Apply this to any example of a strike. See how it plays out.
Gleeming blade is a great example to showcase how the rules actually work.
I'll come back posting an example when i can.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Apply this to any example of a strike. See how it plays out.
Gleeming blade is a great example to showcase how the rules actually work.
I'll come back posting an example when i can.
OK Trip.H
Consider a gleeming clade with a flaming rune etched onto it.The Gleaming Blade transcendence says: "If both attacks hit, you combine their damage, which is all dealt as spirit damage."
The "Their" refers to the Strikes(this has a specific definition in the rules):"their damage" in the context of "Make two Strikes" refers specifically to the damage defined by those Strikes (the Strike Statistics). The effect is gleeming blade which is normally slashing damage is now doing spirit damage instead of slashing. That is all it means.
Edit: I will revise this section on how immanence is treated in a new post. I will get into the rules in WoI abit more and come back on this specific part on immanence.
Property Runes are independent Success Outcomes: A Flaming rune doesn't say "combine 1d6 fire with Strike's damage." It says, "The weapon deals an additional 1d6 fire damage on a successful Strike." It is not part fo the strikes formula in strike statistics and would not be provided the water trait.
Flowing Spirit Strike action says it combines the result of the two Strikes for weakness/resistance. this means instead of there being two sets of damage steps there is one for this ability, in step two we identify the damage by types which are the instances of damage for the activity that move to step 3. The Flaming rune back in step 1, seeing a successful Strike, adds its fire damage, an effect the active rune provides to the strike outcome of success. Crucially we are not told to convert this additional damage to spirit so we do not. And this is the most sensible outcome too because the fire damage remains fire. In step 2 it is identified as fire damage and moves to step 3 as its own instance of damage just like the combined spirit damage from the strike is identified as spirit damage and moved to step 3 as its own instance of damage. Step 3 then applies immunities weaknesses and resistances independantly to these instances of damage according to their types and traits. If an instance has multiple weakness triggers it takes only the highest value. same for resistance. The all versions also apply perfectly here because every damage type is distinct. Then we combine the resulting dmage from all instances and move what is left to step 4 which applies all the remaining damage once to the target.
Apply this to any example of a strike. See how it plays out.
Gleeming blade is a great example to showcase how the rules actually work.
I'll come back posting an example when i can.OK Trip.H
Consider a gleeming clade with a flaming rune etched onto it.The Gleaming Blade transcendence says: "If both attacks hit, you combine their damage, which is all dealt as spirit damage."
The "Their" refers to the Strikes(this has a specific definition in the rules):"their damage" in the context of "Make two Strikes" refers specifically to the damage defined by those Strikes (the Strike Statistics). The effect is gleeming blade which is normally slashing damage is now doing spirit damage instead of slashing. That is all it means.
Edit: I will revise this section on how immanence is treated in a new post. I will get into the rules in WoI abit more and come back on this specific part on immanence.
Property Runes are independent Success Outcomes: A Flaming rune doesn't say "combine 1d6 fire with Strike's damage." It says, "The weapon deals an additional 1d6 fire damage on a successful Strike." It is not part fo the strikes formula in strike statistics and would not be provided the water trait.
Flowing Spirit Strike action says it combines the result of the two Strikes for weakness/resistance. this means instead of there being two sets of damage steps there is one for this ability, in step two we identify the damage by types which are the instances of damage for the activity that move to step 3. The Flaming rune back in step 1, seeing a successful Strike, adds its fire damage, an effect the active rune provides to the strike outcome of success. Crucially we are not told to convert this additional damage to spirit so we do not. And this is the most sensible outcome too because the fire damage remains fire. In step 2 it is identified as fire damage and moves to step 3 as its own instance of damage just like the combined spirit damage from the strike is identified as spirit...
Ok the energized Spark ability is the specific feat that is relevant.
"You can choose forany spirit damage dealt by your exemplar abilities to instead
gain the trait and deal the corresponding damage type."
This ability doesn't care it the spirit damage is coming from an immanence passive or the Flowing Spirit Strike ability, as long as they are exemplar abilities. This doesn't create a complication to the ebove analysis at all.
Ok this makes it clear the immanence +2 spirit from gleaming blade is additional damage no different from arcane cascades additional damage or a rune like flaming, except because is comes from an exemplar ability it can be changed by energizing spark to the damage type and trait chosen.
Gleaming blade with energy spark does not pose any conflict with applying the rules.
You can have a bludgeoning water additional damage added to the outcome as treated as its own instance of damage on top of the gleaming blades slashing from its strike statistics. If the enemy is immune to water then the additional water bludgeoning damage doesnt gets stopped in step 3, the slashing damage goes through.
When using flowing spirit strikes yes the slashing damage would change to spirit and energizing sparks can make it bludgeoning water damage instead. Yes immunity to water damage would stop all of the converted spirit damage from the strike, no the fire rune's (from my example before) fire damage does not have the water trait and would not be stopped by immunity. Pretty easy and sensible application.
Oddly enough if you had treated damage as a single instance always you get a bad outcome for all of this.
You are forced to treat the immanence damage and the slashing damage as one instances of slashing bludgeoning water damage. it doesnt make sense but it is the forced logical outcome for only having one instance in step 3. And in this nonsense case all the damage would get stopped because all the damage types were forced into a single instance and forced to share the water trait.
With the flowing spirit strike you are using a set of abilities that do in fact change the slashing damage to bludgeoning water and rightfully water immunity would stop it.
in which case why would you choose to change the spirit damage to something the enemy is immune to? Just dont do that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I didn't interpret ambiguous text or make inferences. I used in the rules text the explicit definition of what a Strike is:
Strike = weapon's damage die + modifiers, bonuses, and penalties
Everything else like rune damage, feat effects, etc. are added to the outcome, not part of the Strike itself. This doesn't create a nebulous orphaning effect.Strike = weapon's damage die + modifiers, bonuses, and penalties.
Everything else like rune damage, feat effects, etc. is added to the outcome, not part of the Strike itself.
This is incorrect, and is likely where your emergent contradictions grow from.
A damage formula does not alter the intrinsic "is" or "is not" attributes of a Strike.
Weapon runes edit the weapon they are attached to. They can increase it's damage, offer odd abilities, or impart special effects. All of those runes are edits to the weapon.
Damage calculations are out-of-world math. It's literally impossible to avoid adding bonus damage as "a separate step" from the weapon's innate phys, that mathematical necessity is not instruction that the rune damage exists outside the weapon, let alone outside the Strike (which is nonsense to anyone who has read the text).
Even worse, is that you are mistaken / dishonest about those steps. Rune damage, along with all bonus dmg to the weapon, is 100% inside that "bonuses" addition when calculating Strike damage.
Melee damage roll = damage die of weapon or unarmed attack + Strength modifier + bonuses + penalties
While I don't think it's a specifically codified term, "bonus damage" comes from that "bonuses" word choice, btw. Bonus damage is not some alien thing that happens outside the strike, it is a part contained within it. Only fully independent damage is "outside the Strike," like Flame Wisp.
The reason we know that a Holy rune is modifying the weapon and increasing it's damage is because the text says exactly that. The reason we know that Flame Wisp watches for Strikes and sends follow up wisps is because the text says so. There is mechanic significance to the wording of "The weapon deals ___ additional ___ damage," because not all runes use that language.
Some runes provide damage via special effects that are not a modifier to the weapon hit, and consequently use different wording.
In response to landing a hit, an Ashen weapon creates a cloud of burning ash around the target, and it is that ash cloud that deals the damage.
But when runes dictate "The weapon deals ___ additional ___ damage" you cannot ignore that. It's mechanically significant that it's the weapon's damage being modified, as opposed to generating a separate damaging event in reaction to a hit.
The "damage rolls" procedure is not a statement on the bonus dmg being "outside the Strike." Some bonus damage *will* be outside the weapon, but by RaW is still within the Strike and its damage calculation, which imo is the most confusing possibility.
This possibility is the Expanded Splash example, where you are literally getting "bonus damage" that goes into that "bonuses" step, despite not being a modification of the weapon.
Others like Flame Wisp are entirely outside the Strike, but still might get added in the same damage formula for convenience. But, under the hood, it's vital to remember Flame Wisp is a separate instance with it's own damage roll that could pop weak/res separately.
Point being, citing the damage formula as some kind of override for very clear rune text is not as convincing as you may think it to be. Frankly, it's an illuminated signpost pointing to where the suggestion falls apart.
_________________________
I beg you to take a minute to try and reset here. You are honestly talking nonsense. It is legit unmoored from reality to argue it's RaW that elemental runes add their damage outside of the attack.
If you took your suggestion seriously, you would break countless interactions, even something as basic as Shield Block would become a huge question mark. Rune damage being imparted not just outside of the weapon, but outside of the entire Strike is, frankly, absurd.
There literally is no text anywhere for damage to be calculated at that point.
