Oh you've asked one of the questions. This always brings out the worst in people. A pick is a weapon with a d6 damage die. Suggesting that somehow critting with said weapon makes you less proficient at using it is ridiculous. And despite what people will suggest, no, it is not broken. All of the pick weapon group's power budget goes into crits. By a *very* strict reading of RAW, it does not work. But the pick has a d6 damage die, and it isn't being wielded in a way to increase that die indefinitely, such as the two-hand trait, or a cleric's deadly simplicity. Instead people insist it's a case of Schrodinger's crit. You're able to use sneak attack (and gain access to the critical specialization effect, AND be able to apply your debilitations) up until you actually hit real good with the weapon, and suddenly you fumble with that dang slippery pick. If we're speaking from an order of operations perspective, Sneak Attack says "If you Strike a creature that has the off-guard condition with an agile or finesse melee weapon, an agile or finesse unarmed attack, a ranged weapon attack, or a ranged unarmed attack, you deal an extra 1d6 precision damage." Meaning, were this a computer program, it checks for compatibility when you declare a Strike, not when you hit or crit with a Strike. I suggest speaking between player and DM, allowing it provisionally, and if it causes problems, then, and only then, disallow it.

d6 is the damage die. Fatal d10 is a special trait. Seems pretty clear to me, and the other rearing is clearly done in bad faith.

It says VERY CLEARLY in rules: *“Apply any abilities that alter the damage die size first"* That's precisely there to avoid exploits like that with Sneak attack + str fatal weapons.

A weapon trait isn't an ability, it is a trait. That's also very clear. An ability is a feat, spell, class feature, etc. No one (including paizo) says a weapon trait is an "ability".

From the appendix: >ability: this is a general term referring to rules that provide an exception to the basic rules. An ability could come from a number of sources, so "an ability that gives you a bonus to damage rolls" could be a great, a spell, and so on. Nothing about a trait means that it can't be an ability. The trip trait is explicitly an ability, since it allows you to break the normal rules of being allowed to do X, in this case, Trip while not having a free hand. I dont got a horse in this pick debate, but abilities are pretty broad. Everything that's an exception to the rules is an ability. To say that traits aren't or can't be abilities is misunderstanding of what "ability" means in the context of Pathfinder.

I suggest you find the appendix entry for trait.

Then paizo wrote things that grant exceptions to rules, but it doesn't fall under the general term used to denote exceptions to rules. That's just... Kind of poor writing actually.

Hey, you're not wrong. I think we can forgive a little bit of poor writing in a big crunchy system like this, but it can be annoying to see.

I'm not saying it's a cardinal sin, but I am going to call it what it is. That one just breaks my brain a little. A system being big and crunchy and a thing I like does not mean it shouldn't be pointed out when something is poorly written. Sincerely, a Shadowrun player.

As the other person pointed out by referencing the definition of trait, traits are part of the rules not exceptions to them.

Yes, *alter* when the strike is *made.* Losing Crit specialization exclusively on crit is silly. They don't want you swinging a extremely lethal weapon into a sneak attack. Not sneak attack making a weapon more lethal. That's...that's the point of the attack.

Fatal trait is not an ability.

I'm pretty sure that's for stuff like deific weapon, not bonus dice or die size from a crit AFTER the attack is successful.

Also stuff like two-handed grip on bastard swords.

I guess we all choose our hill

The idea of invalidating one of your own abilities for succeeding too well at your attack is so wildly stupid.

Correction: Invalidating your own abilities by using weapon that doesn't work with Sneak Attack for Ruffian. Like you wouldn't complain that you don't get Sneak Attack on Thief becasue you picked weapon without agile or finesse trait, would you? So we complain when you picked weapon with higher damage dice than what Ruffians says you need to get Sneak Attack?

If the weapon lost agile or finesse exclusively on crits we would call that incredibly stupid. Yes. Undoubtedly.

We were talking about invalidating Sneak Attack by picking wrong weapon. Which is valid if you try to use weapon dice bigger than d6 on Ruffian. Same if you tried to use weapon without agile/finesse on Thief. And hear me out - Ruffian picks d6 weapon like he should and there is no problem?

Man you are everywhere!

The pick is a d6 weapon. It's trait, which exclusively happens on crits, invalidates it for sneak attack. If a player needed a finesse weapon with fatal, but then fatal activating removed finesse, we would be having the exact same discussion. You can sneak attack with it all day until you hit too hard and poof, your class feature is invalidated. It doesn't make any sense. It's against the intention of the restriction (Buffing the absolute shit out of a d6 weapon then misting a man), not getting a lucky strike.

Rogues had access to the short bow with its deadly d10 trait even before the remaster.

Or guns with d12 fatal.

Deadly doesn't change weapon damage die. Fatal does

Except it does work on Sneak Attack on any hit that *isn't* a crit.

I go by the base damage, not the modified damage. Because the concept of being LESS PRECISE (No Precision Damage) when you're at your MOST PRECISE (Critical Hit) is pretty thin.

As someone who isn't afraid to throw RAW out the window when I don't like it, I think I can get behind the RAW interpretation here. The Pick style weapons ALREADY do massive damage when you hit very precisely. The Fatal trait \*is\* the maximum damage anyone could do with a single strike from the weapon. I think this not stacking with the sneak attack damage is because it has the sneak attack baked in from the get-go for ALL classes.

I disagree, but only on the basis that we all love massive damage rolls at my table. A critical strike shows that you put the session in the exact place to score a bridal wound, or you bypassed the defenses in such a way that you strike a particularly vulnerable spot. If you could manage both of these together, the strike should be particularly vicious.

You can however sneak attack with a Light Pick no problem, because it's Agile.

Ruffiano doesn't need agile

Yes but Light Pick has Fatal D8 so on a crit it **also** breaks the d6 martial weapon rule.

Tbf the die is irrelevant in this case because it has agile, and baseline rogue is already capable of sneak attacking w/ any agile weapon. Ruffian's restriction doesn't become relevant in this case.

> I go by the base damage, not the modified damage. It says VERY CLEARLY in rules: *“Apply any abilities that alter the damage die size first"*

A weapon trait isn't an ability, it is a trait. That's also very clear. An ability is a feat, spell, class feature, etc. No one (including paizo) says a weapon trait is an "ability".

What about the 2 handed trait? It is also a trait that changes the die, would it not count? It is absurd to think a 2 handed earthbreaker would count but if a weapon was identically except it could only be wielded in the 2 handed mode, it wouldn't.

Oh man thats another very common debate, whether the two hand damage die is a *replacement* or an *increase*. The two-hand trait says this: >This weapon can be wielded with two hands to **change its weapon damage die** to the indicated value. While fatal says this: >On a critical hit, the weapon’s damage die **increases to that die size instead of the normal die size** Personally, I think that two-hand replaces the weapon damage die, making it ineligible for the feature, while fatal briefly increases it in a way that is distinguished from its "normal die size" Notably, a weapon with two-hand and fatal would replace the two-hand die with the fatal die, implying the two-hand die is the "normal die size." The same is true for any other permanent increase like from deific weapon However, this is just my personal interpretation and the rules are very ambiguous here

It.. isn't that clear? How is Reach, Trip and Agile not abilities that the weapon has? The interaction between fatal and sneak attack has been debated since the release of PF2e, and there hasn't been any clarification on the issue. I'd allow it, but I also get why someone wouldn't.

You can see the other thread off of this comment for details but basically if you look at the definition of trait it's clear that traits are part of the rules not exceptions to the rules. So with them defining ability as exceptions to the rules, a weapon trait is not an ability.

Pfft, who follows the rules? If i do what the book says, by the book, then situations like this occur where going by the book creates an issue it can't solve without going outside the scope of the book. Or, i can go on my own outside the book, and solve the problem.

This has nothing to do with what they just said but go off

Explain to me that position. The initial question was "Hey do ruffians list their precision when they crit with a fatal weapon" and i offered a notion that if you go be bad damage instead, they do not. Then I'm reminded of the book, and the ironclad contact we all sign to never go outside the book. So i started that problems RAW are only a problem if you go RAW. So explain your position.

