| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So our table is having a heated discussion about the shocking rune. It reads "Electric arcs crisscross shock weapons, dealing an extra 1d6 electricity damage on a hit. On a critical hit, electricity arcs out to deal an equal amount of electricity damage to up to two other creatures of your choice within 10 feet of the target." The problem we have run into is weather the damage that jumps to the two other creatures. Dose the die damage double when it hits the original target? Does that damage that hits the other two the damage from the die or is it the doubled damage that hits thee first target?
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
The 1d6 added to hits doubles on a crit. The electricity that jumps out to other creatures is an effect that ONLY happens on a crit, therefore it does not double.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Lol. I again see that 'extra damage' wording for damage runes. Then, for doubling damage:
"When this happens, you roll the damage normally, adding all the normal modifiers, bonuses, and penalties. Then you double or halve the amount as appropriate."
'Extra' is not 'modifier', 'bonus', or 'penalty'. Remind me again, why do we even think that crits affect rune damage?
If it's not, the wording of the rune becomes very simple and clear, it's just always an extra 1d6, and the effect on a crit is explicitly written.
This reading also probably could get prevalence of damage runes in check a bit.
Because the rules are meant to be read as English, not a technical manual. If you're going to try to get this technically specific with wording, then you go down a rabbit hole of ridiculous problems. Exemplar's Gleaming Blade damage is 'additional'. That isn't 'modifier', 'bonus', or 'penalty'. So by your logic it doesn't double on a crit either. So are you supposed to subtract that damage before doubling it, and make the whole process substantially more complicated?
This kind of tortured legalistic interpretation of text that isn't written with that level of rigor leads to these kinds of ridiculous arguments.
Try reading it again as a plain English sentence: you roll the damage normally, then you double it for a crit. You normally roll rune damage when doing damage, so you double it on a crit. The only time that doesn't happen is if it explicitly says otherwise, or if the effect is from a crit itself (because you're not normally rolling that).
This is pretty straightforward unless you try to overcomplicate it.
I read it as "Deal an equal amount to the electricity damage dealt to the additional targets". and not "Deal 1d6 damage".
So whatever the 2d6 shows is dealt to both additional targets, imo.
This is how I read it, as well. "Equal amount of damage" is going to be what you rolled as part of your damage roll on the primary target, which will be 2d6 since its a crit. That also means you don't have to roll damage, then turn around and immediately roll damage again with a different number, which helps keep things moving as a nice bonus.
I can see where people reading it the other way are coming from, though.
This kind of tortured legalistic interpretation of text that isn't written with that level of rigor leads to these kinds of ridiculous arguments.This is NOT 'tortured', 'ridiculous' and not even that legalistic. And don't pretend that it is. The only thing you did here is rejection. That is not in good conscience.
Rules on damage are a mess. We don't know precisely what they intended. In this case too. They probably wrote all those 'extra' and 'additional' to make them stack with everything. But this DOES remove such damage from normal doubling rules.
And also don't pretend that calculations are harder: it's exactly the same number of operations, and you roll runes damage separately anyway, as it's almost always of another type.
No, it absolutely is. You're arguing 'extra' is not 'modifier', 'bonus', or 'penalty' and thus shouldn't count.
Extra is literally a synonym of bonus.
We often don't know what they intend, but the argument that they don't intend this because they used a common synonym instead of another specific term is not a good one. That's treating the rules as if they're written like the Formula 1 Technical Regulations in how hyperspecific the word choices are, and they're absolutely not written with that kind of rigour.
This kind of tortured legalistic interpretation of text that isn't written with that level of rigor leads to these kinds of ridiculous arguments.
I don't think this argument makes sense here.
This entire debate hinges upon squinting at an odd word choice in very specific ways to divine a solution. The entire discussion is legalistic and technical.
It's a bit much to call the other person's view 'tortured' when the whole thing revolves around language that most other similar abilities just don't use. Especially when the alternative interpretation bypasses the norms for how crit bonuses work.
This kind of tortured legalistic interpretation of text that isn't written with that level of rigor leads to these kinds of ridiculous arguments.I don't think this argument makes sense here.
This entire debate hinges upon squinting at an odd word choice in very specific ways to divine a solution. The entire discussion is legalistic and technical.