Even Strike's text carefully words its crit success line to point to and edit the contained dmg roll that's inside. The only damage being done is inside that Strike.
Critical Success You make a damage roll according to the weapon or unarmed attack and deal double damage (see Doubling and Halving Damage for rules on doubling damage).
This is why I took the time to talk about Splash. That bonus damage is still inside its weapon Strike, which is WHY it has text saying "but do not double this on crit"
It needs that rule only because it's still bonus damage inside the weapon Strike. If things like splash were genuinely outside the Strike, then there would be no need for that rule.This is also the cause behind the confusing case of bonus damage to an attack, but the bonus dmg being also outside the weapon. Damage rolling only happens inside Strikes like that, so feats like Expanded Splash have to thread a needle of boosting the dmg of weapon attacks, without boosting the weapon's dmg.
Sneak Attack is a more well known example, as that dmg is much more intuitively something both "inside an attack" and is part of those damage rolls, while seemingly contradictingly being "outside the weapon." As tiny as it is, the key difference is "when ____, you deal an additional..." versus "when ____, the weapon deals an additional..."
I didn't interpret ambiguous text or make inferences. I used in the rules text the explicit definition of what a Strike is:
Strike = weapon's damage die + modifiers, bonuses, and penalties
Everything else like rune damage, feat effects, etc. are added to the outcome, not part of the Strike itself. This doesn't create a nebulous orphaning effect.Strike = weapon's damage die + modifiers, bonuses, and penalties.
Everything else like rune damage, feat effects, etc. is added to the outcome, not part of the Strike itself.
This is incorrect, and is likely where your emergent contradictions grow from.
A damage formula does not alter the intrinsic "is" or "is not" attributes of a Strike.
Weapon runes edit the weapon they are attached to. They can increase it's damage, offer odd abilities, or impart special effects. All of those runes are edits to the weapon.
Damage calculations are out-of-world math. It's literally impossible to avoid adding bonus damage as "a separate step" from the weapon's innate phys, that mathematical necessity does not mean the rune damage exists outside the weapon, let alone outside the Strike.
Even worse, is that you are mistaken / dishonest about those steps. Rune damage, along with all bonus dmg to the weapon, is 100% inside that "bonuses" addition when calculating Strike damage.
Melee damage roll = damage die of weapon or unarmed attack + Strength modifier + bonuses + penaltiesWhile I don't think it's a specifically codified term, "bonus damage" comes from that "bonuses" step, btw. Bonus damage is not some alien thing that happens outside the strike, it is a part contained within it.
The reason we know that a Holy rune is modifying the weapon and increasing it's damage is because the text says exactly that. The reason we know that Flame Wisp watches for Strikes and sends follow up wisps is because the text says so. There is mechanic significance to the wording of "... deals additional damage," because not all...
look to PC page 10. its clear they mean things like proficiency item status circumstance untyped and the reason its clear is that there are no examples in any abilities to the contrary.
Bonuses and Penalties
Bonuses and penalties apply to checks and certain statistics.
There are several types of bonuses and penalties. If you
have more than one bonus of the same type, you use only
the highest bonus. Likewise, you use only the worst penalty
of each type.
Look at this feat. It gives a status bonus to damage.The fire damage from a rune is not written as a bonus 1d6 fire damage to damage rolls.
HEROIC RECOVERY [one-action] FEAT 10
CLERIC CONCENTRATE SPELLSHAPE
Prerequisites healing font
The restorative power of your healing invigorates the recipient.
If the next action you use is to cast heal targeting a single living
creature and the target regains Hit Points from the spell, the
target also gains three bonuses until the end of its next turn:
a +5-foot status bonus to its Speed, a +1 status bonus to attack
rolls, and a +1 status bonus to damage rolls. In addition, if the
target is prone, it can immediately Stand as a free action that
doesn’t trigger reactions.
Consider this weapon trait. it changes all of a weapons damage dice. In your previous posts did you state that the rune damage becomes the weapons damage dice? Clearly they do not or they do would change, the rules distinguish between additional damage like the 1d6 fire from the rune and what is the weapons damage dice, a change to the strike is to the weapons damage dice + bonus penalties modifiers. Also to this point The strike is defined as using the weapons damage dice and we already know bonuses considered things like circumstance or status ect. and not what a fire rune provides.
Two-Hand: This weapon can be wielded with two hands
to change its weapon damage die to the indicated value.
This change applies to all the weapon’s damage dice.
as for sneak attack. It adds precision damage and that has its own rules. Precision damage if it is not removed by immunity is added to the the weapons damage type. That means in step 3 aside from its specific interaction with immunity provided in the rules text it is treated as additional slashing piercing bludgeoning damage, whatever the base weapons damage type is.
I'll refresh myself on slash damage before I respond on it so I'm using the rules to respond. I dont want to be mistaken.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Dude... how can you read something that should help you de-confirm your lost in the sauce take, but somehow think it helps your case?
Axe crit spec saying to exclude those indicates that readers might think to include them, lol. As in, the text is heavily suggesting that bonus and "additional damage" go together.
Yes, many strike or weapon boosters consistently use the wording of "deals additional damage." No, that doesn't somehow remove that from being a part of the weapon Strike. Again, base weapons like the alch crossbow deal "additional" damage with no runes. It's absurd to claim that the 1/2 the bolt's damge is somehow neither a part of the weapon, nor the Strike.
"Bonus damage" has stacking limits, if you've got a +x status bonus to damage, such as via Gravity Weapon, it will not stack with another source of status bonus to damage, such as that Cleric feat's +1.
If your runes or abilities impart "bonus damage," you would get non-stacking conflicts.
If you instead get "additional damage," that's essentially untyped bonus damage that is getting called out to *not* be nor to edit the weapon's damage. "Deals additional" is a layer of obfuscation to protect that core of "the weapon's damage" from alteration. The weapon's core numbers don't change, this is extra damage rolls on the side.
"Additional damage" is not some big secret term that invokes a cascading ripple through the rules for extra weakness pops, it's a consistently used safety phrasing because of how many things read the numbers off a weapon.
Not only does "deals additional damage" ensure that the effects cannot be argued to boost the weapon's number of damage dice, but also because "a weapon's damage" is what itself is boosted by Striking.
By only ever referencing those bonus sources of weapon damage as "additional damage" it ensures that it's impossible to run afoul of those gotcha headaches around Striking or "damage dice."
Again, you really could benefit from taking a step back and thinking this through.
Trying to toss "what about ___" distractions up into the air does nothing to actually help the legitimacy of your case, which is still "does not compute" levels of nonsense.
I don't even know how many things would break by removing such damage to exist outside of Strikes, it's legit one of the most impossible RaW claims I've ever heard for pf2. There is no extra step for adding some damage outside the Strike. If it's not in there, it would be orphaned, and without any rules giving those numbers ways to interact with other numbers, they would effectively cease to exist.
Success: You make a damage roll according to the weapon or unarmed attack and deal damage.
Dude... how can you read something that should help you de-confirm your lost in the sauce take, but somehow think it helps your case?
Axe crit spec saying to exclude those indicates that readers might think to include them, lol. As in, the text is heavily suggesting that bonus and "additional damage" go together.
Yes, many strike or weapon boosters consistently use the wording of "deals additional damage." No, that doesn't somehow remove that from being a part of the weapon Strike. Again, base weapons like the alch crossbow deal "additional" damage with no runes. It's absurd to claim that the 1/2 the bolt's damge is somehow neither a part of the weapon, nor the Strike.
"Bonus damage" has stacking limits, if you've got a +x status bonus to damage, such as via Gravity Weapon, it will not stack with another source of status bonus to damage, such as that Cleric feat's +1.
If your runes or abilities impart "bonus damage," you would get non-stacking conflicts.If you instead get "additional damage," that's essentially untyped bonus damage that is getting called out to *not* be nor to edit the weapon's damage. "Deals additional" is a layer of obfuscation to protect that core of "the weapon's damage" from alteration. The weapon's core numbers don't change, this is extra damage rolls on the side.
"Additional damage" is not some big secret term that invokes a cascading ripple through the rules for extra weakness pops, it's a consistently used safety phrasing because of how many things read the numbers off a weapon.
Not only does "deals additional damage" ensure that the effects cannot be argued to boost the weapon's number of damage dice, but also because "a weapon's damage" is what itself is boosted by Striking.
By only ever referencing those bonus sources of weapon damage as "additional damage" it ensures that it's impossible to run afoul of those gotcha headaches around Striking or "damage dice."Again, you really could benefit from taking a step back and thinking this through.
Trying...
OK I feel the same way about your responses TBH. I am looking at the rules and seeing why they don't match your conception of how damage works in the game as a single instance. The damage steps are Paizo's the strike definition is Paizo's. What your describing is just not taking them for what is written. Saying things like I am being disingenuous doesnt help your argument either. I might me mistaken but I am not being dishonest. And I do not believe I am mistaken here because I am using the written rules directly without adding to them to make things like single instances happen for all damage.