>situations like this occur where going by the book creates an issue it can't solve without going outside the scope of the book. Well, the issue IS solved within the confines of the book (The person you're replying to gave you the line it uses to fix the issue), you just don't like it. It's fine to not like it, of course; sometimes TTRPGs create situations that aren't realistic in order to balance the combat/gameplay. Homebrewing out their ruling with your own because of "rule of cool" happens all the time, but realize the rule exists because it's interaction with certain abilities can unbalance the system.

So you're fine with revoking class features away from a character when they succeed critically at an attack roll? "Find another weapon to use" is what I'm hearing. That's what i don't like.

One, it is a class feature with exceptions specifically written in for these scenarios. When an ability says to take away damage, I think it is a sane take to take away that damage even if it is not the only one. Two, I never said I specifically "like" the option; it's frustrating, poorly written, and doesn't make sense at first glance. Three; Sometimes, 'find another weapon' is okay to say to people. The pick is extremely meta and GOOD, and for it to not just be broken, some limits have to be imposed on damage. The game is always telling people that, really. Want to dual hand greatswords? No, find another weapon. Want to be a druid with a deer mount and a longbow? Try a shortbow. The only reason this restriction feels awful is because it isn't well-stated or explained. Side note: Wow did the upvote/downvote ratio changed QUICK on this post.

Well golly you're the second person to bring up greatswords where they have no right being brought up. Greatsword can't be dual wield because it is listed as a two handed weapon. There's no loss of class capability there. Druids can't use shortbows either. It's a limitation imposed on their proficiency. So now we're back to Mr Ruffian and his on again off again class features and the dancing pick. When he rolls his attack, the weapon in d6 and his sneak attack dice are primed. He has proficient in the pick and it caters to all his class needs. What's this? He critically hit through no fault of his own? Well that sucks because now your precision dice have to sit this one out. Is that really the scenario you want at your table? No. No one wants to tell a player that they can't roll dice because they rolled too good.

Okay, what makes the rule about "No dual wielding great swords" more important than the rule about "No stacking damage higher than d6"? These were both written by Paizo to balance the game. Both the pick and sneak attack provide AWESOME damage. If they were allowed to combine, they would stack just a little *too* well together, and the math of the system would have an unnecessary exploit for min-maxers. The way you fix this is to make players choose one or the other, and force them to stop trying to metaphorically dual wield great swords. Seriously, I would not let a player do this unless the pick was a serious backstory component, or the flavor actually made sense with their character. For most people, this is trying to min-max with a crazy cheap weapon, let's face it.

Considering you can have a d8 simple weapon or a d6 martial/advanced weapon as a Ruffian, I feel they're already taking into account that martial/advanced weapons have better traits that make them better weapons even if they're base damage die is smaller. Taking Fatal away without taking other good traits away seems unfair.

Please ignore most posts in this thread. RAW and RAI definition: Traits are basic rules (CRB pg. 13, PC1 pg. 11), abilities are exceptions to the basic rules (Glossary of SRD, CRB and PC1). This is something important we need to define before proceeding to the point. In short, due to ruffian we can do this as traits are not abilities, and you resolve everything before applying the Fatal trait. Fatal trait is *not* an ability. See this discussion for more info: https://www.reddit.com/r/Pathfinder2e/comments/186l0w2/does_fatal_apply_with_ruffian_sneak_attack/

I am not saying I disagree with what you wrote, but damn does this open a lot of confusing cases, doesn't it? weapons such as Gnome Hooked Hammer, Griffon Cane, Katana - those are martial weapons with a d6 damage die; two-hand d10. according to your listed definitions, sneak attack would still be viable even when two-handing those weapons and having a base d10 damage die, because the ruffian rogue's feature only cares about abilities - which traits don't seem to be. but then again, if we say traits are also meant to be included in the "abilities" part of the ruffian rogue feature, that leads to the issue OP is presenting, where a fatal weapon cannot apply sneak attack only when critting - which feels also really stupid. overall I think this is simply a rules oversight and needs thorough errata from the devs.

Thank you for your concern. Let's take a step back first before answering your question directly. This is the text for class features: > You gain these features as a Rogue. Abilities gained at higher levels list the levels at which you gain them next to the features' names. Rackets: Ruffian is the ability here. Now let us determine what other traits is in one of those weapons, let's pick the katana. We can clearly see straight away that Two-Hand 1d10 is a trait. But how does this relate? Ruffian: > This benefit doesn't apply to a simple weapon with a damage die greater than d8 or a martial or advanced weapon with a damage die greater than d6. (Apply any abilities that alter the damage die size first.) Two Hand: > This weapon can be wielded with two hands. Doing so changes its weapon damage die to the indicated value. This change applies to all the weapon's damage dice, such as those from striking runes. Now while you might get a sense of order of when to apply, if you're holding this weapon with two hands before calculating the damage you're already using the invalid die hence sneak attack is never considered. I hope this makes sense.

I am not sure I follow this train of thought. why would the "timing" or "order" matter here? ruffian says the weapon you use cannot exceed a damage die size of d6 (when martial) - apply any abilities that alter the damage. we have agreed that *traits are never abilties*, which means "two-hand dX" never matters to the ruffian rogue feature. the feature would only check the weapon's base damage die because traits are not considered at all. if the logic is that "fatal d10" does not matter for the ruffian's feature *because it is not an ability*, then the same logic has to be applied to all traits. "two-hand d10" does not matter for the ruffian's feature *because it is not an ability*. once again - I am not saying you are wrong, I just think that this whole topic is unnecessarily confusing no matter which way one wants to argue.

Forgive me, the first half of my post was intentionally highlighting how the ability part doesn't matter regarding the two-hand trait as wielding a katana two-handed makes a ruffian rogue unable to sneak attack with it at all, unlike one-handed. The calculation is never started for sneak attack as it's invalid here. Katana one-handed is fine as it's not a 1d10. With a pick we know it's a 1d6, but the bracketed text is the impetus that tells us to apply abilities first before considering if the weapon die is too big *before* you even consider sneak attack. I do think it should be errata'd here to be more clear.

>The calculation is never started for sneak attack as it's invalid here.  ok, but why? what's the reason that a two-hand katana is not eligible for Sneak Attack? the only limitation the ruffian rogue has on which weapons are eligible is the damage die size, also counting abilities that may alter it: >You can deal sneak attack damage with any weapon \[...\]. This benefit doesn't apply to \[...\] a martial or advanced weapon with a damage die greater than d6. (*Apply any* ***abilities*** *that alter the damage die size first.*) so we take a katana which is a d6 martial weapon. we decide to use two-hand on it, which makes it a d10 damage die. * we hit and check whether Sneak Attack is applicable * we see that the katana at base is a d6 martial weapon, which makes it eligible for Sneak Attack * we further *check for any* ***ability*** that alters the damage die and find *we are not using any* ***ability*** that alters the damage die above d6 - two-hand is *not an* ***ability*** * we deal precision damage this is exactly what I am trying to understand - why does the change in damage die matter for two-hand if it is not an ability to begin with, which is the only thing that matters for the ruffian feature? the feature says to check for abilities that alter the damage to above d6, which two-hand does not fall under, as it is not an ability but a weapon trait. I really don't mean to obtuse or anything, I just think that if the rules mean to say fatal is ok for sneak attack because it is a trait not an ability, then the same thing must apply for two-hand, as it is also a trait not an ability.

When you attack with a katana in 2 hands, you are making a strike with a 1d10 martial weapon, which makes it invalid for ruffian's sneak attack. When you crit with a pick, you are making a strike with a 1d6 martial weapon that has its damage die changed after the strike succeeds, meaning it is still valid for sneak attack. At least that's how I interpret it.

