moment. To dress up a clearly mechanical / game balance argument with ~"flavor text doesn't get to override rules text" is the definition of dishonest argumentation, due that being impossible/ nonsensical.
.
Imo it is beyond reasonable to say that "after a successful throw" could possibly exclude a successful Strike.
Meaning, we have a situation where the GM may or may not consider the boomerang's body text as too good to be true, and that's about it. Even then, the premise and context of "too good to be true" is for *ambiguous* rules, lol. And this text is pretty damn black and white. So one has to go even further to claim "no, the devs made a mistake." (Which is a valid GM card to play at times)
.
The context of boomerang being added in the same book that added tools like the thrower's bandolier to mechanically buff throwing builds is info a GM may find helpful.
The Chakri is the other [recovery] trait weapon in the book, and it's designed so a PC can have 2 on each wrist without occupying hands or invoking a draw action.
Imo, it actually does fit for boomerang to be a side-grade compared to the chakri with that body text functional.
From a design PoV, the chakri occupies the spot of a 0+ hand backup weapon(s) with enough shots to get one through any normal combat. Four total *hits* are required to exhaust the chakri supply, which should be plenty.
The boomerang is an uncommon "main weapon" that occupies a hand, keeps the low 1d6, is throw-only, and the only other perk beside the body text effect is the 60ft range.
Common throwing alternatives all have other perks, such as being simple weapons, upping to 1d8 damage, and especially the possibility of being used as melee weapons.
I can say from playing a throwing build alchemist that Returning is little more than a gp tax pre L8, and is barely balance-relevant at all before the elemental runes become a possible purchase. That PC is level 11, and is just now considering switching to a bow because we are gp starved as hell, and I said "F it" and got martial weapon training while it'll still match expert:expert.
And it is relevant to say that even with /if boomerang gets return on miss & success, I still would struggle to choose it over a bow.
There really is not a "problematic" concern angle to this imo. Getting 2ish more damage due to propulsive vs all STR is not game-shifting.
In my opinion, boomerang was written to genuinely be a valid option when compared against 1+ bows, and not just against the rather pitiful throwing options, which are almost always stuck with "... as a backup" weighing them down.
Even then, boomerang is not especially great. There's some cheese available to throwing weapons that are also melee weapons, and bows can use special or poisoned arrows (plus feat compatibility).
An "always returning" boomerang is imo just baseline good enough to be considered against those other 2 categories as a main weapon. Which was likely the designed intent.
If boomerang was a simple weapon, or perhaps even a common martial, then maybe I'd agree the text effect was unintentional.
Presently, I'm inclined to see it as an intentional balance adjustment for that neglected niche to be a valid/viable/reasonable pick in the system.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There isn't a rule definition for "successful thrown" so define that "successful thrown" is equal to "successful Strike" is just arbitrary too also because this doesn't respect any Format of Rules with a Captalization, italicized nor Glossary and Index defining it.
The issue is the justaposition of a game term, successful, and a non-game term, throw. And the first reflex of every player (I have it, too, I'm not above that) is to read it the best possible way from a player perspective. So they consider that successful is fine and replace throw. But the truth is certainly that the writer used the natural English word successful as a synonym to good, proper and the flavor text was purely flavor. Successful is both a game term and a natural English term, it doesn't always mean "a successful check against a set DC", sometimes it just means "well made".
The issue is the justaposition of a game term, successful, and a non-game term, throw. And the first reflex of every player (I have it, too, I'm not above that) is to read it the best possible way from a player perspective. So they consider that successful is fine and replace throw. But the truth is certainly that the writer used the natural English word successful as a synonym to good, proper and the flavor text was purely flavor. Successful is both a game term and a natural English term, it doesn't always mean "a successful check against a set DC", sometimes it just means "well made".
If the text said "Strike" that would have been too restrictive, and you'd def get people claiming that non-"Strike" throws would be ineligible. Throw is plenty descriptive without being too broad. If the throw does what it's supposed to, it comes back. If you whiff a Strike specifically, then it also gets to come back thanks to [recovery].
But any abnormal / not-Strike throw that fails will cause the boomerang to not return.
[snip]
I should not have said sidegrade to chakri, I should have said something else, like ~"equivalent power budget." Chakri certainly is pretty flush with perks compared to normal pf2 throwing stuff, on the level of that great boomerang return perk, but chakri's function / job is not the same as boomerang's.
Imo boomerang (with text's full return) is intended to be a (mostly) viable side grade to bows, as a martial weapon should.
.
After playing one, imo the biggest issue with throwing weapon builds is that they are just too inferior to 0 reload bows. The tiniest perks, such as being truly 1 H instead of 1+ H, just don't matter.
I had thought I would attach few various spellhearts to the other throwables, and be able to not just option-select the right p b s damage for the fight, but get to 0A pick the attached spellheart cantrip. Even that just never mattered.