Lets start again from what you posted at the end. The success outcome of a strike. But use the full strike description so you get what I have meant this whole time. I am adding in bold parens to emphasize where things go.
STRIKE [one-action]
ATTACK
You attack with a weapon you’re wielding or with an
unarmed attack, targeting one creature within your reach
(for a melee attack) or within range (for a ranged attack). Roll
an attack roll using the attack modifier for the weapon or
unarmed attack you’re using, and compare the result to the
target creature’s AC to determine the effect.
Critical Success You make a damage roll according to the
weapon or unarmed attack (this is where additional damage goes that Additional 1d6 Fire damage) and deal double damage (crit only comes after the doubling since they are not doubled plus 1d10 persistent Fire damage) (see
page 407 for rules on doubling damage).
Success: You make a damage roll according to the weapon or unarmed attack (this is where additional damage goes that Additional 1d6 Fire damage) and deal damage.
The point here is that the additional damage that is added to success or on hit are not modified by abilities that modify the strike because of the next part.
This next section is what gets changed when you add a trait to the strike, the strikes statistics. This is distinct as they are persistent qualities of the strike even when outcomes have not been determined. When an ability changes a strike directly and not the outcomes directly the strike statistics are what get altered. This is where bola shot changes go or the champions sanctification adding the holy trait.
STRIKE STATISTICS
See Attack Rolls on page 402 and Damage on page 404
for details on calculating your attack and damage rolls.
The damage roll for a Strike uses the damage die of the
weapon or unarmed attack, plus any modifiers, bonuses,
and penalties you have to damage. If you’re using a type of
attack other than a Strike, such as a spell attack or Grapple
action, you calculate damage differently (or not at all).
To sum it up when you strike the statistics of the strike are used and outcome dependent additions to the degrees of success only modify the outcomes. They have to modify the outcomes the say way every time the specific degree of success they claim to add to is achieved. They do this no matter the strike statistics.
If the rune says it deals additional 1d6 fire damage on a success, it does exactly that even if the strike had the water or holy traits.
Does this clear up at least some of what I am saying?
Even if your wed to the idea of every strike only having one instance of damage can you at least see the logical consistency of what Paizo designed? and I have to frame it that way (its specifically their rules), I can't take credit for it.
You keep contradicting yourself and pretending that nothing's wrong.
Success: You make a damage roll according to the weapon or unarmed attack (this is where additional damage goes that Additional 1d6 Fire damage) and deal damage.
This is inside the attack, which is inside the Strike.
You previously stated very clearly that additional damage is outside both the weapon and the Strike.The only source of damage Strike can deal, the only thing being referenced, is the "weapon or unarmed attack."
If you claim that additional damage from runes is not included in the weapon attack, then there is no text in the system that puts that damage to use.
Again, you cannot poof text into existence. There is no "add all other sources of damage here." If a chunk of damage is not already inside that weapon attack umbrella, Strike is not including it.
You are still reading text that directly states an effect is imparting a ____ change to a weapon, and insisting that no it's not.
_____________
I should not have overlooked this from before:
[holy rune] The difference is it adds its own spirit damage which I assume is holy too but its not specified.
Nope, not letting this slide. Seems this one pinged your brain because you have the foreknowledge to know why this right here should have gotten you to reevaluate.
You will never find, nor be presented with, a magic bit of silver bullet text that changes your mind, you have to personally choose to reevaluate, which will not happen if you're just hunting for text to match a desired outcome.I'm guessing it pinged because you know that evil & good damage was changed into becoming holy & unholy spirit damage in the remaster.
Which means, you know that the legacy 1d6 good dmg of this holy rune is 100% written to have that spirit damage be holy.
And it is holy, but only if you let go of your "only modifies the base phys" misuse of default specificity.
"Strikes made with it gain the holy trait" and that includes the spirit damage that's independently added to the weapon. And includes other "additional damage" that's added to the weapon, because that's what happens when you actually edit the weapon's strike itself. Bonus damage to the attack might not carry the trait; a GM might rule Sneak Attack does, while an Energy Mutagen does not, etc.
This is as close to a smoking gun as anyone will be able to send to you. You either can go deeper into "everyone else is wrong" delusion and claim pazio wrote that in error, or you can hesitate and reevaluate.
I could try to talk to you about how your "not a part of the weapon attack" nonsense is incompatible with immunities again, but despite clearly breaking the system, you seem able to ignore what to me are show-stoppers.
Oddly enough if you had treated damage as a single instance always you get a bad outcome for all of this.
You are forced to treat the immanence damage and the slashing damage as one instances of slashing bludgeoning water damage. it doesnt make sense but it is the forced logical outcome for only having one instance in step 3. And in this nonsense case all the damage would get stopped because all the damage types were forced into a single instance and forced to share the water trait.
With the flowing spirit strike you are using a set of abilities that do in fact change the slashing damage to bludgeoning water and rightfully water immunity would stop it.
I honestly feel like I'm getting trolled here, this part seems too obvious, and I'd appreciate watchers chiming in on this.
No Tim, that's not what would happen, and I have spelled that out more than once. You cannot resist damage lower than 0. This is why you do need to keep track of what portions of damage have what traits and what types. This is why the system has both effects that can apply a trait to the entire attack, and effects that add a little bonus dmg that exclusively carries the trait.
The immanence water strike deals split damage, and only the spirit water portion carries the water trait. That water dmg can be hit with immunity or resistance, while the rest is unaffected. That is a simple and intuitive result.
When each impact is a single instance, you still track traits and types, and only the matching portion can be resisted to 0. This was the source of that whole sidebar on switching which highest resistance to subtract from based on dice RNG, because the text understands that wrinkle and explains it's the highest applicable resistance, not highest number value.
"A resist 10 that's nullifying 1 dmg is an 'applicable' resist of 1," etc.
_____________________________
Understanding that each impact is a single instance does not mean you fuse traits and types together, and this idea is so bizarre and unexpected I legit have to ask if you're trolling me.
After you get beyond the immunity/ weakness/ resistance step, then types & traits don't matter (as their entire function has now finished), which can feel odd, but that's not the same thing.
A bit tangential, but, Flw Spr Strike of Gleaming Blade: "If both attacks hit, you combine their damage, which is all dealt as spirit damage." This is another reason why Flaming rune, etc, are written to edit the weapon's damage, and *not* as additional damage to 'the attack.' Because that addition is happening down at the lower weapon-level, we know this ability really does convert ALL the damage into spirit, including that from Flaming runes. Any bonus damage to the attack, and you now have a degree of ambiguity around if that Energy Mutagen is actually getting converted into spirit or not.
(tbh, it's been disappointing that I've never once seen that mechanic of Gleaming Blade discussed, it's really neat, so pardon the sidebar)
___________________________
If you think there's a legit RaW "problem" caused by running "instance-per-impact," it might be a better idea to swap this around, and have you attempt to find issues or holes in that logic somewhere while I help explain.
Always consider the possibility that the rules simply weren't written in a 100% self-consistent way in terms of their definitions and interactions or even intentions; At the very least consider it over the possibility that your conversation partner with a different reading than you is just spending their afternoons trolling you deliberately.
Thanks I understand that is also a possibility.
What I am finding is that my read always works out properly no matter what example I have run through with it. Thats pretty good evidence the rules are consistent with eachother.The problem is Trip.H and I are not speaking the same language. We have some fundamental misunderstandings in terminology that we need to somehow communicate.
You keep contradicting yourself and pretending that nothing's wrong.
Success: You make a damage roll according to the weapon or unarmed attack (this is where additional damage goes that Additional 1d6 Fire damage) and deal damage.This is inside the attack, which is inside the Strike.
You previously stated very clearly that additional damage is outside both the weapon and the Strike.
The only source of damage Strike can deal, the only thing being referenced, is the "weapon or unarmed attack."If you claim that additional damage from runes is not included in the weapon attack, then there is no text in the system that puts that damage to use.
Again, you cannot poof text into existence. There is no "add all other sources of damage here." If a chunk of damage is not already inside that weapon attack umbrella, Strike is not including it.You are still reading text that directly states an effect is imparting a ____ change to a weapon, and insisting that no it's not.
_____________
I should not have overlooked this from before:
[holy rune] The difference is it adds its own spirit damage which I assume is holy too but its not specified.Nope, not letting this slide. Seems this one pinged your brain because you have the foreknowledge to know why this right here should have gotten you to reevaluate.
You will never find, nor be presented with, a magic bit of silver bullet text that changes your mind, you have to personally choose to reevaluate, which will not happen if you're just hunting for text to match a desired outcome.I'm guessing it pinged because you know that evil & good damage was changed into becoming holy & unholy spirit damage in the remaster.