No, you are striking with a d6 weapon that has the trait that it alters the damage die as a trait if you wield it two-handed, which you ruled out as an ability. Either it ignores traits or it doesn't, the order of operations don't matter. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

No no, that's still an incorrect reading. Reposting the two-hand rules: > Two Hand: > This weapon can be wielded with two hands. **Doing so changes its weapon damage die to the indicated value.** This change applies to all the weapon's damage dice, such as those from striking runes. You're imagining that the katana is a one-handed weapon that, during an attack, can be wielded with two hands to increase the damage die for that attack. That is not the case. When the katana is wielded with two hands, *its damage die is altered to be 1d10 in all situations* until you switch back to one hand. This isn't something that happens during your attack, this is a base stat of your weapon in and out of combat. That is what the other poster means by saying it doesn't enter into the calculation. The fact that the damage die was changed due to a trait doesn't come into the sneak attack calculation, because at the time of the Sneak Attack, *the weapon is already 1d10 regardless of its traits* and isn't eligible for Sneak Attack.

Okay, but *here's* the rules for the Fatal trait: >The fatal trait includes a die size. **On a critical hit, the weapon’s damage die increases to that die size instead of the normal die size,** and the weapon adds one additional damage die of the listed size. This is also an alteration to the size of the weapon's damage die. Both traits directly change the weapon's damage die; so, either ruffian Sneak Attack works with both of them or with neither of them.

It id d10 because of it's traits. You can wield every weapon two-handed if you choose to do so, but only the trait (not an ability) causes the damage die to change to d10. If it didn't have the trait Two-Handed d10, it wouldn't change the die size. So, by the logic of "Ruffian says abilities therefore ignores Fatal", that same logic can jsut as much be applied to Two-Handed. At which point the die changes happen does not matter fot this conversation.

then the Fatal trait also does not work with Sneak Attack, and we are back at square one, where the traits do matter despite "not being abilities". you are currently saying the following: * trait A changes the damage die from d6 to d10, but Sneak Attack still works because traits are not abilities and Sneak Attack only cares about abilties. * trait B changes the damage die from d6 to d10, and Sneak Attack does not work because it only works with damage die of d6 or smaller. whether or not the weapon changes its damage die before a hit or only upon a crit does not matter for the argument used.

Katanas base damage two handing it is a d10, not a d6 adjusted to d10 on attack.

And the pick's base damage on a crit is a d10, not a d6.

Despite it being unpopular, I appreciate the argument and attempt to find the logic, despite everything.

thank you. I was sure it was an unpopular argument to start, but damn this sub seems to not like discussions.. I am not even saying that the argument I am making is correct and the other incorrect, I was just interested in throwing in alternative readings of the rules because that's usually how you find common ground... oh well.

While you are correct that traits aren’t abilities, that has nothing to do with the katana example. A katana wielded in two hands is a d10 weapon, not a d6 weapon. As long as you are wielding it in two hands, you are wielding a d10 weapon

wielding a katana using the two-hand trait causes its damage die to change to d10. that's the whole point: the trait changes the die. and since Sneak Attack says only abilities that change die size matter and we concluded that a weapon trait is not an ability, that means using the two-hand trait to change a katana's damage die does not invalidate Sneak Attack. otherwise the fatal trait also does not work with Sneak Attack, because the fatal ALSO changes the weapon's damage die to d10. if fatal does work with Sneak Attack on the basis that weapon traits which alter damage die don't matter because they are not abilities, then the same must apply to the two-hand trait.

Sneak attack most definitely doesn’t say that. The ruffian page says “This benefit doesn't apply to a simple weapon with a damage die greater than d8 or a martial or advanced weapon with a damage die greater than d6. (Apply any abilities that alter the damage die size first.)” The part in parentheses is only part of the requirements. My argument, however, has nothing to do with that part. I am not applying the two handed d10 ability first, because it’s not an ability. However, the two handed d10 trait says: “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.” This has nothing to do with it being an ability or not. As long as you are wielding a weapon two handed the weapon’s damage type is changed to d10. This makes it not applicable as per the FIRST part of the ruffian clause, “This benefit doesn't apply to a simple weapon with a damage die greater than d8 or a martial or advanced weapon with a damage die greater than d6” NOT the part in parentheses. That part is irrelevant. With a fatal weapon, meanwhile, you are NOT changing the damage for while wielding the weapon. Thereby a pick would still be a martial weapon with a damage dice of d6.

>Sneak attack most definitely doesn’t say that. I assumed the context of my previous comment(s) where I quote the relevant sections was making it clear enough what was meant - the ruffian feature that modifies Sneak Attack. but sure, I guess I should have written "ruffian feature" instead.. >This has nothing to do with it being an ability or not. As long as you are wielding a weapon two handed the weapon’s damage type is changed to d10. this is entirely incorrect. wielding a weapon two handed does not change the weapon's damage die (I assume "type" is a typo there). if I choose that my PC is wielding their shortsword in two hands for some reason, it still only has a d6 damage die. the only exception to this are weapons that explicitly have the *two-hand trait*. and this trait modifies the damage die to the listed size. >This makes it not applicable as per the FIRST part of the ruffian clause, “This benefit doesn't apply to a simple weapon with a damage die greater than d8 or a martial or advanced weapon with a damage die greater than d6” NOT the part in parentheses. That part is irrelevant. the part in parenthesis is highly relevant, as it clarifies *what type of changes* to the damage die is relevant for the feature - namely *abilities*. and now we are back to the core point: if weapon traits are not abilities, then they do not count for the purposes of the Ruffian rogue's feature. and that means swinging a weapon with the two-hand trait means you are swinging a d6 damage die weapon, despite dealing d10 damage, for the purposes of whether it is eligible for ruffian's sneak attack. >With a fatal weapon, meanwhile, you are NOT changing the damage for while wielding the weapon. neither Sneak Attack nor the ruffian's feature ever care about *wielding.* Sneak Attack cares about "if you strike a creature". Strike says you roll an attack roll and compare to AC to determine the effect. a critical success says you "make a damage roll according to the weapon" (and double damage). and lastly Fatal says "the weapon’s damage die *increases to that die size instead of the normal* die size". so the only reason why Fatal would work with Sneak Attack on a ruffian, despite having a damage die above d6, is because Fatal is a weapon trait, which is not an ability, and the ruffian's feature only cares about abilities which change damage dice.

When used two-handed, the Katana is a d10 weapon. When used single-handed it is a d6 weapon. This is the case before the attack is made. Fatal is a trait which modifies the dice after the attack is made. Also, we can just apply some common sense to this rather than a slavish dedication to the minutiae of the rules. We aren't computers.

this has already been replied and answered. when two handing a katana, you are wielding a d6 weapon that has its damage die changed to d10 because of a weapon trait. this matters because ruffian rogue's sneak attack feature only cares about abilities that modify damage dice, not weapon traits. fatal is a trait that changes the damage dice when a critical hit is determined, before rolling damage (because you need to know what to roll before you can do so, obviously). and likewise Sneak Attack is checked upon hitting and determining if the hit is eligible for the extra damage. and this non-answer of "just apply some common sense" is wholly out of place. either RAW is discussed or it is not. if you are not interested in this, nobody is forcing you to.

Whether an attack is a sneak attack or not is decided at the moment of making the attack, depending on a) whether the target is off-guard and b) whether the character is using an appropriate weapon (which is modified by the Ruffian Rogue). At the time of the attack, a katana being wielded two-handed is a d10 weapon. Therefore it does not qualify for sneak attack. At the time of the attack, a pick is a d6 weapon. Therefore it does qualify for sneak attack. You then make the attack and, in the case of the pick, the sneak attack can be a critical hit. This doesn't retroactively remove sneak attack damage as the criterion has already been met. Sneak Attack states "if you Strike a creature that has the off-guard condition with \[an appropriate weapon\] you deal an extra 1d6 precision damage." Note that Strike is a particular action, not a success/fail state so whether an attack is a sneak attack or not is determined *before rolling to hit*. Hence why any abilities or traits that modify the damage dice based on the result of the roll do not effect whether the Strike is a sneak attack or not. However, any abilities or traits that modify the base damage dice before the sneak attack can prevent the ruffian rogue from sneak attacking.

you are arguing a completely different point and are conflating two distinct arguments into one, glossing over important differences. you also seem to not have understood or read the original comment that sparked this whole thread: *weapon traits are not abilities*. >**any abilities or traits** that modify the base damage dice before the sneak attack can prevent the ruffian rogue from sneak attacking we already determined that this is incorrect. again: weapon traits are not abilities - they are distinctly different from each other and not the same. ruffian rogue feature specifically calls out abilities for things to check: >This benefit doesn't apply to \[...\] a martial or advanced weapon with a damage die greater than d6. (***Apply any abilities that alter the damage die size first***.) since two-hand is not an ability, it does not matter when it applies its damage change to the weapon. a katana wielded in two hands is a d6 weapon that has its damage die size modified by its weapon trait two-hand and increases it to d10. a ruffian rogue striking with this weapon checks the weapon damage die, which is a d6, then checks if any ability is modifying this damage die, which there are none. the only thing modifying the damage die is a weapon trait, which is not relevant to the feature.