It's a bit much to call the other person's view 'tortured' when the whole thing revolves around language that most other similar abilities just don't use. Especially when the alternative interpretation bypasses the norms for how crit bonuses work.
Arguing that the damage for the extra creatures doesn't double because they're only taking damage due to a crit makes perfect sense. I wouldn't rule it that way, but the rules case there is reasonable.
Arguing that it doesn't happen because "extra != bonus" is ridiculous and opens up scouring the books for anything that is adding damage to see if its using "bonus" or a synonym of bonus that thus has to be treated differently on crits.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
This kind of tortured legalistic interpretation of text that isn't written with that level of rigor leads to these kinds of ridiculous arguments.This is NOT 'tortured', 'ridiculous' and not even that legalistic. And don't pretend that it is. The only thing you did here is rejection. That is not in good conscience.
Rules on damage are a mess. We don't know precisely what they intended. In this case too. They probably wrote all those 'extra' and 'additional' to make them stack with everything. But this DOES remove such damage from normal doubling rules.
And also don't pretend that calculations are harder: it's exactly the same number of operations, and you roll runes damage separately anyway, as it's almost always of another type.
That reading would be a lot more impactful than just energy runes. It is also a claim that Rage, Sneak Attack, Precision Edge, Weapon Specialization, Implement Empowerment, assorted weapon Ikon Immanence effects, etc all do not double on a critical hit.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not entirely clear imo – does 'equal amount' refer to the damage expression from earlier in the sentence, or does it refer to the actual electricity damage dealt to the target? I play it as the latter, thus preserving the doubling, for simplicity and for making it feel a bit more impactful and worthwhile to apply.
The question listed is exactly the right question to be asking.
Does the 'equal amount' of damage refer to the 1d6 listed earlier in the rule, or does it refer to the rolled amount of damage (which doubles on a crit).
I rule it as the first. It deals 1d6 damage on a crit to the other targets. It will double the damage to the primary target because it is a crit and the rune normally deals 1d6 damage on a hit to that target.
'simplicity' and 'make it feel more impactful' aren't good reasons to override the rule for doubling damage on a crit: "Benefits you gain specifically from a critical hit, like the extra damage die from the fatal weapon trait, aren't doubled."
Since the rune normally does not deal any damage to other targets, then the damage to those other targets on a crit is a benefit that you only get on a crit. It shouldn't be doubled.
If you are rolling 2d6 for the doubled electricity damage on a hit, it might be more difficult to choose which d6 to apply to the other targets. The solution for that is to roll 1d6 and, you know, double it to apply to the primary target. Then there is only one choice for which 1d6 of damage to apply to the other targets. Simple.
To determine intent with game balance, let's compare it to the flaming rune. It's the same level after all.
Flaming causes the weapon to do an additional 1d6 fire on a hit, plus 1d10 persistent fire on a crit.
So in terms of power, which interpretation is closer to 1d10 persistent fire? 1d6 electricity to two other creatures, or 2*1d6 electricity to two other creatures?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I agree that the already doubled electricity damage is what the damage to the other targets is equal to. If it was meant to deal the undoubled damage, the crit effect would likely say "deal electricity damage to up to two other creatures of your choice within 10 feet of the target. This damage is equal to the result of the electricity damage die you rolled."
I would go with the player rolling the die.
Take that result and apply it where the game asks.
For the crit damage calculation it would be included before multiplying.
For the targets within 10 feet of the crit target it would not be multiplied since those targets were not critically hit by anything.
I feel that if they intended for the damage to not be dubbed on crit they would have added a statement about it in the text.
something like this.
"electricity arcs out to deal an equal amount of electricity damage, Before doubling to up to two other creatures of your choice within 10 feet of the target."
Yeah, otherwise, what is the electricity damage even equal to?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The amount on the rolled die.
If you look at the damage section in Player Core it says you will have situations where you multiply damage critical damage is one of them. But the damage that triggers specifically because of a crit is never multiplied.
The amount on the rolled die.