Which means, you know that the legacy 1d6 good dmg of this holy rune is 100% written to have that spirit damage be holy.
And it is holy, but only if you let go of your "only modifies the base phys" misuse of default specificity.
"Strikes made with it gain the holy trait" and that...
And Trip.H
Lets keep discussing this. I do think we can get on the same page. or at least better understand each other. I appreciate the sincerity.One thing I invite you to look at to understand my position is that started early in the thread not knowing how all of this works.
It has been because of the back and forth with you that I needed to really look at what the books say to do. Thats how I got to my position in the last few posts. I really tightened up the terminology as I went. We all started with words like buckets and pops. But the game has words for these things.
Like an instance of damage is not a term used for what damage a target of a strike takes. An instance of damage is a term only used in steps 2 and 3. Its just there when you are identifying everything that came from step one by damage type as the rules say to do. Once you identified all the different damage types you have and consolidated them you have your instances of damage to send to step 3. Each instance is tested against the relevant immunities then weakness then resistance. Taking only the highest value when an instance has more than one weakness and then more than one resistance. The remaining damage is totaled and sent to step 4. Step 4 is the only time a target is going to be given damage and by this point its all one sum of damage. I would say shield block triggers are a reaction to step 4 and look to see if physical damage was among the damage types.
And to cement how I understand the process I'll post the basic outline f the steps from PC pg 406. These are the general rules steps for damage. Things like class abilities and flaming runes are not specifically described here. They have specific rules that change strike outcomes. Instead of rolling damage die of weapon or unarmed attack + Strength modifier + bonuses + penalties.
The specific rule from the property rune is the weapon deals additional damage on a success. So we get this instead (damage die of weapon or unarmed
attack + Strength modifier + bonuses + penalties) + additional damage. Mind you this only happens on success/crit success. What I mean is that the weapon statistics have not changed at all, the only thing the rune is doing is adding to the outcome directly. This is why additional damage doesn't inherit properties like material traits or traits added to 'the Strike'—it's modifying the outcome(degrees of success), not the Strike Statistics.
1. Roll damage dice indicated by the weapon, unarmed
attack, or spell, and apply the modifiers, bonuses,
and penalties that apply to the result of the roll.
2. Determine the damage type.
3. Apply immunities, weaknesses, and resistances the
subject has to the damage.
4. If any damage remains, reduce Hit Points the target
has by that amount.
Now I see i need to clarify what I mean by strike, strike statistics, and strike outcomes. And I will be as specific to book terminology as I can be.
I am using the books usage of these terms specifically.A strike is an action. We understand that this action is an attack with a weapon.
It has several qualities, two of which are:
strike statistics (
degrees of success (outcomes)
When the game tells us your strikes gain___. They are talking about the strike statistic.
When the game tells us on hit or on successful strike the weapon deals ____. That is very much a change of the outcomes. Its adding to the degrees of success of the strike action. This is the distinguishing point. A change to the strike is not the same as a change to all of the effects added to its outcomes.
The holy rune (and I was learning at the time I first posted this, so you can see my progression of thought in the thread actually as the further in the thread we go the more rules I had referenced)
This rune has multiple things it does. I am focusing in on this line. and I will parse it out to show what is happening to the strike vs the strike outcomes.
"Strikes made with it gain the holy trait and deal an extra 1d4 spirit damage, or an extra 2d4 against an unholy target."
1 Changes to the strike (The books say strike gains when they mean the persistent qualities(my words) of the strike)
Strikes made with it gain___. This is a change to the strike itself adding the holy trait. Holy(damage die of weapon or unarmed
attack + Strength modifier + bonuses + penalties). Now the damage die of weapon or unarmed attack + str + bonus(stats, circumstance ect..) + Penalties(also status circumstance ect..)
I hope we agree that the damage die of the weapon also comes with the damage type.
2 Changes to outcomes of a strike(the books say add extra or additional when referring to what is added to outcomes, they use many different ways to word this but we do not think they mean different things between a corrosive rune, flaming rune, or holy rune when it comes to damage they add. Flaming is the most clear of these three in terms of meaning)
So here we focus on part of the line saying what to do with the spirit damage. "....and deal an extra 1d4 spirit damage, or an extra 2d4 against an unholy target."
This is a separate command from the first part of the line. The first told us to change something about the persistent qualities of the strike (the strike it holy when you take the action even before you roll any dice or know any outcomes.)
This part of the line about spirit damage tell us to add damage to the outcomes. If we were to put it in a sequence you would get a success on the strike, you add your weapons damage dice which will be typed holy, the success outcome also triggers the rune to add the spirit damage which wouldn't care or check if the weapon is holy, it adds spirit damage every time based on only one thing if the target is unholy or not.
Concrete example: Holy Flaming Longsword against an unholy demon (Weakness Holy 10, Weakness Fire 5)
Step 1 - Roll:
Weapon damage: 1d8 slashing + 5 Str = 9 slashing (holy trait—from Strike gaining trait)
Additional damage: 1d4 spirit = 3 spirit (no holy trait—added to outcome)
Additional damage: 1d6 fire = 4 fire (no holy trait—added to outcome)
Step 2 - Identify types:
9 slashing (holy)
3 spirit
4 fire
Step 3 - Apply weaknesses:
Slashing (holy) triggers Weakness Holy 10 → 19
Spirit triggers no weakness → 3
Fire triggers Weakness Fire 5 → 9
Step 4 - Sum: 31 total damage
The holy trait applied to the Strike's damage (slashing), not to additional damage (spirit, fire). This is consistent with 'Strikes made with it gain the holy trait' modifying Strike Statistics, not outcome additions."
Some additional points for clarity:
pre-remaster system, 'good' was a damage type, not a trait. So it would interact differently. mainly because traits are not sorted into instances in step 2, only damage types are identified and sorted/consolidated to move them into step 3. Now one thing I have not seen in an example yet is a strike that has two separate sources providing the same damage type but with different additional traits. Find me that example and the way I see things has a problem to resolve.
On modifying the weapon: Yes, runes modify the weapon when etched. But what they modify about it matters. For one it is a physical addition. But when a rune says 'the weapon deals additional damage,' it's adding to what happens when you Strike with that weapon (the outcome), not changing what 'the weapon's damage die' is (Strike Statistics). Which for potency runes is different, they do change the strike statistics. Potency runes add an item bonus which fits into the strike statistics of the weapon as a typed bonus. Striking increases the weapons damage die another quality of the strike statistics.
The Two-Hand trait proves this point further: 'This weapon can be wielded with two hands to change its weapon damage die... This change applies to all the weapon's damage dice.' If rune damage were part of 'the weapon's damage dice,' Two-Hand would increase it. But it doesn't—because the weapon's damage dice ≠ additional damage from runes."
And to cement how I understand the process I'll post the basic outline f the steps from PC pg 406. These are the general rules steps for damage. Things like class abilities and flaming runes are not specifically described here. They have specific rules that change strike outcomes. Instead of rolling damage die of weapon or unarmed attack + Strength modifier + bonuses + penalties.
The specific rule from the property rune is the weapon deals additional damage on a success. So we get this instead (damage die of weapon or unarmed
attack + Strength modifier + bonuses + penalties) + additional damage. Mind you this only happens on success/crit success. What I mean is that the weapon statistics have not changed at all, the only thing the rune is doing is adding to the outcome directly. This is why additional damage doesn't inherit properties like material traits or traits added to 'the Strike'—it's modifying the outcome(degrees of success), not the Strike Statistics.
It's not possible to change someone's mind when they are acting on faith, but I might as well keep this up for readers that are open to trying to find the answer.
I think you are making a rather large mistake with that procedure.There is no text to support your notion of adding the damage there, while there is textual support to add rune and other "weapon does additional damage" to, ya know, the weapon.
[damage die of weapon or unarmed attack + weapon's additional damage] + Strength modifier + [bonuses + attack's additional damage] + penalties
That's why the language is so careful across pf2 as to what exactly is getting modified. Only something down at the weapon-mod level can impart weapon mods that will result in them interacting with other weapon-mods, while mods to "the attack" might not.
In you own example holy weapon weapon, you demonstrate why this matters. Immunities go first. If only the phys has the trait, then immunity to that phys takes the trait with it, and there is 0 holy damage to proc weakness. The spirit damage has to have the holy to ensure that weakness can go through. That's why paizo decided to "buff" good damage like that, they had to make a new type to carry the trait, or else edge cases w/ immunities to that type were possible.
___________
It is honestly a little frustrating that you spend so many words to dance around any serious point of challenge without addressing it.
You spent all that text without ever addressing, refuting, or debunking the actual problem caused by your methodology altering what that holy rune does.
Good damage was updated in the remaster to become holy spirit damage.
Under your ruling, the Holy rune does not impart holy spirit damage. It imparts spirit damage, and only the base phys becomes holy.