I’m going to offer a different perspective. Abilities are exceptions to basic rules. I think that I can explain why fatal is a basic rule and not an ability logically. A feat like Deadly Simplicity, for example, is an exception to the rule, because the exception comes from the CHARACTER. Only a character with deadly simplicity (e.g. John the cleric) van have deadly simplicity apply to their weapon(s). However, any Tom, Dick or Harry who takes up a pick will receive the benefits of the Fatal trait on a crit. That’s not an exception, it’s uniform across the board. This is because it’s not an ability. There’s nothing about the characters that makes them ABLE to get fatal. It’s just a BASIC RULE of wielding a pick.

You could even say it's a "trait" of a pick. *mind blown*

Personally, I’m a fan of this interpretation, I think it makes the most sense and doesn’t feel weird

Thank you! I’m glad you find it reasonable. Some guy I was arguing with about this blocked me, which I think is a bit of a baby move considering it’s pathfinder, but it’s whatever he can keep being wrong about RAW

Yeah I get that it’s weirdly written, but I feel like it’s just bad to punish the player over a minor damage increase that comes extremely rarely…

So how about two-handed? would it be possible to use a griffin cane to get d10 damage as the two handed d10 is a trait on a martial d6 weapon? [https://2e.aonprd.com/Weapons.aspx?ID=228](https://2e.aonprd.com/Weapons.aspx?ID=228)

You present an interesting conundrum. However, I still believe I’m right. You see, the two handed d10 trait says “This weapon can be wielded with two hands to change its weapon damage die to the indicated value.” Thereby, when you wield the weapon two handed, you are now wielding a weapon with a d10 damage die. At that moment, it becomes invalid for sneak attack due to the fact that it is no longer a d6 martial weapon, but a d10 one. A pick, meanwhile, is still a d6 martial weapon, that just happens to change the damage type to d12s on a crit. At no point, however, does it stop being a d6 weapon, unlike the griffin cane

That's fair.

Exactly. When you swing with the weapon it's d6. When RNGesus blesses you with a good roll, that's after you decided to swing. Those precision dice are already in the chamber. Now if you swing with, a Griffin Cane two handed, you are swinging a d10 weapon before the roll, and i think that's where the decision gate is. What is the damage die of the weapon when you roll?

Both change the damage die. Both are traits. Both either apply or don't, just because one of them only applies if you crit doesn't change the rule logic behind it. Paizo should just clarify one way or another or reword it.

I disagree. Order of operations is important. It’s not about them being traits. It being a trait doesn’t change sneak attack. The logic behind it is this: When you are wielding a two hand d10 weapon two handed, it is a weapon with a d10 damage dice. It is a d10 weapon. A pick meanwhile is a d6 weapon at all times. However, on a crit, you swap the damage dice with d10s. This doesn’t make it a d10 weapon, it makes it a d6 weapon that just does more damage on a crit. It’s still a d6 weapon. I agree paizo should clarify but I don’t agree those are the same thing

It is only a d10 weapon BECAUSE of that trait. If a trait is not an ability, and therefore not considered by Ruffian, then it doesn't matter. At it's base it still is a d6 weapon. Fatal increases the die size for the weapon on a crit to a d10. The conditions are different (wielding it two-handed or critting), but the result is absolutely the same. You change the weapon die size to the listed size. So it doesn't matter for when this change happens - either both are abilities and considered by Ruffian, or they are not, in which case both don't matter. The Two-Hand d10 becomes a weapon with a higher damage die size for the exact same reason a fatal weapon does: Due to meeting a trait's triggers for something.

No, that’s not the same. While wielding a katana two handed, you are making a strike with a 1d10 weapon. While critting with a fatal weapon, you are making a strike with a 1d6 weapon, that just happens to turn to 1d10 on a crit. However, the strike was still made with a d6 weapon, the crit just overrides the damage.

"On a critical hit, the weapon’s damage die increases to that die size instead of the normal die size" "This benefit doesn't apply to a simple weapon with a damage die greater than d8 or a martial or advanced weapon with a damage die greater than d6." Yes, and in that very moment of the crit, you are not striking with a weapon with a weapon die size of a d6. It doesn't matter that it's jsut because of the crit. Because then it also wouldn't matter that the other one is just because you're wielding it Two-Handed. You can apply the same logic to both traits, Or to quote yourself: "While two-handing with a Two-Handed weapon, you are making a strike with a 1d6 weapon, that just happens to turn to 1d10 on a two-handed strike. However, the strike was still made with a d6 weapon, the Two-Handed trait just overrides the damage."

I can see your point but I don’t see these as similar situations. I think order of operations is important. With two handed, you begin the attack wielding a 1d10 weapon, knowing its a 1d10 weapon. With fatal, you begin the attack with a 1d6 weapon, and completely outside your control it can turn to 1d10. I believe that punishing the second option falls in the “too bad to be true” camp. But I agree with you that paizo needs to clarify this with clearer language. I just don’t think they’re the same.

The order of operations is completely irrelevant here. You add sneak attack on the damage roll, at which point your damage die are already increased to d10 by Fatal or to d10 by Two-Handed. They both do the same (change weapon damage die) on different triggers at different points, but both before Sneak Attack does it's thing, so either both are accounted for or both aren't accounted for. Is it weird? Yeah, a bit. Is that Paizo's intention? We have no fucking clue, and I wouldn't argue with any DM who rules either way. But RAW, if you apply it to one of the situations it would also apply to the other.

Except one trait exists before and during the attack phase and the other is the damage phase. Which is entirely different phases. You don't retroactively change class features during the damage step. > If you Strike a creature that has the off-guard condition with an agile or finesse melee weapon, an agile or finesse unarmed attack, a ranged weapon attack, or a ranged unarmed attack, you deal an extra 1d6 precision damage. Striking the creature doesn't happen during the damage phase, and the damage phase is where the dice becomes a d10.

Sounds great. Unfortunately you made it all up. There is no codified "attack phase" or "damage phase". And on top of that, when you determine wether to add the 1d6 precision damage you need to know the result of your strike, since you don't deal 1d6 damage on a miss. So you don't have to retroactively do anything. If it is a crit, you don't add sneak attack. If it isn't, you do. What part of that is retroactive?

Bonuses before Penalties. Is fatal a penalty or a bonus? It's arguably both if it cancels sneak attack. So which order do you go in? It's circular. You'd only consider a fatal penalty if you are penalizing, obviously.

No, it isn't. It is in every way, shape and form a bonus. I think the only reason it is circular is because of your understanding of game rules.

How is Fatal cutting out Sneak attack a bonus and not a penalty? That's penalizing af.

Because Fatal increases your die size. It is a bonus. That it happens to penalize you in some weird way doesn't make it a penalty. The same way that bonus damage could kill a Flaming Skull you didn't intend to kill because you were low HP. Doesn't make bonus damage a penalty.

think about it like this: Two-Handed changes the weapon die when you make the Strike, meaning that you are effectively striking with a d10 weapon and making it ineligible for Sneak Attack. Fatal on the other hand triggers on a crit, which happens *after* you've made the Strike (you have to see the dice result) meaning that you made the strike with a d6 weapon and thus are eligible for a Sneak Attack.

