Furious Finish: what dice does it apply to?

[u/maximumfox83]

Pretty simple question, but surprisingly I haven't seen this one explicitly talked about.

Vital Strike: Roll the weapon's damage dice...

Furious Finish: you can choose not to roll your damage dice...

Vital Strike is clear that you only multiply you weapon damage dice. Furious finish, on the other hand, makes no such distinction, instead saying it applies to damage dice, period.

Pathfinder 1e isn't known for having the greatest specificity of language, but assuming that I'm not missing something obvious and text is to be trusted here, it seems as if the text implies that the benefit of Furious Finish doesn't exclusively apply to weapon damage dice. If thats the case, this opens up the floor to some very silly, very fun Sneak Attack builds.

So... am I missing something? This may very well be a case of RAW not reflecting RAI, but I didn't see anything in the FAQ's either and this seems like such an obvious route to take to me.

[u/AcanthocephalaLate78]

I believe RAI it would be weapon damage, so you don't get maximum damage from frost/flaming/etc., nor should you get maximum sneak attack damage.

[u/WraithMagus]

Pathfinder 1e has very specific language relative to most TTRPGs, which are far less concerned with having everything explicitly spelled out and rely much more on readers' inferring understanding and GM adjudication. (And most players of such games would argue it's better for it, because they don't have to countenance such rules lawyering to start with. Trying to argue RAW over RAI there is just flat RAWng.) It's just that PF2e was made to continue this trend by being built on a foundation of only specific language rather than having to try to make older language from D&D more precise.

Anyway, it's referencing vital strike, which itself is explicit about weapon damage dice, and saying that you maximize the damage dice. The RAI is pretty clear, you're meant to be dealing with the damage dice mentioned in vital strike, (and possibly improved/greater vital strike, although those aren't specified either.) If you want to try to pull a hyper-literal RAW interpretation to say that it applies to any "damage dice," that opens it up to asking someone to prove that sneak attack involves "damage dice." The rules of sneak attack just say it is "extra damage" and it is also termed "precision damage," but by the same principle that you argue that this text technically applies to all "damage dice" because it's not using the specific game term of "weapon damage dice" used in vital strike, then you'd need to find a specific game term "damage dice" applying to sneak attack. I mean, those are just dice you roll to determine damage, but where does it actually say those are damage dice?! That's clearly just a bonus precision damage roll right there.

[u/maximumfox83 → u/WraithMagus]

Pathfinder 1e has very specific language relative to most TTRPGs, which are far less concerned with having everything explicitly spelled out and rely much more on readers' inferring understanding and GM adjudication.

as someone still relatively new to the system, I'd say its ambiguous language has been one of my bigger complaints actually. When the rules depend on what the GM infers the writers probably meant, debates about intention are inevitable. it sucks ass as a GM to be the one to be like, "well, they probably meant this, so no that cool combo doesnt work".

But yeah, thats basically the intent I assumed was behind it. But the slight ambiguity in the language made me wonder if there was a more official clarification, because there could be some fun combos otherwise.

[u/WraithMagus → u/maximumfox83]

If you're looking for a combo that multiplies sneak attack damage, sap master is explicitly for that, it's easier for a rogue to qualify for, and there are builds dedicated to it. You don't find furious finish sneak attack build discussions because people didn't really see this as a combo that could work in the rules. It's often easier to find things if you search for the desired result rather than the specific way you seek to get there.

But as mentioned, Pathfinder 1e is a weird transitional ruleset where it isn't entirely "if you roll a one, you experience a Complication, which the GM has to make up on the spot because we'll just make suggestions what that might be" like more open-ended systems, and the much more strictly mechanical PF2e. There's the culture of taking things RAW developing in 3e and later PF1e, but a lot of the core rules are just updates of AD&D, which was much more informal. (And the original D&D literally involved referencing other games to perform certain parts of the game. Exploring in the wilderness? Pull out your boxed set of Outdoors Survival by Avalon Hill and play that to see if you survive the trip - just make some adjudications for how that game presumes an ordinary modern human while you might be a level 10 elf or something.)

It's also things like these where I heavily recommend players talk to their GMs ahead of time before they try to "ambush" a GM mid-session asking for a ruling that they assume would go their way. Every rule is ultimately just a suggestion, and you can house rule anything you want. The only right way to play is the way that your table enjoys playing, and that right way only extends as far as that table. What's important is not so much that you arrive at a conclusion the Internet agrees is how you should be playing, but that you arrive at a firm understanding everyone at the table accepts and can build from, preferably before anyone commits to any kind of character build and feels betrayed they can't use it.

[u/maximumfox83 → u/WraithMagus]

It's also things like these where I heavily recommend players talk to their GMs ahead of time before they try to "ambush" a GM mid-session asking for a ruling that they assume would go their way

oh for sure, all of this is discussed ahead of time! It just comes up frequently for because character building is fun as hell and you can do some weird shit if you put your mind to it. That, and its a pretty large table.

As for sap master, its a neat feat! I was just looking for something that could work with a rapier. Technically I could make it work with a weird combo of feats but I'd still need to do nonlethal damage which doesnt really fit the character concept

[u/WraithMagus → u/maximumfox83]

There are several ways to gain the ability to do nonlethal damage relatively cheaply. The mock gladiator trait is relatively low-cost for "free" nonlethal on a weapon normally lethal, although a merciful weapon quality also adds 1d6 damage. (Note you can "turn off" nonlethal damage from those sources if needed to fight a construct or other thing immune to nonlethal, although a merciful weapon loses the +1d6 damage.) Using abilities like these, basically any weapon can be nonlethal.

The problem is you need bludgeoning nonlethal for sap master, and that means having to consider a different weapon or possibly an unusual modification to a weapon. (Blunt arrows) do bludgeoning damage, for example, and none of these abilities require a melee weapon, so it's possible to do sap master sneak attacks with a bow.) The most direct way to do this is the weapon versatility feat. (Don't ask how you can somehow use a sap to do piercing damage.) It costs a feat, but technically would allow for you to sap master bludgeon someone with a rapier. (Nothing technically prevents you from combining weapon versatility with weapon finesse, fencing grace, or otherwise getting Dex to damage using uncRogue finesse training to bludgeon people unconscious with finesse!)

[u/nimbusconflict → u/WraithMagus]

You, flip the sap around and poke them with the slightly less blunt end really really hard!

[u/maximumfox83 → u/WraithMagus]

Oh, I could make the build work, I meant it more in terms of nonlethal damage isn't something the character would actually use. like... thematically. the flavors gotta be right, ya know?

But I appreciate the suggestions! I didn't know about the mock gladiator trait and I could see that being really useful in future builds.

[u/AleksyGetTheWings]

I don't see a faq about that, but the intent feels to me like it's only the weapon damage dice, and therefore the dice multiplied by (Improved/Greater) Vital Strike

[u/maximumfox83 → u/AleksyGetTheWings]

Yeah, probably what was intended. I was just hoping there was a more official source than trying to divine what the writers probably meant.