I paid the Quick Draw tax thanks to Ranger archetype, and had the bandolier loaded with s and b options, but re-trained *out* of the feat because I only ever threw my spear w/ a jolt coil on it.
And *all* that hassle and effort was done only because Alchemist does not get martial weapons, and the PC was unable to use a bow.
Imo, that's the only real niche where throwing builds make sense in the current system, for the odd class like Alchemist that cannot natively use a bow, but can throw a spear. I suppose a shield-loving martial PC might try it, but then again, shields are now throwing weapons, so probably not.
Now that I said "f it" and got martial weapons for the 11 through 15 range where it'll match Expert, I'll probably swap to a real bow at the first campaign/story opportunity.
Which, again, is the context the devs writing Treasure Vault were aware of. That boomerang text, while abnormally good for a pre-TV pf2 throwing weapon, is rather direct and specific in its conveyed function.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Again, there are a lot of compatibility problems with ranged throwing weapons that make them "unusable" in practice, even if you put a Returning rune on a bandolier and pay the Quick Draw tax. They are just terrible to play with, even for classes that don't invest much into strikes like Alchemist.
Throwing weapons like the spear, which are also melee weapons, have some important ~cheesy compatibility that seriously improves them.
A single 10gp modification anyone can get, the alchemical siphon, only fits on melee weapons, and that 1d4 bonus damage* being unavailable to a ranged-only boomerang makes a difference.
This PC also has Disrupt Prey, which is only a melee strike. Even with a boomerang in-hand, it would be ineligible. The melee + thrown spear works for all of it.
Imo, it is this kind of "is also a melee weapon" feat/ability compatibility that matters more. Entire builds can depend upon being able to technically also throw a melee weapon due to that missing "melee" word in the action text, such as Exemplar's Gleaming Blade & Noble Branch. Both are clearly "meant" for melee weapons, as they exclude things of categories like dart, but "forget" to limit their compatibility to only melee strikes.
.
Even for my specific Alchemist, just the 3 pops of 1d4 bonus damage is enough that I do not think of the boomerang as an upgrade. Again, I'd need the gp to max my property runes with elementals before the slot cost of Returning is a problem. And when that looks like it'll happen, I'll likely pick a bow.
Considering how most pf2 play is below level 10, this detail of property runes not dealing damage is actually a very real and important thing to remember.
I think the "power" of the Returning rune is being greatly exaggerated here.
It doesn't have any power in and of itself, because no one plays a build that needs an action tax before or after every throw. They simply do not play those. Either you have a way to avoid the action tax, or the throwing build is abandoned.
Returning as a rune is 55gp tax for most pf2 play. As such, getting most of its benefit as an effect due to boomerang's text is genuinely great, but does not add damage nor disrupt balance.
Again, the text of boomerang is very, very explicit and direct. Feel free to deny it for being an uncommon weapon, or for "balance" objections, but you should be prepared for most tables to allow it.
"The boomerang is a carved piece of wood designed to curve as it flies through the air, returning to the wielder after a successful throw."
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think having a 55 gp effect on a 2 sp weapon is perhaps one of the most obvious possible examples of too good to be true. A weapon well over a hundredth the cost of a returning rune having its effect is patently absurd.
I think a fair ruling would be:
If you throw it, it returns. That's what the text says. It's not meaningless flavor text (there's no such thing in Pathfinder 2e).
Unless your arm catches on a branch during the throw or something else causes you to somehow "fail" the throw, then it always returns.
If you target someone with a Strike and miss your target, then it returns. That's explicitly stated. This does make me wonder what happens on a Critical Failure though. Does it not return in that case since a Critical Failure is not considered a Failure?
In any case, if you hit something with the boomerang, it does NOT return. That's because that's how boomerangs tend to behave in real life. They're not like Warrior Princess Xena's chakram.
This interpretation makes all of the rules passages valid and meaningful, doesn't contradict any existing rules, doesn't invalidate specific magical runes or abilities, and maintains verisimilitude and expectations that might be based on knowledge of real life boomerangs.
That's probably how I'd run it in my campaigns.
I still think there is enough rules ambiguity that it can be argued to return on a Successful Strike as well though.
Late to the party, but I think the "successful throw" means that you have to throw it a certain way. I haven't thrown an actual boomerang before (I mean, I've thrown those plastic toy boomerangs, but I don't know if they actually function), but from what I can tell from the 5 minutes of research I did, you can't just throw it like a regular old stick or a rock or whatever. So basically, there's an art or trick to throwing boomerangs, and that constitutes a "successful throw," not whether you hit someone's AC or not.