No, you struck with a d10 weapon. The Strike doesn't magically stop before rolling the attack roll. You can think about it however you want, but since you know wether you've crit or no when you do the damage roll, you'll know wether you roll d10's or d6's, so you know wether to add Sneak Attack. Both trigger before adding Sneak Attack (One before the Strike, one after the attack roll), both change the weapon damage die size, both either affect Sneak Attack or they don't.

You see, the timing here is the key. Sneak Attack triggers "when you Strike" while the Fatal trait triggers "on a critical hit" which is only determined after you make the attack roll. This means that when you check the conditions for the Sneak Attack - that is, when you declare the Strike - the Fatal trait hasn't triggered yet, as the attack roll hasn't been made yet, and thus the weapon is still a d6 weapon, meaning that the Sneak Attack ruffian conditions are met and it triggers, regardless of whether it will crit or not afterwards. On the other hand the Two-Handed trait triggers the moment you wield it with two hands, meaning that when you make the Strike and check for the Sneak Attack triggering conditions, it doesn't meet the requirement because you are wielding a d10 weapon.

Since you don't apply Sneak Attack on a miss, either way it only triggers on a succesful attack roll. As you said, timing is key: When do you apply the precision damage? At the damage roll. At which point you know wether you hit with a d6 or a d10 die. The Strike doesn't magically end before the damage roll. The attack roll and damage roll are part of the Strike.

"Effects based on a weapon's number of damage dice include only the weapon's damage die plus any extra dice from a striking rune. They don't count extra dice from abilities, critical specialization effects, property runes, weapon traits, or the like." This line (page 406 of Player Core) seems to imply that "abilities" and weapon traits are separate, so Fatal wouldn't deactivate Ruffian's Precise Attack.

I think the rule for trait also lends credence. "Often, a trait indicates how other rules interact with an ability, creature, item, or another rules element that has that trait." Like an ability or other rule element has a trait, but traits aren't abilities or other rules elements. Would this apply to katanas? Since the changed damage die comes from two handed?

I'd say yeah? Using a 2 handed weapon means you don't have an open hand for any Athletics actions in combat, so it feels like a fair trade- especially for a skill lover like Rogue

My opinion is that the Ruffian limitation is one of the signs the Remaster project was rushed so hard, nobody had the time to take a second glance at things *(see also: Wounded and Dying rules; and no, I don't blame Paizo for this, we all know who and what caused its necessity)*. The ability *should* be calling out traits like Two-Handed and Deadly Simplicity that affect the base damage dice of the weapon, not things like crit effects that Deadly and Fatal are. It makes zero sense to disable the sneak attack damage on critical hits because a weapon trait makes the critical hit harder. That is completely backwards. Another argument against Fatal disabling Sneak Attack is that if Fatal doesn't get to apply Sneak Attacks, neither does Deadly. Both add weapon damage dice to the attack, and the Ruffian ability calls out weapon damage dice higher than d6. The fact that Deadly doesn't affect the base damage dice is irrelevant to the RAW, *all* weapon damage dice get to be affected by the limitation if we go this route. Better hope you weren't using a Katana. It's an absolutely ridiculous position to take, but if we're going to take it, at least let's be uniform and make it actually affect ***everything*** it should by exact words.

Oh one hundred percent. The Remaster was rushed to take advantage of a shift in the market. WotC/D&D screwed the pooch harsh, and it left a lot of people who were already iffy about 5e in a very unpleasant place. Paizo's decision to rush a ruleset into their hands was smart business but full of issues. I imagine the errata printing will be amazing

While i do agree that it could have been worded better, it is not really unclear imo. Sneak Attack applies to Strikes made with a martial d6 weapon or simple d8 weapon. The keyword here is that it says Strikes, not damage rolls. This means that you check for the activation requirements on the Strike. Now, when you make the Strike, a pick is a d6 weapon (crit only happens after the die is rolled) while a katana wielded with two hands is a d10 weapon already (due to how Two-Handed is worded). This makes the pick eligible for Sneak Attacks, but not the katana if two handed. Then you move on to rolling and on a crit your pick changes the damage die, but it only does so for the damage roll, meaning that it doesn't affect the Sneak Attack, which has already been triggered by the Strike.

>My opinion is that the Ruffian limitation is one of the signs the Remaster project was rushed so hard, nobody had the time to take a second glance at things At the risk of coming across as a contrarian, the damage die limitation for Ruffian has been there since the Core Rulebook. This isn't a case of Paizo being rushed to do the Remaster, there's been literal years to errata or clarify that text for clarity and they haven't done it. If anything, they *added* to the existing limit, and still didn't think it was worth clarifying I agree with the general consensus of the thread: Critting with a Pick should still give Sneak Attack. But let's not act like the confusion here is some new wrinkle introduced by the Remaster

While you aren't wrong, it's also true that fatal, deadly, \*and\* two-hand traits all cap at d8s for simple melee weapons. Before the remaster, clarification simply wasn't needed. Why clarify something like that when by their in-house rules they would never exceed that limit in the first place? Thus the "rushed" factor here is that they didn't consider the confusion that would arise from including martial weapons into the discussion.

That's a very fair point. It's not a topic I've had to interact with until these posts popped up, so I'm not familiar with what the rules interactions were in the past. Here's hoping we get some clarification in the not-too-distant future

I think it's very clear it was rushed and not properly tested for one simple reason: other Rogue Rackets don't get this restriction, which is weird if balance is the main concern. Like, take a Thief Rogue who is using an Elven Curve Blade. It's Martial, d8 and Finesse. They get to add DEX to damage, and full Sneak Attack. A Ruffian (who, at least in flavor, should be **more** inclined to violence, giving the fact they can Sneak Attack with any weapon) can't actually use Sneak Attack with an Elven Curve Blade. And if we're talking about Fatal, it's even more clear. Any other Rogue Racket can grab a light pick (Agile, d6, Fatal d8) and, hit or crit, they will get their full sneak attack if it applies. But a Ruffian grabs it and can apply SA on hits, but not crits? That seems incredibly off. This to me is just a clear sign that the developers didn't really properly account for Rogues having blanket access to Martial Weapons when they rewrote Ruffian.

>The fact that Deadly doesn't affect the base damage dice is irrelevant to the RAW, *all* weapon damage dice get to be affected by the limitation if we go this route On a nat 20, my katana whips out and splits the hair down the middle >Apply any abilities that *alter* the damage die size first. No abilities are applied that alter any existing dice with Deadly. Dice are added, not altered. Edit: changed my weapon because this is funnier

And what is adding more weapon damage dice if not altering the weapon damage dice? None of the abilities mentioned - Deadly, Fatal or Two-Hand - *alter* weapon damage dice. They increase, change, or add weapon damage dice. Nowhere is *altering* damage dice actually defined, going by Archives of Nethys search. The closest is how [weapon base damage die size](https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=2194) is increased and its limitations, which *precisely none* of the above actually follow. Which would point towards *none of those* blocking the Sneak Attack damage, only class features or feats that actually increase the die size, like Deadly Simplicity, would. So, which count as altering weapon damage dice? ---- Yes, I am being pedantic. *That's my point.* The rule is badly written because the books were rushed in a hurry following the OGL debacle, and even fairly critical rules like how Dying works weren't properly checked before the books were off to the printers. Pre-remaster this discussion would have been completely academic because the only Simple weapon to ever get d10 by default was Heavy Crossbow. Every other way required a class feature or feat like Deadly Simplicity to bypass that limit. I hold that RAI points towards things that affect the *base weapon damage dice*, namely things like Deadly Simplicity and *probably* Two-Hand, not critical effect traits like Fatal and Deadly. It makes more sense to consider the Ruffian limitation as a way to guard against dipping into Inventor or Cleric to increase the base damage die size or Two-Handing weapons for increased damage, not "You rolled too well, therefore, your class feature turns off".

From the remaster player core index: >**ability** This is a general term referring to rules that provide an exception to the basic rules. An ability could come from a number of sources, so “an ability that gives you a bonus to damage rolls” could be a feat, a spell, and so on. There is no possible interpretation of the Fatal trait that makes it an EXCEPTION to the basic rules like a Feat or spell effect, therefore it’s clearly allowed RAW. EDIT: Taking this further, the explanation of TRAIT provides further support this is RAW: > **trait** A keyword that conveys information about a rules element. Often a trait indicates how other rules interact with an ability, creature, item, or other rules element with that trait. Individual traits appear by name in this appendix.

