|
2 people marked this as FAQ candidate.
|
I've read lots of threads discussing issues around size increases, and while there is much (often good) discussion, including some comments from designers, I haven't been able to find any definitive FAQlike answers (feel free to point me at 'em if they exist). So for ease of FAQability, let me ask 3 questions:
1) Shields with the magic "Bashing" enhancement and shield spikes: do these size increases stack?
2) If a character under the effects of "Enlarge Person" has another way to increase/effectively increase the size of their weapon (e.g., Lead Blades spell, Bashing shield), do some and/or all of those effects stack?
3) Where do we look to find the amount of damage done by Huge or larger weapons?
I think answers to those questions (and whatever nuances the designers would care to comment on) would clear up a lot of issues. I could see all answered in many ways. I do have thoughts/opinions, naturally, and I'll post 'em below, and of course anyone can chime in. But I'm hoping clearly leaving the above as core questions not universally/definitively answered will help get FAQclicks and/or designer comment.
So, my bias: I like having "big weapon" options exist in the game. Even "really big" weapons, though I'd draw the line at some (not currently defined) number of "really"s.
But I HATE the current scaling mechanics. (NOTE: the following analysis is by no means complete, but I think it includes enough to show what I don't like). No matter whether you try and extrapolate sizing from the "Tiny and Large Weapon Damage" table (which would seem to indicate that 2d6 jumps to 3d6) or use the "Natural Attacks by Size" table (which clearly shows 2d6 is followed by 2d8), you've got problems. A Small weapon that does 1d8 becomes 1d10 at Medium, but a Medium weapon that does 1d8 becomes 2d6 at Large. A 1d6 S Warhammer goes to 1d8 at M, but a 1d6 S Falchion goes to M 2d4. A S Earthbreaker goes from 1d10 to 2d6 at M, but a M Greatsword goes from 1d10 to 2d8 at L. I hate this - what it really means (for me) is that "extrapolation" actually isn't possible, and a general rule about any weapon larger than L does not really exist. Any huge/bigger weapon you've ever seen/used is a unique thing (examples from the text that directly state size H (M + 2) and specific dice are the Bashing property and Shillelagh spell).
But many threads discussing this issue go ahead and try and extrapolate generally anyway. And my, do you get odd behavior/breakpoints. Examples:
Dagger, d6 L to H = d8, 1 pt improvement.
Light Mace, d8 L to H = 2d6, 2.5 pt improvement.
Large weapon at d10 - as far as I can tell, this can't exist. Huh?
Scythe 2d6 L to H = 3d6 or 2d8 (Weapons v. Natural Weapons table), 3.5 or 2 pt improvement.
Greatsword 2d8 L to H = 3d8 or 4d6 (Weapons v. Natural Weapons table), 4.5 or 5 pt improvement.
So sometimes the Natural Weapons table would be better, sometimes extrapolating the regular Weapons would be. The details of where you started and what progression you use can exaggerate the advantage of some weapons over others, which with the multiplying-effect of iterative attacks, extras from haste/flurry/ki/etc., and crit multipliers, can become GREATLY exaggerated. I don't like that. And (most relevantly to this post) it means the answers to the questions can make a big difference
So what rules exist about this? There's the stuff above - the two tables, the Bashing shield, and Shillelagh spell. Shillelagh actually makes it clear that 2d6 scales to 3d6, so - probably throw out the Natural Weapons table when it comes to actual weapons. Scaling 2d6 to 2d8 is "smoother" than 3d6, but - we seem to know that's not how it works. The shortage of specific references for Huge weapons is odd, though. And given the variance in current scaling from S to M to L, GMs might well decide on different damage dice from the "same" starting point. Say, a H Longsword is 2d6 but a H Falcata is d12. After all, they're not REALLY the same - different crit, exotic v. martial, etc. Those things were (presumably) taken into account in the S/M/L damage, so extending variance into H and beyond isn't fundamentally different. It's annoying, because now every weapon needs judgment calls at every size, but - again, that's presumably what happened at S/M/L.
Several places (Enlarge Person spell, e.g.) say "Multiple magical effects that increase size do not stack." That can be pretty strait-forward - e.g, I guess you get no benefit from Lead Blading a Bashing shield. But - sometimes the scope is unclear. Is it meant to cover the overall outcome of magical effects, or only localized instances? That is, the overall outcome of Lead Blades and Enlarge Person is that multiple magic effects increase the effective size of a weapon. So with an outcome-focus, they don't stack. But if we localize the Enlarge to the person and the Lead Blades to the weapon - then it's one effect "per thing", so a form of stacking can happen. As it stands, I see it as a total GM call as to which to pick.