The only bit of extrapolation you need to do from here is assume your character is also proficient with that trick as well as using the boomerang as a weapon.
|
I find it hard to read "successful throw" as anything else than a hit with a Strike. I mean, it's a thrown weapon. How else were you going to measure success?
That said, maybe the explanation is a typo? If the text had said that it returns to your hand after an UN-successful throw, that would make sense with both the trait and with what you'd expect from a real boomerang. If you actually hit something with the boomerang it's going to expend its kinetic energy and be knocked off-course.
I've actually played that PC trying to maximize a Thrower's Bandolier, and in practice, it's honestly kinda useless.
For starters, it does copy property runes, so you want to put Returning in the bandolier anyways. This is a nugget of crucial cheese for injury poisons (& alch siphons), as you don't loose the dose if you whiff a thrown melee, but do on ranged ammo.
Second, even as an alchemist, the ability to poison, talisman, and modify each weapon individually is more a hindrance than a help. Investing more resources into the 2nd & 3rd pick throwables ended up being a waste 100% of the time I did that. The only time I ever threw something other than the spear was because I was using the 10min sustain trick for 2 clown monarchs, and that was way, way worse than using that budget to sustain buff elixirs.
I have yet to see a single person use the bandolier as a main weapon and have good things to say about that build. Being able to possibly save 55 gp to instead pay a feat tax in Quick Draw is a horrible proposition.
Imo, it's rather evident in the design of pf2 that the devs did not expect nor plan support for "throwing builds" to be a thing. Throwing was seemingly designed a secondary and sometimes tactic for melee PCs, and support for "throwing builds" was only crow-bared into the system later.
Treasure Vault attempted to offer a serious gear fix with the bandolier (and boomerang), but even if you do allow the full returning boomerang, imo the build is still quite bad.
As I mentioned with lack of feat support, throwing builds have to collect scraps. Even something like Dual Thrower is locked behind wasted archtype feats like Double Slice (which is literally non-functional for the unicorn double-boomerang PC).
I neglected to mention that my specific throwing PC is seriously helped by the GM allowing Hunted Shot to be more permissive than its text, and be compatible with thrown attacks.
Because throwing as a main thing is stuck between melee and bows, it's excluded from both and left without support.
On paper, a "maximum cheat cheese" throwing build involving my PC using buffs/enhancements intended for melee strikes, and getting GM permission for bow feat compatibility, sounds like it should perform well.
In actual play, it performs very poorly, and struggles to break even with (archetype casting) Electric Arc on 2 targets.
A martial PC more dependent upon their weapon would only fare worse than an alchemist who has other turns filled with elixir feeding, etc.
.
I think one of the reasons I'm not at all bothered by the idea of a fully returning boomerang is actually because the Exemplar shows that throwing is really not a balance danger. The class can throw any weapon, even a d12, and the system hasn't broken down, nor really noticed the impact of that new possibility.
And these are melee weapons that benefit from all those cheesy missing "but not thrown" oversights.
An Exemplar can pop their Trans ability to double-throw their d12 Gleaming Greatsword no problem, and all forms of improving range increments apply.
The existence of a 55gp rune really doesn't mean the weapon must be prevented from having a similar effect, imo. That's a really problematic argument, and thankfully I'm familiar with a counterexample.
The Lvl 0 1d8 Alchemical Crossbow is a simple uncommon weapon that does 1d6 bonus elemental damage with 0 action cost for the first 3 shots. The 1d6 elemental runes are Lvl 8 and cost 500 gp. So is the Alch Xbow too good to be true?
How could it possibly be fair to trade away some of the vanilla xbow's range to get 1d6 extra damage like that?
(and btw, this was way better performing on that PC before I went full throwing)
.
Again, I fully support everyone ruling how they see fit.
I just want to highlight that not only does one need to claim the devs intended the exact opposite of the text they wrote, but one also needs to be fearful of a phantom balance worry.
To be honest, my SoT Alchemist is built with the intent to test throwing viability. Wiz over another caster because of Bespell Strikes, while Ranger adds throw-yes Gravity Weapon, Hunt Prey, (and GM allowed) Hunted Shot.
A "normal" "setup" turn like: H. Prey --> Gravity --> Bespell --> H. Shot can include a total of:
[2d6 spear] + STR + [1d4 siphon] + [1d4 jolt coil] + [4 Gravity] + [1d6 Bespell] as that first strike damage.
And even when shaking out that whole grab-bag of bonuses, it's still anemic as hell, to the point that my PC's inability to deal damage is a running campaign joke (despite all the convoluted prep scheming).
.
Presuming the boomerang's text is intended, I'm actually glad they had the balls to see that the current throwing meta was comparatively terrible, and choose to add a weapon that trades away the "also melee weapon" cheese in exchange for the *required* return effect to be baseline included.