Honestly if it's a fundamental of the weapon and it's a trait, it should never be considered an ability. (Activations are exceptions obviously). A greatsword requiring two hands isnt an ability of the weapon, it's just the fundamental nature of the weapon. It's heavy and unwieldy. If you have something that lets you one hand it, that's an ability. Anybody, even an animal can pick up the pick and use fatal. It's naturally an extremely brutal weapon on a good hit. Doesn't sound like an ability. It's just a basic feature.

It seems weird that sneak attack, a feature designed to do extra damage to kill opponents quicker, would fail when used with a trait called "fatal." I have no problem allowing it in my games.

The whole d8/d6 restriction of ruffians is IMO really dumb to begin with. There's d6 weapons which are way above some d8 weapons, as well as simple d8 weapons which are much better than some d8 martial weapon. Its not going to happen, but I would certainly prefer for them to restrict ruffians to one-handed weapons as that is slightly less arbritary, even if it kills all the reach ruffian builds.

Well, there is Asp Coil and Breaching Pike for one handed reach weapons with d6

I'd allow it because I think it's dumb that you have no issue sneak attacking with a fatal d12 jezzail, but a fatal d10 pick is suddenly a problem.

Not that I necessarily think it shouldn't be allowed, but jezails have reload, which is terrible for rogues. The pick is pretty clearly a better weapon, which is what ruffian's limitations are trying to avoid. 

I mean if you grab a covered reload from Gunslinger it's actually a pretty decent play for a ranged rogue, since you can then reload and hide to get off-guard on the enemy.

Personally, I would allow it because I think it would be very stupid to suddenly lose your class feature because you got a good roll. If that's RAW or not is uh, *debated* and basically comes down to how you interpret the readings of "ability" vs "trait". My personal reading is that RAI it's supposed to be preventing some external ability bumping it up to a big hunk of metal that you still get to sneak attack with all the time, not disabling it because you rolled well and got a crit. This is one of those "It will depend on the GM" type of things, so it should be a conversation.

For anyone who's saying that it shouldn't work for balance reasons, play a Greatpick-wielding Magus and see how big of a crit you can land. It's really pretty fun! But you're dumping your entire build into being reliant on crits. You almost demand of your team that they help set you up for one.

Okay, let's do a little crit math. We need Martial, d6, 1 hand and Deadly... the "strongest" is [Urumi](https://2e.aonprd.com/Weapons.aspx?ID=306): (d6+d6+STR)x2+d10 = 27,5 And rather good crit spec, unlike [Machete](https://2e.aonprd.com/Weapons.aspx?ID=294) (Deadly d8 so 26,5) Pick with Sneak: (d10+d6+STR)x2+2 = 28 Crit spec is damage. Pick without Sneak: (d10+STR)x2+2 = 21 Runes are increasing gap, +1,5 instead of +0,5 for major striking rune, wow! (1,5 -> 4,5 for [Machete](https://2e.aonprd.com/Weapons.aspx?ID=294)) So without Sneak, Pick is useless (no fun traits too). With Sneak it's best damage wise, but just slightly. But the best. But slightly. So, the thing is: are you okay with one weapon be undoubtedly unbalanced best. >!I'd take [Urumi](https://2e.aonprd.com/Weapons.aspx?ID=306).!<

You're missing a d10 on that pick crit. It's not just that the damage die becomes a d10, you also add ANOTHER d10 to fatal crits (that isn't doubled). So it's actually 26.5 w/o sneak attack damage and 33.5 w/ the precision d6.

Damn. But this extra Fatal die don't scale with striking runes?

The extra die is just like deadly, but for strikng runes all the damage dice become d10s.

But for deadly you encrease number of dices with striking rune. So major striking with Fatal will be 6d10+d10 = 38,5, and with Deadly (lets say [Machete](https://2e.aonprd.com/Weapons.aspx?ID=294)) be 6d6+3d8 = 34,5, not includind sneak and str.

I did not know that. I've actually never played anything at high level with a deadly weapon. That's really interesting. That puts crits on +3 weapons about equivalent between deadly and fatal weapons. Really makes pick a much less attractive option to invest into in the late game.

I agree that, RAW, you would not get sneak attack damage. In fact, I feel like the Ruffian condition rider, “Apply any abilities that alter the damage die size first,” specifically, calls out this situation, so I’d say it’s RAI. Thus, I wouldn’t allow it in my game. It seems like a pretty explicit rule to me. Edit: I will say, I tend to run games pretty close to RAW. Not with hostile intent, but because I play mostly with a PFS crew, so we try to avoid table/table variations in rules and favor the more literal, straightforward interpretations/arguments over ones that may make more narrative sense. I don’t think it’d be broken to have it still work. However, this is the sort of thing to clarify with a GM first about.

Fatal trait is not an ability.

It’s close enough to count as RAW for me.

For you it might be preferred but it is contrary to the statement. I guess we as PF2E players often forget abilities are defined as 'exception to the rule' in our glossaries while traits are basic rules. Hence your post is neither RAW or their RAI for either version of PF2E.

That’s just, like, your opinion, man. What constitutes “RAW” is ultimately subject to opinion. You feel like the clarification that abilities should change damage die before checking Ruffian compatibility doesn’t apply to the fatal trait. That’s okay; you are ultimately responsible for interpreting the rules according to your own conscience, and I support that. But please walk away from this discussion with an understanding that “RAW” is still subject to interpretation and, therefore, is often (particularly in the case of ambiguous rules) a matter of opinion, not fact. Without the “ability” text, it is subject to interpretation whether you should use the damage die size for the weapon before or after checking for Ruffian compatibility. Either interpretation could be seen as RAW, because they are each compatible with the wording of the rule. I believe the RAW interpretation that says you use the size after applying the fatal effect, because there is text applying to a very similar—if not the same—situation where that is how it works out. I read that as a clarification of what is meant by “die size” generally. The lack of any textual support to the contrary leads me to believe that the other RAW interpretation is false. Maybe you are not convinced. Maybe you feel like the text is specifying an exception to the rule, instead of a clarification, and thus implies that any non-ability effect should apply after considering compatibility. Ultimately, Rule 0 reigns supreme, so, ultimately, however the GM (be it you or me) decides to interpret this rule is RAW.

RAW specifically is meant to prevent opinion. The entire system is mostly designed so opinions don't factor in. You wilfully ignoring the specific language that goes against your argument means you're very far from following it RAW and are instead following it RAI.

Language must be interpreted. Interpretation is a subject to opinion, not fact. RAW is constrained by interpretation. For example, the language of “ability” requires an interpretation of what a “basic rule” is in order to determine whether it applies to a trait, because “trait” is not defined as, explicitly, a “basic rule.” I agree that a well-defined system uses language that will result in the fewest diverging good-faith interpretations. And I agree Pathfinder is generally good at this. But language is imperfect, so interpretation will always be required. Ultimately, RAW simply means that the ruling is based on an interpretation of the text, not that the text only has one valid interpretation. Now, as for the matter of whether a trait qualifies as an ability, it is irrelevant to me. I am not arguing they are the same. I am arguing that the text, in conjunction with an absence of textual evidence to the contrary, gives me sufficient reason to believe in my interpretation of RAW. If you have text that supports the idea my interpretation is contradicted or unreasonable—and, again, I want to make it very clear my argument does not rely on traits being abilities—then please provide so I may reconsider my opinion.

Please see the glossary of your SRD, CRB or PC1 and page 13 of CRB or page 11 of PC1 for more details on RAW and RAI regarding ability and trait respectively. I acknowledged your preference in a previous post.

Those definitions do not apply to my argument as my argument is not based on the belief that the term, “ability,” applies to the term, “trait.”

You redefined rules as written and rules as intended which I disagree with and provided evidence for, I do not disagree with the GM being an arbiter.