If you look at the damage section in Player Core it says you will have situations where you multiply damage critical damage is one of them. But the damage that triggers specifically because of a crit is never multiplied.That section is kinda useless for this discussion though, as it does not at all resolve the ambiguity of "equal amount of electricty damage" since it could mean "deals an equal amount of electricity damage as to the primary target".
Nobody is saying that you double the damage against the two targets. Rather the issue lies with the rune being written with "deal an equal amount of electricity damage to up to two other creatures". Thats not a doubling of damage, Rather its a copy of a value. Even the axe crit spec needed to be clarified that it wasn't doubled for much of the same reason since it read that you "deal the result of the weapon damage dice".
And thats where we are now, Nobody can with enough confidence or evidence show which reading of what an "Equal amount" is between Base Damage or Dealt Damage.
Gramatically I believe damage dealt is the correct reading and RAI, we can draw inferences that backs that up to simply by how small the crit effect is in comparison to other runes. But unless Errata or Paizo Devs blesses us with a clarification this is where we stand.
Im not sure we can be that dismissive of the damage section as it applies here. I’m pretty sure it describes what to do and not do.
Ill take another look later and get back to this.And believe me, im the first person who would want an electricity effect to be more powerful rather than less, but im pretty sure it isnt here.
Electric arcs crisscross shock weapons, dealing an extra
1d6 electricity damage on a hit. On a critical hit, electricity
arcs out to deal an equal amount of electricity damage to up
to two other creatures of your choice within 10 feet of the
target.
Ah ok there was my misread. Its not the roll result that is the equal amount.
What is actually referred to when they say equal amount of damage? The only damage reference I see in the description is 1d6. The equal amount of damage must also be 1d6.
As you also acknowledged we know we are not going to multiply any amounts of damage that happen only because of the crit so it stays 1d6 for the targets 10 ft away.
This is clear enough to know you will do 1d6 to the targets 10 ft away. it actually probably should be rolled anew for the new targets because 1d6 is what is being referenced.
The 1d6 being the equal amount is actually what Finoan said earlier in the thread so credit to Finoan.
Ah ok there was my misread. Its not the roll result that is the equal amount.
What is actually referred to when they say equal amount of damage? The only damage reference I see in the description is 1d6. The equal amount of damage must also be 1d6.That is why its ambigious, The part "equal amount of electricity damage" is the issue, Because as said "amount equal to what".
If we take the text as it currently reads there is no distinction between it meaning; The result of the d6 from the rune, 1d6 to each target with separate rolls, the amount of damage the primary target was dealt from the rune.
That is also why the previously mentioned rules section does not solve this. Because the text can be read as telling you to deal the same 2(1d6) to the other targets as the primary target was dealt. And that still follows the rules about not doubling the damage on effects specific to criticals. Because if we doubled that we would be looking at 4(1d6) per target.
1d6 is a variable amount of damage and it is the only damage reference in the description to go on. That is enough for me at least to be certain that 1d6 is the damage they mean when they say equal to.
I mean it doesn't say do damage equal to the result right?So when you state equal to what? the answer is 1d6 and that answer can be found in the description itself.
If they actually wanted the other targets to take 1d6 damage, why not just write "deal 1d6 damage to up to 2 other targets?"
It makes more sense that what the amount of damage dealt is meant to be equal to is an actual amount of damage dealt rather than a damage roll reference.
Mhm, Gramatically there isn't a distinction as to what this "equal amount" is, nor is there any obvious interpretation to be made.
If they actually wanted the other targets to take 1d6 damage, why not just write "deal 1d6 damage to up to 2 other targets?"Here is the thing, early Shock didn't have this problem. Because it litterary did say thatShock Rune 9+
Electric arcs crisscross this weapon each time it hits, dealing 1d6 additional electricity damage on a successful attack. On a critical hit, electricity arcs out to damage up to two other creatures.Type Standard; level 9
On a critical hit, the weapon deals 1d6 to each additional target.Type Greater; level 14
The weapon also deals 2d6 persistent electricity damage to the initial target, and the electricity damage from this weapon ignores the initial target's resistance. On a critical hit, the weapon deals 2d6 electricity damage to each additional creature.
Well im not sure there is this much ambiguity written there.
They say it deals an equal amount of electricity damage and the sentence just before it gave the 1d6 electricity damage. So its not stated in a vacuum.