The fact that I'd never heard of boomerang's text before this thread kinda shows how much of a nothing burger this really is. I've seen, and participated in, a whole lot more discourse around TV's many other very obvious power creep inclusions (Numbing Tonic, my beloved).
People have claimed that things like Skunk bombs being sick on save success, and also slow on fail, is "perfectly justified power creep, because Alchemist is a bad class"
Meanwhile, others twist themselves into knots over the possibility of a boomerang coming back after every strike for free. Ugh.
.
If yall really need a villain here, try the Bola Shot from TV. Once the 25gp a pop is not a problem, the 1A Activate to add a Trip into the same attack roll is genuinely balance disruptive, even if the obscure "disable property runes" caveat is remembered. A small tweak / nerf would make it perfect, but it's kiiiinda nuts as-is.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think a fair ruling would be:
If you throw it, it returns. That's what the text says. It's not meaningless flavor text (there's no such thing in Pathfinder 2e).
Unless your arm catches on a branch during the throw or something else causes you to somehow "fail" the throw, then it always returns.
If you target someone with a Strike and miss your target, then it returns. That's explicitly stated. This does make me wonder what happens on a Critical Failure though. Does it not return in that case since a Critical Failure is not considered a Failure?
In any case, if you hit something with the boomerang, it does NOT return. That's because that's how boomerangs tend to behave in real life. They're not like Warrior Princess Xena's chakram.
This interpretation makes all of the rules passages valid and meaningful, doesn't contradict any existing rules, doesn't invalidate specific magical runes or abilities, and maintains verisimilitude and expectations that might be based on knowledge of real life boomerangs.
That's probably how I'd run it in my campaigns.
I still think there is enough rules ambiguity that it can be argued to return on a Successful Strike as well though.
Regarding the Critical Failure thing*, the rules actually cover it: if there is no effect listed for a Critical Failure, you just use the effect of a normal Failure instead, per Player Core, page 8:
"Note that not all checks have a special effect on a critical success or critical failure and such results should be treated just like an ordinary success or failure instead."
So, for throwing a Boomerang, both a Failure and a Critical Failure have it return to you. Same way if you Critically Fail your Perform check using Lingering Composition, you get your Focus Point back.
As for success on a Strike, I'd rule it doesn't return. Giving a returning rune for free with no caveats is definitely Too Good, but also that just isn't how boomerangs work. Now if you throw it for laughs and it doesn't hit anything then sure, we'll assume the PCs are good enough to have it always return. But if it actually hits something? You're gonna need some magic or feats to have it bounce back.
*I need to point out though, that the Recovery trait never mentions Failure, it states "an unsucceful thrown Strike". That covers both Fail and Crit Fail equally.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
To be fair, a boomerang designed as a weapon isn't also designed to fly back to you at all. Weapons coming at you is generally a bad thing even (especially) if they are yours.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Meanwhile, others twist themselves into knots over the possibility of a boomerang coming back after every strike for free. Ugh.
I mean, I don't think people are twisting themselves into knots for power level reasons, really. They're twisting themselves into knots because that's just not how a boomerang works, there's nothing in the description of it that suggests it works any different to a boomerang, and yet it has text that could imply that it works like Ty the Tazmanian Tiger's boomerangs, which is just odd for a weapon that costs silver pieces.
If the weapon was some kind of special magical boomerang or an advanced weapon that was some kind of gadgeteer's invention, then I don't think people would be nearly as out-of-sorts about it. But it's just a regular boomerang, and those are basically aerodynamic throwing knives. They stick into their target or bludgeon them and then fall to the ground like any other thrown thing.
Then there's the fact that TV items had a habit of saying more than they meant, and now you've got people confused. It really is that simple; very few people, I imagine, are worried that this will break the game. It just... doesn't follow with the rest of the expectations, and that's weird.
No it is a rule issue and maybe a playability issue.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hi, I'm Australian, so the official rules for boomerangs are that they return when you miss.
When you hit something with the boomerang, the boomerang stops flying and you have to go pick it up. But if you're lucky you've got a dead or stunned drop-bear next to where you're picking it up from!
Hope this bit of common sense helps clarify the situation you bunch of flamin' galahs.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hi, I'm Australian, so the official rules for boomerangs are that they return when you miss.
When you hit something with the boomerang, the boomerang stops flying and you have to go pick it up. But if you're lucky you've got a dead or stunned drop-bear next to where you're picking it up from!
Hope this bit of common sense helps clarify the situation you bunch of flamin' galahs.
I'm neither Australian or a cockatoo, but I already knew that a boomerang only returns if it doesn't hit something.
TV and Videogames just like to claim it "always comes back".
...Just like how they claim you can T-pose in an active volcano and remain alive until you touch the lava, when in truth you'll get cooked to death by the heat long before you get near the lava/magma.
...And yes, I did indeed look up what a Galah is so I could deny being one.