Under the conventional "weapon edits do edit the entire weapon" ruling, this spirit damage is holy.
As far as my checking can tell, all other forms of holy damage, such as from spells, always make such spirit damage holy. As far as I know, because of your unique ruling on "deals additional damage" the holy rune would become a unique outlier, which should be a crimson flag that you're doing something wrong.
Furthermore, you still "lie" about important details.
This rune has multiple things it does. I am focusing in on this line. and I will parse it out to show what is happening to the strike vs the strike outcomes.
"Strikes made with it gain the holy trait and deal an extra 1d4 spirit damage, or an extra 2d4 against an unholy target."
No. If I didn't know better, that little lie/incorrect statement would have worked, which is why it's frustrating experience trying to discuss this with you; I have no clue how many of these I have missed.
A holy weapon commands powerful celestial energy. Strikes made withit[a holy weapon] gain the holy trait and deal an extra 1d4 spirit damage, or an extra 2d4 against an unholy target. If you are unholy, you are enfeebled 2 while carrying or wielding this weapon.
The holy rune has one function, which itself has two secondary effects.
A holy rune turns the etched weapon into a holy weapon.A holy weapon's strikes gain the holy trait, and deal ...
This is not a modifier to the attacks the verb, it's still a weapon modification to the weapon the noun.
This matters because you keep trying to pretend there is distance between additional damage effects and the weapon damage dice, when they should be right next to each other.
____________
Look, no matter how you try to create bonuses instances, that act of creating instances the system does not expect is going to invent problems. Trait & custom type weak/res being "one per contact" means that any form of making only type-kind weak/res multi-proc via multi-instances is the bad idea.
If you can just say how the following example is instanced and grouped, that'll allow it to be examined.
An alchemical crossbow loaded with a fire bomb, a holy rune, a flaming rune, a merciful rune, with Bespell Strikes & Grav Weapon active.
_____________
And while it seems useless to point out examples that show your method as untenable, might as well point out the merciful rune.
By the procedure you have committed to:
... A merciful weapon has the nonlethal trait and can't be used to make a lethal attack. Any persistent damage the weapon would deal is negated. ...
These effects would only be able to touch the base phys of a weapon, and never interact with nor alter any portion of a "weapon's additional damage"
That would mean only the phys gains the nonlethal trait, meaning any extra damage would be lethal, and still kill. It would be unable to nullify the persistent damage cause by rune crit effects.Nonlethal is a good trait to invoke in this discussion, because it is rare/unique in that it's a very binary all or nothing factor. Any amount of lethal damage would render the nonlethal useless. So effects like the merciful rune *need* to make the entire thing nonlethal for it to function.
But the reverse is not true, it's fine to get bonus/additional nonlethal damage that could be resisted or hit immunity, because that does not change the binary "is or is not lethal" attribute of the entire attack.
Because of that asymmetry, where the bonus lethal dmg can "break" the non-lethality, Paizo made a special rule.
Even when you get bonus damage that doesn't carry the nonlethal trait, if you make a nonlethal swing, the entire attack is nullified, all of it.
Another exception is immunity to the nonlethal trait. If you’re immune to nonlethal, you’re immune to all damage from attacks and effects with the nonlethal trait, no matter what other type the damage has. For instance, a typical construct has immunity to nonlethal attacks. No matter how hard you hit it with your fist, you’re not going to damage it. However, you can take a penalty to remove the nonlethal trait from your fist, and some abilities give you unarmed attacks without the nonlethal trait.
So unlike normal trait resistance, which nullifies only the connected type carrying that trait, (like in the Exemplar [water] immanence example)
a nonlethal attack meets immunity situation nullifies all damage & effects of the entire instance of damage, the entire attack. Doesn't matter if the fire damage was via weapon siphon or a status bonus, there is no separate instance for it to hide in, it's all nullified.
On modifying the weapon: Yes, runes modify the weapon when etched. But what they modify about it matters. For one it is a physical addition. But when a rune says 'the weapon deals additional damage,' it's adding to what happens when you Strike with that weapon (the outcome), not changing what 'the weapon's damage die' is (Strike Statistics).
Again, no. Willfully or ignorantly, you mischaracterize what I was trying to explain into a different claim that I mindful avoided; you reduce the real argument that could give you trouble into a straw man that I also agree is incorrect. Which has the function of appearing to disarm an argument, when in reality you are plugging your ears and refusing to engage.
I never claimed such runes modified the dmg dice. I specifically anticipated that escape-distraction, and directly said they did not modify damage dice. Yet you still pulled this fallacy, again.
You use a correct statement (dishonestly framing it as my claim):
"not changing what 'the weapon's damage die'"
to then pretend that proves something unrelated: "it's adding to what happens when you Strike with that weapon (the outcome),"
when there is another option, in this case one that is the community norm I was trying to explain to you:--
--- "weapon damage" is more than just "a weapon's damage dice." Most obviously understood irrefutably visible via fire poi, alch xbow, etc.
The "weapon's statistics" include a lot of different things, hands, range, etc. A weapon's damage statistics also are not limited to only the dmg die, which is why those are different terms, lol.
As was my entire point in spending all that text talking about the alchemical crossbow, weapon damage is more than just their damage dice. Weapons can deal damage in addition to, and alongside their damage dice; the point of pf2 doing this "additional damage" is to allow that damage to be inside that "weapon damage" bucket. That keeps a line of separation btwn the weapon, noun's damage, and "the attack," verb's damage (which are often status/circ/etc typed bonuses that can be limited via the non-stacking rules).
I get that if you conceded this, your whole tower would collapse, but this not unclear nor ambiguous. You keep refusing to engage with the actual point of my examples, which are intended to put a challenge to your presupposition that creates your outcome, like this notion that the only damage "inside a weapon" can be its damage die. That kind of out-of-left field wtf presupposition is why I keep coming back to the word "nonsense," as that kind of seriously mechanically affecting rule needs to, ya know, exist in the text of the rules. Not be yoinked from nothing via "inference via omission" while claiming to be proving a RaW interpretation. (I still cannot believe you actually wrote that without realizing the absurdity of it)
Fire Poi's wording might make your head explode:
in combat, they deal 1d4 bludgeoning plus 1d4 fire damage.
No way to say "additional damage" is some kind of magic phrase with secret mechanistic meaning for that one. It's only later in the block text that it states the "damage die." To me, even if I was previously inventing a secret key term out of "additional damage" I'd have to accept that this means weapons can directly deal dmg beyond the single number of their damage die.
As even if all that "additional damage" magic was believed, then fire poi would be an exception; dealing extra fire dmg alongside the blunt damage dice, while the weapon's Flaming rune would be in the ex nihilo magic box of "additional damage."I'm not prompting you to plug and chug the edge case of fire poi into your framework, I'm trying to show that you are applying an invalid framework that never fit in the first place. Because it's something non-textual of your invention, you will always be able to invent new rules and exceptions to warp the framework to "accommodate," despite these warps usually causing errors or contradictions elsewhere. Pointing out those knock-on problems, like with the holy rune loosing its holy if phys immune, or the nonsense results of lethal nonlethal attacks, doesn't seem to register with you at all. So I'm trying to get ahead of that as best I can, pointing straight at the problematic presupposition.
And to cement how I understand the process I'll post the basic outline f the steps from PC pg 406. These are the general rules steps for damage. Things like class abilities and flaming runes are not specifically described here. They have specific rules that change strike outcomes. Instead of rolling damage die of weapon or unarmed attack + Strength modifier + bonuses + penalties.
The specific rule from the property rune is the weapon deals additional damage on a success. So we get this instead (damage die of weapon or unarmed
attack + Strength modifier + bonuses + penalties) + additional damage. Mind you this only happens on success/crit success. What I mean is that the weapon statistics have not changed at all, the only thing the rune is doing is adding to the outcome directly. This is why additional damage doesn't inherit properties like material traits or traits added to 'the Strike'—it's modifying the outcome(degrees of success), not the Strike Statistics.It's not possible to change someone's mind when they are acting on faith, but I might as well keep this up for readers that are open to trying to find the answer.
I think you are making a rather large mistake with that procedure.There is no text to support your notion of adding the damage there, while there is textual support to add rune and other "weapon does additional damage" to, ya know, the weapon.
[damage die of weapon or unarmed attack + weapon's additional damage] + Strength modifier + [bonuses + attack's additional damage] + penaltiesThat's why the language is so careful across pf2 as to what exactly is getting modified. Only something down at the weapon-mod level can impart weapon mods that will result in them interacting with other weapon-mods, while mods to "the attack" might not.
In you own example holy weapon weapon, you demonstrate why this matters. Immunities go first. If only the phys has the trait, then immunity to that phys takes the trait...