The playtest version did not claim the 1d6 to the other targets was equal to the 2*1d6 to the initial target. There's no reason to conclude that the up to date version is using "equal" as a substitute for 1d6, especially since "equal amount of" takes up a lot more space than "1d6." The whole point of the playtest was to see what needed fixing, as evidently this rune did.
The playtest version did not claim the 1d6 to the other targets was equal to the 2*1d6 to the initial target. There's no reason to conclude that the up to date version is using "equal" as a substitute for 1d6, especially since "equal amount of" takes up a lot more space than "1d6." The whole point of the playtest was to see what needed fixing, as evidently this rune did.
I am not sure you've established there is no reason to conclude "that the up to date version is using "equal" as a substitute for 1d6,..."
The reason to conclude it is 1d6 is found in the current description.
The playtest comments don't change what the current entry states.
Actually they did save space in another area. Its just further down. The level 8 entry no longer has to say how much damage the shock rune does to additional targets on crit where its giving the price for it since its given in the description. Also trimmed a bit for the higher level version by removing the persistent damage.
Type shock; Level 8; Price 500 gp
Type greater shock; Level 15; Price 6,500 gp
Electricity damage dealt by this weapon ignores the target’s
electricity resistance (and the other creatures’ on a critical hit)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Normally, when a spell wants to use a die expression again for a different instance of damage, it actually prints out the die expression a second time because it's more readable and takes up less space than "equal amount of". For instance, Live Wire doesn't say, "The wire deals 1d4 piercing damage and an equal amount of electricity damage. On a critical hit, deal double damage and an equal amount of persistent electricity damage."
The more I read this and the texts of runes the more I think that runes' damage was never intended to double on crits and supposed to be just a bit of damage 'on top' plus additional specific effects on crits.
Any basis for claiming that every player, GM, and VTT implementation has been wrong about this game for the past 6 years?
The base damage added by the rune is explicitly not exclusive to a critical hit, which means a critical hit doubles it.
As for the shock rune, the damage is also not exclusive to a critical hit. It's just that said damage is normally only dealt to the initial target, and now it's also being dealt to two other targets.
How have VTTs implemented the additional electricity damage on crit to other targets?
Foundry I manually apply the 1d6 roll to other targets.
I'm talking about the doubling of rune damage on a crit in general. I don't know if or how Foundry handles the shock crit effect, but I assume Foundry expects you to manually reduce the HP of the secondary targets.
yeah Foundry will double the damage from the rune for the creature that was critically hit.
The crit effect for additional targets is a manually applied
The more I read this and the texts of runes the more I think that runes' damage was never intended to double on crits and supposed to be just a bit of damage 'on top' plus additional specific effects on crits.There is an errata that touches upon this.Page 585: In the wounding rune, given that persistent damage doubles on a critical hit, changing the 1d6 to 1d12 instead of doubling would actually make it deal less damage on average. Thus, remove the part about changing to 1d12 damage on a critical hit. Instead, the wounding rune's bleed damage doubles as normal for persistent damage.How have VTTs implemented the additional electricity damage on crit to other targets?For how PF2e foundry devs implemented it, They actually cannot automate it with how the system works as seen inThis issue from 2020.
Taken from The current implementation nothing has changed.
-add 1d6 electricity damage
-when rolled critically attach a note.Last time I checked was years ago and the one I was talking to was also unsure if "equal amounts of electricity damage" meant the value after the damage roll, or equal to the result of the damage die you rolled like it is worded in the axe crit spec.
That crit spec too is something where they had to include the line "This amount isnt doubled" at the CRB launch, Because people were playing it as it as dealing 2*(Initial Weapon Damage dice roll) to the secondary target during playtests. Which is pretty much the exact same issue that we see here.
I think the on crit abilities not ever doubling is the thing to follow. So the equal to amount needs to be the pre doubled amount to the keep with the spirit of the rules
Even if we use the most generous ruling(one that i agree with) that you take the doubled damage,
i never take that rune for its crit effect but rather theme or to bump my already existing electricity damage(usualy because of character theme :p)
getting a smal amount of spread out damage rarely do anything, especially when you cant controll when it happens.