Now, shields. Shield spikes are currently described thus:
Shield Spikes: These spikes turn a shield into a martial piercing weapon and increase the damage dealt by a shield bash as if the shield were designed for a creature one size category larger than you (see “spiked shields” on Table: Weapons). You can't put spikes on a buckler or a tower shield. Otherwise, attacking with a spiked shield is like making a shield bash attack.
An enhancement bonus on a spiked shield does not improve the effectiveness of a shield bash made with it, but a spiked shield can be made into a magic weapon in its own right.
Here's what I think it should say, to remove any concerns with size stacking w/ Bashing. Of course, if size stacking is what's desired - I was never here (smile):
Shield Spikes: These spikes [instead of "turn a shield into"] are a martial piercing weapon that [instead of "increase the damage dealt by a shield bash"] does damage as per a shield bash from a shield designed for a creature one size category larger than you (see “spiked shields” on Table: Weapons). You can't put spikes on a buckler or a tower shield. Otherwise, attacking with [instead of "a spiked shield"] shield spikes is like making a shield bash attack.
[Instead of paragraph 2]Shield spikes can be a magic weapon in their own right, but any spike enhancement bonus does not improve a normal (non-spike) shield bash made with that shield. Likewise, enhancements on the shield do not affect the spikes.
OK, that's enough. Hope someone finds it useful/amusing, and FAQ away at the first post!
glandis wrote: 1) Shields with the magic "Bashing" enhancement and shield spikes: do these size increases stack? What size increases? Quote: 2) If a character under the effects of "Enlarge Person" has another way to increase/effectively increase the size of their weapon (e.g., Lead Blades spell, Bashing shield), do some and/or all of those effects stack? Whether they stack or not should be described in the spell description (or the description of the spell used to create an item). Just be aware that a polymorphed character cannot be polymorphed further. It then stands to reason that any equipment that got polymorphed along with the bearer, is equally immune to further changes. Quote: 3) Where do we look to find the amount of damage done by Huge or larger weapons? Dunno.
I can offer some suggestions. For example, Enlarge and Lead Blades stack because the weapon becomes large and then gets a boost as if it was even larger. This should hold true for shield bashing and spikes because they also treat the item as a category larger than it is. There is no reason to consider the 'original' size when enlarged because it isn't the current size. For all size considerations, you are a Large creature now and your equipment is Large.
The particular "multiple magical effects do not stack" means you cannot double-enlarge a person from medium to huge. Something like the bashing enchant or lead blades do not make increase the size of anything. They do not make your medium shield into a large shield. It does not make your two-handed greatsword into a large (and thus unwieldable weapon for any medium non-titan mauler class). It simply lets you do more damage "as if" it was a larger size.
For Huge weapons, I go looking for Giants. They will give a good idea of the method of increasing weapon damage beyond the charts.
VRMH wrote: What size increases? The "as if the shield were designed for a creature one size category larger" (spikes) and "as if it were a weapon of two size categories larger" (bashing).
And your polymorph comment and Murphys "as if" seem to be in conflict. Or maybe not - thus, FAQ. I'm personally inclined not to quibble with the details of "as if" vs. actually increasing size, and instead look at the overall effect. Are there multiple magic effects required to generate the result? Then they don't stack. But that kind of effects-based thinking isn't always what the game wants us to do - thus (again), FAQ.
EDIT to close quote
Bashing and Spikes do not actually enlarge the shields though. They only increase the damage. The amount of damage increase is the same as-if they were enlarged. Since they are not actually enlarged there is no stacking problem with an actual Enlarge effect.
And a look at Giants ... reveals examples of the problems discussed above.
A Cloud Giant wields a Gargantuan Morningstar, a Storm Giant a Huge greatsword, both at 4d6. 4d6 does not appear anywhere on the "Tiny and Large Weapon Damage" table. It only appears in the "Natural Attacks by Size" table as a step-up from 2d8. But a step-up from 2d8 on the "Tiny and Large Weapon Damage" table is 3d8, not 4d6. Now, there's no inherent problem with Natural Attacks scaling differently than Weapons, but some sort of recognizable, text-supported (as opposed to often-reasonable extrapolation) solution would be nice.
Fire Giant (greatsword) and Frost Giant (greataxe) make SENSE per the "Tiny and Large Weapon Damage" table (both do 3d6), but to have both 2d6 and d12 scale to the same 3d6 means that making a greatsword (or the Hill and Stone greatclub) Large is "worse" than making a greataxe Large.
Brf wrote: Since they are not actually enlarged there is no stacking problem with an actual Enlarge effect. Well, no problem with spikes, sure - but Bashing MIGHT have a problem due to the multiple magic effects rule. And with each other (Bashing & spikes) - there's been developer comment that they shouldn't stack, and my reword of the spike description was meant to make that clear. Without some clarification, it'll remain debatable.
Recent threads in Rules Questions
|