Trip.H, try going back to my posts and reread, and go back to the books and read. It will address the strawmans you presented and maybe help you fix the condescending tone. I have not once called you a liar or dishonest, you could extend that much back, but you continue do decide not to. You don't understand my argument or the rules text and that leads you to think what i am saying is flawed. The condescending remarks along with a fundamental misread of my posts and the rules is not helping you make your point.
You don't have to reassess those misconceptions but I suggest it.What I have written is the procedural based approach to damage from the book with an understanding of many rules that are fundamental to understanding how the procedure works for damage that I cited.
But really you have not been rules as written since the playtest when a lead designer actually explained it. HammerJack already shared that post right near the beginning of this thread and really that refutes everything you have claimed about RAW being constant with a single instance method or method A in the OP. and just because you agreed with one person expressing frustration about how the rules actually work doesn't mean the rules don't work that way.
Strachan Fireblade Oct 19, 2018, 03:27 pm | Flag | List | Reply
1 person marked this as a favorite. +
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Favorites for this post:
Trip.H, Sep 26, 2024, 09:38 pm
We know how holy damage changed in the remaster. The spirit damage from the holy rune is an effect of the holy rune. We know for spirit damage to inherit a holy trait there needs to be a sanctified trait on the item or ability (PC pg 36, this page is referenced in the spirit damage entry on 409, they intended for us to read it to understand how spirit damage gains the holy or unholy traits). The holy rune doesn't have the sanctified trait so its spirit damage is not automatically holy. The spirit damage from the holy rune is an effect of the holy rune.
But i am guessing this explanation is wasted on you. You already have an idea of how it should work in your mind and the rules need to conform to that no matter how many homerules you have to make up to get it to work
Also read the nonlethal damage immunity entry on PC page 408. It even calls itself out as an exception and says exactly what to do that is different than normal. This is actually in support of what I have said since exceptions apply differently than the general rules. Read the merciful rune itself telling us specific instructions.
Additional damage doesn't just come from runes and it isnt always magical, that depends on what is doing it. You have shown many non magical sources of it like Weapon Siphon or the mutagen that Finaon's example uses. Or even the Fire Poi which has a specific rule excluding its 1d4 fire damage from the weapon damage dice. Just need to read the abilities, they say what they are and what to do with them, but you have to have the basics down.
Here you made strike statistics into your home homerule. What I posted earlier respects the rules difference between strike statistics and additional damage. You also can't add what you call "attacks additional damage" to the bonus bracket. Bonuses have a specific structure in the rules and those bonuses don't stack. Additional damage always stacks. And there is something more fundamental to bonuses they affect either checks or statistics (like the strike statistics). Again check page 10 for more basic rules
altered wrote:
[damage die of weapon or unarmed attack + weapon's additional damage] + Strength modifier + [bonuses + attack's additional damage] + penalties
And for your difficult scenario, the game handles it fine, you just have to follow the rules literally. Finoan brought up this edge case in the 2026 errata suggestions and you provided your take, so did I. It is complex since its a very high level weapon req to have all those runes but lets show the math assuming no additional penalties or bonus or modifiers to damage other than gravity weapon.
"An alchemical crossbow loaded with a fire bomb, a holy rune, a flaming rune, a merciful rune, with Bespell Strikes & Grav Weapon active"
Step 1: Roll All Damage (I will just pick the rolls and display like this 1d6-3 where the number after the dash is the result of the roll)
3d8-12(weapon damage dice)+6(status bonus from gravity weapon) piercing (Magical, holy, alchemical, nonlethal)
1d6-3 fire (alchemical, nonlethal) - from loaded lesser alchemist fire
1d6-3 fire (magical, nonlethal) - from Flaming rune
1d4-2 spirit (nonlethal) - from Holy rune, use 2d4 if target is unholy
1d6-3 fire (magical, nonlethal) - from Bespell Strikes
Notes:
Gravity Weapon adds +6 status bonus (applies once to Strike's damage)
Merciful rune makes the entire attack nonlethal
Holy trait applies to the Strike's base damage (piercing)
All additional damage is nonlethal because of merciful's special rule(read the rune)
Step 2: Identify Damage Types to establish instances of damage only by damage type.
Piercing (holy, alchemical): 12+6
Fire: 3 (alchemical) + 3 (magical) + 3 (magical) = 9 total
Spirit: 2
Step 3: Apply Immunities/Weaknesses/Resistances
If facing something like a banshee they are immune to nonlethal:
Entire attack nullified (per nonlethal immunity's special rule)
Done
If you had a Ghosttouch rune instead of merciful you apply the ghost toch per the rules to the strike. meaning strike statistics. The reason being there is no overidding specific rules to apply it to all attacks and effects no mater what other damage type it has. lets play out the ghost touch property instead of the merciful rune.
Lets display the instances moved to step 3 we have 3 instances of damage with the following traits and lack of traits since some of the fire damage is explicitly not magical.
Piercing (Magical, Ghosttouch, holy, alchemical): 18
Fire: 9 (Magical, Alchemical, some of this damage is not traited as magical)
Spirit: 2 (magical)
immunities: none apply now
Weakness: none
Resistance:
18 Piercing (Magical, Ghosttouch, holy, alchemical - bypasses through Ghost Touch exception to banshee's resistance
9 Fire(Magical, Alchemical, some of this damage is not traited as magical) - Up against two applicable resistances it is magical and has no exception to the resistance so 12 and the instance also contains some non magical fire damage with no exception to the resistance so 24. 24 is the higher value so we take the highest. All of this fire damage is resisted.
2 Spirit(magical) - Spirit damage bypasses through exception.
Total is 18 Piercing + 0 Fire +2 Spirit
Step 4: Sum remaining and Apply
18+0+2 =20 damage remaining. Reduce targets HP by 20.
Ok Trip.H I showed the math for how this example would work against a Banshee, Why dont you show this exact same example with your understanding of how damage is processed? Explain it in steps like I did and we can compare. That way too I am not strawmaning your model either.
maybe i just dont fully understand how you mean it to work with your understanding. At least you can see how I mean it to work with mine.
On modifying the weapon: Yes, runes modify the weapon when etched. But what they modify about it matters. For one it is a physical addition. But when a rune says 'the weapon deals additional damage,' it's adding to what happens when you Strike with that weapon (the outcome), not changing what 'the weapon's damage die' is (Strike Statistics).Again, no. Willfully or ignorantly, you mischaracterize what I was trying to explain into a different claim that I mindful avoided; you reduce the real argument that could give you trouble into a straw man that I also agree is incorrect. Which has the function of appearing to disarm an argument, when in reality you are plugging your ears and refusing to engage.
I never claimed such runes modified the dmg dice. I specifically anticipated that escape-distraction, and directly said they did not modify damage dice. Yet you still pulled this fallacy, again.
You use a correct statement (dishonestly framing it as my claim):
"not changing what 'the weapon's damage die'"
to then pretend that proves something unrelated: "it's adding to what happens when you Strike with that weapon (the outcome),"
when there is another option, in this case one that is the community norm I was trying to explain to you:--
--- "weapon damage" is more than just "a weapon's damage dice." Mostobviously understoodirrefutably visible via fire poi, alch xbow, etc.The "weapon's statistics" include a lot of different things, hands, range, etc. A weapon's damage statistics also are not limited to only the dmg die, which is why those are different terms, lol.
As was my entire point in spending all that text talking about the alchemical crossbow, weapon damage is more than just their damage dice. Weapons can deal damage in addition to, and alongside their damage dice; the point of pf2 doing this "additional damage" is to allow that damage to be inside that "weapon damage" bucket. That keeps a line of separation btwn the weapon, noun's damage, and "the...
Did you even read the full text for the Fire Poi?
It completely and utterly shuts down your argument showing a clear line in the sand. And really I never said only magical damage can be additional damage. Another strawman. The projection is pretty clear."Regardless of whether it is lit, the poi’s 1d4 bludgeoning damage is the weapon damage dice, so striking runes and other effects don’t affect the fire damage."
If I conceded to your homerule version of the rules I would no longer be using Paizo's rules.
The fire poi works fine in my understanding of Paizo's framework, its the same for the alchemical Crossbow I illustrate inthe previous post. Interestingly the fire poi requires a lot of special pleading to work with your model A style conception of instances. Feel free to show me an example of how I am wrong there. Additional damage is not a secret magical thing. you have jsut refused to accept that all damage that is additional is just that.The Fire Poi goes out of its way to say the fire damage is additional and not a component of the strike statistic. Remember strike statistic means the damage die of the weapon or unarmed attack, plus any modifiers, bonuses, and penalties. The damage die is key there. The designers specifically called out in the fire poi the fire damage is not "The" damage die of the weapon. So as the rules define the strike statistic the fire damage is not part of it.
You believe it is nonsense for the spirit damage not to be Holy. Does your incredulity change the rules?