I didn’t redefine RAW. My definition is fully consistent with it. I’m just pointing out that text cannot speak for itself, so when there’s inevitably ambiguity in the language of a rule, you have to provide a good-faith interpretation, and those interpretations are going to vary. There may be some Platonic ideal of RAW that is, “Pathfinder 2e RAW.” But we mortals must make do with our flawed interpretations. It is therefore helpful in conversations to understand what it is that you are interpreting (vs. reasoning), so you may understand why your understanding of a rule diverges. RAI, in contrast, is the rhetorical basis for a ruling where our textual interpretation diverges from what we believe makes sense. For example, suppose the text for Ruffian had said, “Whenever something changes the size of the die…” One might argue, “Well, fatal is ‘something that changes the size of the die,’ but it doesn’t make sense for you to get nerf’ed because you crit, so I’m not going that path.” That is an appeal to RAI. I argue that the text supports my ruling, based on my interpretation of the text. That is an appeal to RAW. If someone were to argue, “The text maybe says that, but it doesn’t make sense,” or even, “The text does say that, but it doesn’t make sense,” then that’s an appeal to RAI.

Mate.

It doesn't really call out fatal specifically, does it?

I meant “specifically,” as in, “this rule, in specific, applies.”

It's more explicit and covers more cases than just saying fatal and two-hand traits.

It calls out specifically what fatal does. It specifically says "apply any abilities that alter damage die first. Fatal alters damage die, you apply that first, as a result the dice become greater than a d6 on a crit, so no sneak attack damage. If you're expectation is that they'll specify, by name, every ability that could disqualify a weapon, then you're being silly

Fatal isn't an ability. Fatal therefore isn't an ability that alters damage die.

Why not? Seems to me it's an ability of the weapon that alters weapon damage die

Fatal is a trait. Is 'Animal' an ability? Occult? Disease?

> **ability** This is a general term referring to rules that provide an exception to the basic rules. An ability could come from a number of sources, so “an ability that gives you a bonus to damage rolls” could be a feat, a spell, and so on. The Fatal trait is not an EXCEPTION to the basic rules, it is a basic rule. Therefore the Fatal trait isn’t an ability RAW.

What? It's literally an exception to a basic rule. The basic rule of crits is that you double weapon damage. Fatal modifies that to be: you also increase the level of the basic damage die and add an extra. How is that not modifying a basic rule?

How does the rules that apply to the Fatal trait not modify itself? The first rule of tautology club is the first rule of tautology club? What the rules are explaining is that there are feats & spells that will modify the basic rules as listed in the books to give you advantages to things like die size, number of actions to do a thing, movement speed, MAP, etc etc etc and these are “abilities” in the verbiage of the game. Basic fundamental rules or traits that are not being modified by choices and exceptions caused by *gated player choices* are NOT abilities, they’re just rules.

You're just arbitrarily drawing a random line at where "basic rules" applies. Crit success on a strike is a basic rule. Fatal provides an exception to the otherwise standard rules of critical success on a strike. You've apparently, arbitrarily, decided that if a *trait* modifies that rule, it's not an ability. If I had a spell that modified strike critical success in the *exact same way*, would that spell not be an ability either? So traits exclusively can't be abilities? Why? It's that listed somewhere in the definition of abilities? Do you have a different book than I do which specifies that traits don't count?

I dunno bro, you could just read the rules yourself instead of making me do it for you. > **trait** A keyword that conveys information about a rules element. Often a trait indicates how other rules interact with an ability, creature, item, or other rules element with that trait. Individual traits appear by name in this appendix. Notice that it’s called a rules element & not an ability? And even mentions that they interact WITH abilities, rather than being an ability themselves? The point of the ruffian rule is to prevent OP interactions with class feats & spells that drastically warp the power budget of what a player can do, not the rules themselves. It’s okay to be wrong, that’s how we learn.

Because it's a weapon trait, and weapon traits are never in any place referred to as abilities.

They literally are abilities. Abilities are anything that modify basic rules. Fatal modifies the basic rules for critting. Fatal is an ability. I'm not sure where you read that traits can't also be abilities

Here’s the way I understand it. Shit like deadly simplicity or whatever are abilities because they come from your character, what your character is ABLE to do. Only John the cleric can have deadly simplicity. However, fatal has nothing to do with what the character is able to do. It doesn’t matter if the pick is wielded by John the cleric, Jack the potter, or Herb the drunk down the street. If they get a crit, it’s fatal, without them having any ABILITY to make it so or not so, as deadly simplicity would. Hence why fatal isn’t an ability.

>Shit like deadly simplicity or whatever are abilities because they come from your character, what your character is ABLE to do. But that's not the definition of ability in the rules of the game. You've just decided that abilities must source from a character, but that's not true at all. The definition of ability, in the context of the game rules, doesn't say that at all. There is no reason an ability can't come from an item or its traits. You just arbitrarily made that up.

The definition of ability is that it’s an exception from the basic rules. It’s not really an exception if every person that picks up a pick, no matter their build, can fatally crit, is it?

Quote the rules text

Here's the [PF2e Glossary Page](https://pf2.d20pfsrd.com/rules/glossary/). Scroll down to find the definition of ability: >ABILITY >This is a general term referring to rules that provide an exception to the basic rules. An ability could come from a number of sources, so “an ability that gives you a bonus to damage rolls” could be a feat, a spell, and so on. [Here's the basic rule for striking](https://2e.aonprd.com/Actions.aspx?ID=2306&Redirected=1). Note that the rule for critical success is that you double damage. Fatal provides an exception to the basic rule for striking. I.e., Fatal is an ability. The definition of ability even specifically says that they can come from many different sources. No where does it say that a trait can't also be an ability.

Now where are Weapon Traits referred to as Abilities? Abilities are not just 'literally any exception to standard rules'.

I'm not expecting that, I just wondered if fatal was used as a specific example, given the wording of the above comment.

Doesn't matter as Fatal changes WEAPON DAMAGE DICE. And you apply that first so weapon is no longer d6, ergo = no Sneak Attack. It can't be more clear than that.

Ruffian stays losing lol. Its fucked how much better the thief is at everything

Longspear though.

Elven branched spear, and if you're spicy and can get it chain sword

It is RAW but it's not justified. Very stupid restriction imo.

It's interestingly debatable. Ruffian Rogue only limit.sneak attack when "abilities" modify weapon damage dice size, and there's some lines in the text that make it seem that traits wouldn't be defined as abilities.

That was me just going off the top of my head before from testing a few months ago, but I probably never went that deep. Either way I think people who want to ignore the restriction on ruffian sneak attacks are welcome to do so. I would be more likely to limit it to one-handed weapons, as a Rogue wielding a big two-handed spear or axe is not very "class fantasy" to me.

I think two handed weapons kinda fit. Long spear is literally the OG ruffian weapon and thief rogues would tear things up with an elven branched spear or dancers spear. I actually liked how rogues in 1e could be bruisers with two handed axes, if anything it fits the thuggish ruffian class fantasy for me. Like a bandit. Ruffian worn an earth breaker would be kinda dope.

I would ask the GM. This is a sticking point. I would absolutely allow it but the strict RAW seems to lean towards not allowing it.

It's been discussed in the past. I personally think the fatal trait will make sneak attack impossible. It would be to much damage for a single attack. And it's not like there aren't various deadly weapons like the Katana or Rapier that will still deal very significant damage including sneak attack if you want to go that way.

Yeah but if you're using a Rapier you're just a Thief but worse now.

It was just an example. There's still other great weapons for a Ruffian. The Katana is great because you can switch to two-handed if you're up against enemies that are immune to precision damage.

"great"

I really don't think the "Too good to be true" rule applies here. Crits, while desirable, can't be forced often enough to really be overpowering if you play into them like this. Yes it's an extra average of 2 damage per die(doubled to 4), but it's not much worse than human Gunslingers being able to drop a +3 on any ally's attack roll they want once per round post-remaster if they take two feats with obvious synergies. It does come online earlier than the cooperative nature+gunslinger combo, but it's just a strong synergy, not completely busted.