The rules are clear about when and how the holy trait is given to spirit damage. Going based on I think it should isnt the same as going based on the rules written.
and this is really the difference in the thread so far. i am citing rules and being constant with them you are declaring things work a certain way and providing unsubstantiated refutations. I would rather compare the math from a concrete example if that works for you. At elast them we can see the real differences in our approaches. I mean you have even said despite claiming there is only one instance of damage for a whole strike that you also have to know whats in there so you can treat the different damage type as different instances for immunity and for resit all or weakness all. If your already doing it for those you might as well just do it all the time as the rules say to.
Dang, in hindsight, it was really dumb to put the rune/etc "additional damage" next to the damage dice in the pseudo formula.
I personally try to keep as much distance between weapon boosts and attacks boosts as possible because that's the most annoying/ error prone detail to me personally, but I should have known my audience better and left that inside "bonuses." So this:
Melee damage roll = damage die of weapon + Strength modifier + bonuses + penalties
Expands out into this:
Melee damage roll = damage die of weapon + Strength modifier + (bonuses = [extra weapon damage] + [extra attack damage] + [status/circ ect typed bonuses] + [highest weakness]) - (penalties = [highest applicable resistance] + [blah] + [etc])
And to be clear, yes, I know the weak/res step comes later, that expanded pseduo equation can represent a later step.
_____________________________I do want to double down on claiming this to be a mistake:
Success: You make a damage roll according to the weapon or unarmed attack (this is where additional damage goes that Additional 1d6 Fire damage) and deal damage.
Strike only deals the damage fed to it by the weapon attack roll, there is zero space for any more addition. Meaning, all the damage has to be put into the (tbh kinda poorly written) damage calculation formula for the "___ damage roll."
The important detail that has evaded you is that this means that a "melee damage roll" specifically *does* include all the damage under that one term. There really is no place to put that damage outside of the damage roll and slide it into Strike itself. Strike needs to say "and deal damage" because otherwise that number passed up to Strike is never getting applied to HP.
The only damage outside of Strike are fully independent abilities or effects that would get their own damage calc, such as Flame Wisp.
______________________________
For other readers, the below is a key tombstone to the "weapon mod effects only touch the base phys" idea.
Also read the nonlethal damage immunity entry on PC page 408. It even calls itself out as an exception and says exactly what to do that is different than normal. This is actually in support of what I have said since exceptions apply differently than the general rules. Read the merciful rune itself telling us specific instructions.
Holy trait applies to the Strike's base damage (piercing)
All additional damage is nonlethal because of merciful's special rule(read the rune)
A merciful weapon has the nonlethal trait and can't be used to make a lethal attack. Any persistent damage the weapon would deal is negated.
Strikes made with it[the holy weapon] gain the holy trait and deal an extra 1d4 spirit damage, or an extra 2d4 against an unholy target.
Once again, attempting to misrepresent the reality to evade a defeating problem.
No, the rune text "can't be used to make a lethal attack" does not apply the nonlethal trait, that would be a lie to say so. Your claim disables the text that should be applying the trait to the entire weapon, and you've got to live with that result. Only the base phys would have [nonlethal]. It's insane that you were so careful with your weasel words, that you didn't technically lie by accidentally saying "... *has* the nonlethal *trait*" and you instead hoped folk would not understand your technically true claim did nothing for the show-stopping problem.You can make a nonlethal attack to knock someone out instead of killing them (see Knocked Out and Dying). Weapons with the nonlethal trait (including fists) do this automatically. ...
Nonlethal attacks only stops damage from killing and triggering Dying, leaving targets at 0 HP. That's the only mechanical effect of nonlethal attacks. It doesn't nullify any special effects, nor does it apply the nonlethal trait to everything inside the attack.
Making "lethal" or "nonlethal" attacks is a different thing from the trait, and I'm guessing tim knows the consequences of that difference.
But if tim followed his own rules, and the rune's effects only apply to the base phys, it would cause merciful weapons to kill people, so he chos to twist and bend, perhaps break truth to try to obfuscate the reality of his own making.
While performing a nonlethal swing would make the bonus damage from things like Flaming runes not kill, the most obvious "uh oh" alarm is understood when you notice that other effect of the merciful rune: "Any persistent damage the weapon would deal is negated."
(if an effect, including persistent damage, has the [nonlethal] trait, then it still deals damage, but has the same "cannot kill" rule. Just in case there is ambiguity around weapon-spawned effects inheriting the traits or not, the merciful rune also tries to set all weapon-created persistent dmg to 0 as a double safety. Tim's ruling would prevent both from working.)
In tim's ruling, a merciful knife crit spec's bleed would be correctly nullfied, but all additional effects that impart damaging effects, such as a Flaming crit burn or Ooze Ammunition persistent, would still kill. Even the Ashen rune's persistent on reg hit would kill.
The merficul rune needs to be able to apply its effect to the entire weapon, especially to the unknown additional effects, or the weapon will still kill targets.
But he still 'cannot allow' the [holy] rune to make the entire strike holy,
so tim has to break the truth and claim it's both ways simultaneously, where identical "a ___ weapon's strikes gain the ___ trait" results in different outcomes.
Not because that's the logical result of the text's instruction, but because there is a preset goal that needs to be reached.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Anybody else think this thread has long since run its course?
Yeah, arguing about textual interpretation is a very different beast compared to trying figure out how to just play the game.
Before this fully slips off the radar, I'd like to offer the "I don't care about why right now, I just need instructions" options for anyone trying to deal with the weakness, resistance, and immunity rules in pf2e, pathfinder second edition. Gotta get that SEO in there.
___________________________________
Door #1, rules text only, lowest combat damage swings:
* Lay out all the damage chunks as is convenient for you to note trait and type.
* Immunities first; a trait immunity can prevent the triggering of a type weakness, etc
* Then compare the different weaknesses that were triggered, and only add the highest.
* Then check the resistances and apply only the resistance that would make the greatest impact.
Cons: doesn't match community norm
___________________________________
(I suggest against) Door #1.5, dev misguidance, "+type = new instance," highest combat damage swings:
Despite being seen as the "community normal" (for now), this one is not really run in practice, and you'll likely want to actually pick door #2.
* Lay out all damage chunks, and then regroup them by type. You (have to) both consider the attack / impact as a bigger bucket, and each type of damage as a smaller bucket, which is now the "instance of damage."
* Immunities first; a trait immunity can prevent the triggering of a type weakness, etc
* Each instance bucket can pop the highest weakness triggered by its contents.*
* Then check the resistances, applying the highest applicable for every instance bucket.
Cons: breaks when trait & custom weak/resistances desync from types.
*If you don't want to multi pop the same trait weakness 4x in a single swing, improv rulings will be required, and will be inconsistent. (or you can pick door #2)
Foes melt if players can multi-pop weaknesses, and PC's stacking resistances is even more problematic.
__________________________________
Door #2, dev post intention, "each only once," high combat damage swings:
Surprise, but I might as well be the one to connect those dots. The dev's mechanical intent did not match his words in that forum post, but I don't see folk actually trying to approach the broken mess from the other direction.
The moment you sniff out what mechanical endpoint he was going for, ignoring his bad instruction to make your own is soooo much easier.
One swing is still one instance, so there's no desync between type, trait, etc.
But we are swapping the "only the highest" rule into a "only each once" rule to match his intent.
* Lay out all the damage chunks as is convenient for you to note trait and type.
* Immunities first; a trait immunity can prevent the triggering of a type weakness, etc
* Note every weakness that was triggered, and add each different weakness to damage once.
* Note every resistance that was triggered, and subtract each different resistance once, remembering that you cannot resist any chunk below zero.
Cons: still allows weak/resistance stacking for really big damage swings.
Pros: everyone will think you are doing door #1.5, and this is genuinely consistent and usable. No longer have to hide from edge cases where you multi-pop same weakness/resistance due to de-synced instancing.
Not exactly sure what you are asking for.
Ever since that dev post, it's pretty well accepted that the RaW text does not match, at all. Those that attempt seriously problematic "interpretation" to try to make the rules match the Mark's post, like Tim, are outliers.
Most accept that there is no way to go from A to Mark's B via rules text, and just deal with it however they personally prefer.
The outliers insisting it's possible RaW to get to Mark's post are a good example of a loud minority with an outsized presence on the forums of today. I've never encountered someone outside this forum that could read that text and conclude that "pop every weakness once" was the instructed outcome.
Whenever this topic has come up during actual play, it's been someone noticing that Foundry doesn't match the rules text, and me trying to summarize the community-created hairball as briefly as possible.
Re-reading the original dev post that caused these problems again, I'm happy to report that an even higher % of posts after Mark's are questioning /calling it out as not making sense or not matching the text than I remembered. I'm actually surprised that folks were that direct /pointed when replying to Mark at the time, you'd expect devs to get treated with more delicacy /deference, especially here.
__________________________________
This topic is unlike other real rules-holes or contradictions in pf2, like Oracle repertoire size, etc. From Paizo's official PoV, there is no problem. Mark's forum post during the playtest isn't an official ruling that "needs" fixing.
While we'd hope that at least Maya is aware of Mark's 'explanation' & the self-contradicting community norm ruling it spawned, for all we know, most Paizo staff are running that base text "One impact = one instance, only the highest" and are unaware that Mark ever claimed that things worked differently.
When the norm is a community homebrew that ignores the rules text, it's not 'engagement farming' to meet people where they are at and frame the topic around that norm. The only way to talk about this topic is to engage with the community homebrew. Maybe calling it "dev homebrew" might communicate the contradiction of perception around this topic a bit more. The "+type adds new instances" is abnormal in it originating from a dev forum post, but that doesn't make it rules text. A few might object to calling it community homebrew, but that is the only category that it can fit within.
Errata and up, it's an official ruling. But a dev-tagged comment in the forums lacks that brand of an official ruling.
Mark's post is "word of dev," yet it is not an official dev ruling, lol. Given that it contradicts the actual published rules, it's easy to see why it left behind such a long-lasting mess.
_________________________________
Maybe it would be helpful for you to explain what exactly you think of as signal?
There's not any new ground left to discover here.
This whole issue was solely created by the contradiction between the rules and Mark's posts in that playtest thread.
Either Paizo will kick the hornet's nest and "clarify" the rules in one way or the other, or they will remain silent.
Note I didn't say "fix" the rules, because playing the actual base RaW creates no contradictions. It's only that Mark --> community homebrew that doesn't hold up in real play.
We already know whole "+type adds new instances" thing is not in the rules text, but is what Mark claimed, very explicitly. We also know that his rule creates the very outcome it looks like he was trying to avoid; instead of preventing multi-pops of the same weak/res, adding instances per dmg type enables traits applied across all those types to multi-pop weakness & resistance because it generates additional instances that each pop independently. Because of traits & custom weak/resistances, there's no way out of his posts that actually works in practice. It honestly looks like he might have forgotten about them.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Thank you all for bringing this subject up - it rears its ugly head nigh-weekly at our gaming table in some form or another. Paizo really does need to step in and make a command decision path forward, as their revised system is flawed and this matter can be remedied fairly easily.
I'm actually surprised that this gap was missed (or neglected) in play-testing; though that is hard for me to believe to be true since it inherently can be so prevalent in most campaigns.
Trip H: It is ironic that you claim there is "no problem" while simultaneously providing "Door #1, #1.5, and #2" workarounds to "solve" it. If there were no problem, those workarounds wouldn't be necessary.
I write such long posts specifically so that mis-reads like this shouldn't happen...
If someone reads the rules text, and plays off of that, then there is no problem. When each attack or impact is one instance, there are no edge cases that create OP/UP balance issues, no contradictions arising from multiple instances, etc.
The whole point of my post was to explain that the weakness/resistance problem is abnormal because the community doesn't play the RaW; they follow the instruction of Mark's post during the playtest, even though it contradicts the game text.
This means that "there is no problem" for folks that are unaware of, or who choose to not play with the procedure in Mark's forum post.
There are only inconsistencies and problems if you do follow Mark's instruction and sub-divide single swings into multiple instances based on damage type.
This is perhaps a unique situation where the folks with a problem are playing a homebrew rule because a dev said so during the playtest. Meaning, there is no "broken rule" for Paizo to fix.
(but no duh, an ideal Paizo should clear up a bad forum post, by making a correcting forum post. Quality bar's on the floor, and they cannot even manage that....)
_________________
Again, I'm not going to apologize for meeting people where they are at and offering suggestions, especially when Foundry is the dominate VTT.
Attempting to follow Mark's instruction does not work, and despite it being the norm for forum readers to play with types adding instances, I strongly suggest against it.
IMO, that leaves two courses of action.
Go RaW, where each swing/hit is one instance.
Or, make an edit to enact the spirit of Mark's post in a way that actually functions.
This is the "each swing is a single instance, but allow each res/weakness to trigger once" alternative.
And if you play Foundry, you might as well just go with it, odd are you're not in a position to edit the logic, nor would manually adjusting the outcome each time be worth your effort.
(*but...)
__________________
That is a mechanical contradiction in the most widely used VTT for this system. Whether that's because of a dev post or a misreading of the Core text is irrelevant—the community is currently split on the implementation because the text is ambiguous enough to allow for this disparity.
No, this very much is relevant. The method of resolving this changes based on where the source of the problem is. If it was a broken paizo-published bit of text, they would need to be the ones to publish errata or other correction.
As this is a Foundry thing, and lets be frank and say Paizo sucks at this stuff, this is actually good news.
It means that if the right Foundry devs are convinced it's a good idea to change that functionality, then it will happen pretty quick. But it does mean that whinging on Paizo's forums is the wrong place to be heard, if you're goal is for it to change.
Seems like you (*and anyone else who wants it to change) might want to open an issue on Foundry's github, or otherwise contact them directly.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The problem is that this interpretation directly contradicts the damage rules text.
Player Core page 407:
Once you've calculated how much damage you deal, you'll need to determine the damage type.
THE damage type. Not damage types. This entire section acts like anytime you deal damage, you are dealing exactly ONE type of damage. There's no allowance anywhere in there for dealing multiple damage types at the same time.
Your claim is that there is no allowance for the result of damage rolls to produce split or multi-type damage. That the use of "type" singular is intended to exclude "types" plural from being a possibility.
That is a very silly argument, but at least it's easy to oppose.
That text is Step 2 of the steps outlined in the damage rolls section.
This claimed "outlaw by intentional omission" already means it's getting trumped by any text that more directly speaks on that topic/possibility. Such as resist all explicitly mentioning single effects dealing multiple types of damage as a thing that can happen. That is incompatible with your claim, and is impossible in your version.
It's possible to have resistance to all damage. When an effect deals damage of multiple types and you have resistance to all damage, apply the resistance to each type of damage separately. If an attack would deal 7 slashing damage and 4 fire damage, resistance 5 to all damage would reduce the slashing damage to 2 and negate the fire damage entirely.
__________________
When I read the step before your claimed lynch-pin, on pg 406:
* Roll damage dice indicated by the weapon, unarmed attack, or spell, and apply the modifiers, bonuses, and penalties that apply to the result of the roll.
* Determine the damage type.
There are plenty of spells that when plugged in already prove your claim wrong, as they do split damage in a single spell effect. Instant Minefield's fire/pierce damage comes to mind. If running your rules honestly, Instant Minefield's split damage causes the equivalent of a runtime crash.
It's unavoidable that "the damage type" cannot be read as to exclude "types" plural, because of what that preceding bullet is instructing. You add all the damage together first. Including bonuses of differing damage types.
When you read that pre-step, it even makes martial strikes become incompatible and break your "type singular only" interpretation.
You add in the modifiers and bonuses first, before the type instruction. If a reader is attempting an honest purest RaW reading, that means that all the Strike buffs are added in during that step, including elemental runes.
To then claim that "determine the damage type" is a declaration of singular type only is to claim that every Flaming Strike can only deal a single type of damage. Which is it? Does the fire damage get converted into slashing? Error at runtime even with the most simple of examples.
_____________
If you are about to claim that every chunk of damage runs through those steps in Damage Rolls independently, don't.
Your selectively hyper-literal argument cannot even survive the existence of flat bonuses to damage you do not roll for.
Some effect that adds 1 fire damage no longer allows you to pretend it's a separate roll.
You cannot "roll damage dice" of such an effect, and as such, you have no choice but to admit it is typed damage that is in the "bonuses" umbrella of those instructions.
Meaning it's unavoidable that bonus typed damage is being mixed with typed base damage, before executing your ridiculous "only one type allowed" line.
_____________
To pretend that your cited line is evidence supporting a claim that every type is an isolated instance of damage is to be so error-ridden (or dishonest) in your logic as to not comprehend the step directly before your cited evidence.
As soon as you realize, "hey, that bonus damage can be a different type" it breaks your argument in half.
If reading the bullet directly above your "smoking gun" is enough to contradict your argument, maybe you should take a min to try to get some perspective and reassess. That is frankly a ridiculous situation. It's a sheer chance luxury to have the claim be so flimsy as to break when the context is expanded literally by a single additional line. Other bad arguments will be much harder to deal with.
_____________
_____________
With that out of the way:
I'd argue those 4 bullet points are a serious support for my own argument. By splitting it out into 4 different steps like that, it shows that you are indeed assembling all the damage chunks of various types together while you are still completely outside the Imm/Weak/Res specific step/rules.
In other words, you're being directly instructed to group all them up into one instance 'thing', before you then proceed to check that single umbrella instance against the Imm/Weak/Resi rules.
That removes the ambiguity of what an instance is referring to, as you've already packaged that thing up in a prior step;
it's the result after you've rolled the base damage dice and added in all "modifiers, bonuses, and penalties."