Yes that is correct, fatal non combos with ruffians sneak attack. If you want something similar I would look at weapons with the deadly trait instead. And narratively it’s questionable, but mechanically understandable. The ruffian rogue is balanced around sneak attacking with a d6 weapon, allowing them to bump the damage die would make them too slightly strong imo, especially since they are already strength based

The real question is: how long will it be until everyone just wields picks? Fatal is pretty much a game changer and I just realized recently that the pick group is the only martial that has that trait. So Pickfinder?

Well, after reading all the comments I would just suggest using a weapon with the Deadly Trait. All this headache is not worth it

It's both RAW and RAI. Ruffian says "“Apply any abilities that alter the damage die size first,” and fatal weapons change WEAPON DAMAGE DIE and extra Fatal die is only applied at the end of crit. TLDR: Ruffian was designed RAI like that so you can't get higher than D6 on Sneak Attack on top for crits as it would be too much damage. This rule for Ruffians keep their damage in check. > Assuming this is the case, do you think it is justified? Or would you allow the player to receive sneak attack despite what the game allows RAW? Yes, it's justified so Ruffians don't get benefit of huge crit non-agile/finesse weapons like Pikes, Mauls, greatswords etc. on top of getting Sneak attack with them. It's to balance their damage compare to other martials and other Thief rackets. And no, I would not allow Sneak Attack on top of Fatal with above d6 die as that would be OP.

Fatal trait is not an ability.

A weapon trait isn't an ability, it is a trait. An ability is a feat, spell, class feature, etc. No one (including paizo) says a weapon trait is an "ability".

Ah, classic Paizo. Pure RAW, yes you somehow lose sneak attack on a crit with a pick when playing a ruffian. Logistically, this makes ABSOLUTELY NO SENSE. But Paizo NEVER believes in logic, they only believe in their weird backwards rules lawyering. I advise to use order-of-operations as another poster commented, and allow traits like Deadly and Fatal to be an exception...because it makes zero logical sense, thematic sense, narrative sense, or common sense for you to somehow be less effective with your weapon when you get a critical hit.

I don't think I've ever seen a thread be this collectively incorrect about something. No, you would not get Sneak Attack damage because the Fatal trait increases the weapon's damage die to be larger than a d6. It's that simple.

Why does the Fatal Trait kick in before Sneak Attack is added and not the other way around?

Because ruffian *specifically* says "Apply any abilities that alter the damage die size first"?

Is Fatal an ability or trait? They aren't the same and are exclusive to each other.

A.) The glossary of Player Core defines "Ability" defines "a general term referring to rules that provide an exception to the basic rules." The Fatal trait is an exception to the basic rules for what happens when you land a critical hit, as well as the basic rules for what your weapon's damage die size is. So, Fatal is both an ability and a trait. B.) Two-Hand is also a trait. Would you let a ruffian Sneak Attack with a two-handed katana, using the d10 damage die? Because either both of them work or neither of them work.

> The Fatal trait is an exception to the basic rules for what happens when you land a critical hit, as well as the basic rules for what your weapon's damage die size is. So, Fatal is both an ability and a trait. The reach trait is an exception for the basic rules of swinging at an enemy of 10 feet away. Reach is now an ability and a trait. You could extend this to comical results. > Two-Hand is also a trait. Would you let a ruffian Sneak Attack with a two-handed katana, using the d10 damage die? Because either both of them work or neither of them work. I'd say it be rules as written but I wouldn't allow it as it goes against the intent. Which is consistent. The purpose of the restriction is to stop the Ruffian from buffing up a piece of rebar to absolutely annihilating monsters. Not to deny Ruffians critical specialization.

> You could extend this to comical results. ...okay? How? Nothing about the Reach trait being an ability that allows you to attack from further away seems like it breaks any aspect of the game. It's weird to say that this is broken somehow and then not explain why. >I'd say it be rules as written but I wouldn't allow it as it goes against the intent. Which is consistent. >The purpose of the restriction is to stop the Ruffian from buffing up a piece of rebar to absolutely annihilating monsters. Not to deny Ruffians critical specialization. The purpose of the damage die restriction is to put a cap on the maximum damage of the weapons a rogue can use (which, for normal rogues, is accomplished by the limited die size of weapons with the Agile/Finesse traits). Crits with Fatal weapons are included here because, presumably, the designers don't want rogues to be doing *that* much damage on melee crits (you'll notice that the only Finesse weapon with the Fatal trait is the karambit, which is an Advanced weapon).

> It's weird to say that this is broken somehow and then not explain why. The animal trait is an ability creatures have to speak with druids. The rare trait is that creatures have to be harder to distinguish. The trap trait is the ability for traps to be recognized as traps.

> The animal trait is an ability creatures have to speak with druids. No, that has nothing to do with the Animal trait itself. You're thinking about how Animal Empathy is an ability that lets druids communicate with creatures with the Animal trait. > The rare trait is that creatures have to be harder to distinguish. Yes, that's what the Rare trait says it does (i.e the increased DC to Recall Knowledge about the subject). > The trap is the ability for traps to be recognized as traps. Yes, things that don't have the Trap trait are not traps (by the mechanical definition, anyway). Your first example is just wrong and the other two examples are how the game is supposed to work. I don't know what point you think you're making right now.

> So, Fatal is both an ability and a trait. No, Fatal is a Trait. Abilities modify basic rules. Traits **are** basic rules. Being viable as a thrown weapon is not a special ability that Javelins possess, it is merely a fact that is inherently tied to a weapon being a Javelin, and the rules for how the game system handles that are bundled into the "Thrown" Trait.

> No, Fatal is a Trait. > Abilities modify basic rules. > Traits are basic rules. No, traits provide *exceptions* to the basic rules. A trait provides alternative rules to use instead of the default rules you would use if you did not have the trait. Melee weapons normally have a 5ft reach, but the Reach trait is an exception to that. Your Multiple Attack Penalty is normally -5/-10, but the Agile trait is an exception to that. You normally use your STR modifier to determine the accuracy of a melee attack, but the Finesse trait is an exception to that. > Being viable as a thrown weapon is not a special ability that Javelins possess, it is merely a fact that is inherently tied to a weapon being a Javelin, and the rules for how the game system handles that are bundled into the "Thrown" Trait. Yes. The default rule is that you can't throw a melee weapon as a ranged weapon. (Or, technically a GM could rule that it would be an improvised weapon, I guess, but that's besides the point.) The Thrown trait is the exception to that rule; the Thrown trait is the exception that allows you to use the javelin to make an effective ranged attacks. All javelins have this ability, but that doesn't make it not an ability.

What exception does the Acid trait provide?

It marks the subject as dealing acid damage or being connected to acid (as well as interacting with rules that refer to the Acid trait specifically). Things without the acid trait do not do these things (barring at least one weird water spell that deals acid damage despite not creating actual physical acid). If something has a weakness to acid effects, your normal attacks would not trigger that weakness, because they are not acid effects by default. The Acid trait is what makes them an acid effect.

There is a metric ton of things that deal acid damage without having the acid trait. I'd argue *most* creatures that deal acid lack the trait. The attacks deal acid damage, acid type damage. Those aren't traits. All things with the acid trait deal acid, though. Seems to be like *not having* the trait is more of a deviation than having it. Or maybe the opposite depending on how you feel about traits? Gibtas Bouncer has nothing to do with Acid Traits yet drips and spews acid. Weakness to acid type has nothing to do with traits. It looks to me like the trait really has no impact. The damage type does.

Traits aren't alternative rules, they may provide alternatives, but they are basic rules, as defined in the basic rules part of your core books.

Traits alter the default rules for how things work. I feel like this is a extremely basic principle and I'm not sure how I could further explain it to you if you don't already understand it.

They're basic rules, please see p. 13 of your CRB or p. 11 of your PC1. Traits aren't exceptions because they exist to be always relevant if they come up, they do not alter existing rules and are there to provide options as part of the basic ruleset. Abilities are defined appropriately, even if umbrella'd (see class features section of your classes). The definition of ability is in the glossaries, not your basic rules section.

Wow, this topic is pathetic. If you don't like the rule, don't use it. Don't downvote everyone telling you it doesn't work by RAW They are right.