Magical + Non-magical size increases and stacking


Rules Questions

51 to 100 of 221 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

thorin001 wrote:
Why should Enlarge Person work when other effects do not? If size stacking does notwork then size stacking does not work.

Because the other effects act as if "one size category larger than they actually are"

And Enlarge Person changes the size that they "actually are"

I don't think multiple "as if" abilities would stack, because they both reference the size you "actually are" which hasn't changed.

Sczarni

thorin001 wrote:
Why should Enlarge Person work when other effects do not? If size stacking does notwork then size stacking does not work.

Say you're wielding a medium-sized longsword.

That longsword "actually is" medium-sized.

If you are enlarged, you're now wielding a large-sized longsword.

The longsword "actually is" large-sized.

If you then cast Lead Blades, your large-sized longsword deals damage "as if" it was one size larger.

But it's still large-sized. It's just dealing damage as if it was huge. Its "virtual size", if you will, is huge. Its "actual size" is large.

All of the effects in my original post are "virtual" size increases, and, IMO, and many others', don't stack.


Nefreet wrote:
thorin001 wrote:
Why should Enlarge Person work when other effects do not? If size stacking does notwork then size stacking does not work.

Say you're wielding a medium-sized longsword.

That longsword "actually is" medium-sized.

If you are enlarged, you're now wielding a large-sized longsword.

The longsword "actually is" large-sized.

If you then cast Lead Blades, your large-sized longsword deals damage "as if" it was one size larger.

But it's still large-sized. It's just dealing damage as if it was huge. Its "virtual size", if you will, is huge. Its "actual size" is large.

All of the effects in my original post are "virtual" size increases, and, IMO, and many others', don't stack.

I agree that that is the way they should work, but rules wise you can't have it both ways. If Bashing does not stack with spikes then neither would stack with Enlarge Person.

Lead Blades and Impact do not stack because they are using the same ability (Lead Blades) to achieve the size increase.

Sczarni

Rules wise you can have it both ways. One ability changes your actual size. The other ability states "as if X size categories larger than it actually is".

Different rules.

If one ability states "as if 2 size categories larger than it actually is", and another ability states "as if 1 size category larger than it actually is", they do not add together to deal damage "as if 3 size categories larger than it actually is". You'd take the better of the two abilities. This is called "overlap".

Grand Lodge

Nefreet wrote:
Exactly. So, say for example you're a Tengu Warpriest with two claw attacks at 1d3/each. You take Weapon Focus (Claw). Your claws now deal 1d6/each. You take Improved Natural Attack (Claw). Your Claws now deal 1d8/each.

Not that this is applicable to the topic as a whole, but I'm pretty sure this is applicable here. Warpriests can only have one sacred weapon. If a warpriest's sacred weapon is a dagger, and that warpriest is TWF with daggers, only one of those daggers is the priest's sacred weapon. So in that same regard (unless you're talking about multiple attacks from high bab with a single claw, which isn't how I read it), only one of the tengu's claws can be a sacred weapon and the offhand would deal damage normally.

This is from a dev post in the character playtest beta forums (I'm fairly certain it was a dev post, I haven't read it recently) to point out that dual wielding wouldn't be as awesome as it seemed to be.

Sczarni

Do you have a link? As it is now, any weapon the Warpriest has Weapon Focus in is treated as a Sacred Weapon.

My Thunder & Fang Warpriest will be sad indeed if he can no longer treat both his Earth Breaker and his Klar as Sacred Weapons.


claudekennilol wrote:
Nefreet wrote:
Exactly. So, say for example you're a Tengu Warpriest with two claw attacks at 1d3/each. You take Weapon Focus (Claw). Your claws now deal 1d6/each. You take Improved Natural Attack (Claw). Your Claws now deal 1d8/each.

Not that this is applicable to the topic as a whole, but I'm pretty sure this is applicable here. Warpriests can only have one sacred weapon. If a warpriest's sacred weapon is a dagger, and that warpriest is TWF with daggers, only one of those daggers is the priest's sacred weapon. So in that same regard (unless you're talking about multiple attacks from high bab with a single claw, which isn't how I read it), only one of the tengu's claws can be a sacred weapon and the offhand would deal damage normally.

This is from a dev post in the character playtest beta forums (I'm fairly certain it was a dev post, I haven't read it recently) to point out that dual wielding wouldn't be as awesome as it seemed to be.

Was this maybe from the first round of playtest? I was fairly certain that you could dual weild sacred weapons and it was one of the few ways to build a hilarious thrown weapon character; that is quick draw, rapid shot and TWF with Starknives.

Grand Lodge

Torbyne wrote:
claudekennilol wrote:
Nefreet wrote:
Exactly. So, say for example you're a Tengu Warpriest with two claw attacks at 1d3/each. You take Weapon Focus (Claw). Your claws now deal 1d6/each. You take Improved Natural Attack (Claw). Your Claws now deal 1d8/each.

Not that this is applicable to the topic as a whole, but I'm pretty sure this is applicable here. Warpriests can only have one sacred weapon. If a warpriest's sacred weapon is a dagger, and that warpriest is TWF with daggers, only one of those daggers is the priest's sacred weapon. So in that same regard (unless you're talking about multiple attacks from high bab with a single claw, which isn't how I read it), only one of the tengu's claws can be a sacred weapon and the offhand would deal damage normally.

This is from a dev post in the character playtest beta forums (I'm fairly certain it was a dev post, I haven't read it recently) to point out that dual wielding wouldn't be as awesome as it seemed to be.

Was this maybe from the first round of playtest? I was fairly certain that you could dual weild sacred weapons and it was one of the few ways to build a hilarious thrown weapon character; that is quick draw, rapid shot and TWF with Starknives.

I would think it was from the second round, but I don't recall. Since it comes out in a month I wouldn't worry about too much either way until it's in print. This is the character I'm really looking forward to so I'll just wait and see what happens.


What an entirely sensible and not in tune with the book preview threads kind of comment. :P

Grand Lodge

Torbyne wrote:
What an entirely sensible and not in tune with the book preview threads kind of comment. :P

Maybe I haven't been around here long enough, then ;)

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Jumping into this late.

Much of this revolves around the "Stacking Spells and Magical Effects" section. There is debate on whether this covers non-magical things. There is also debate on whether or not it is limited to Spells despite the title of the section is "Spells and Magical Effects."

Scarred Wanderer was listed as an example. But NPC stat blocks are a bad example of rules. They are not written by the dev team and are not often passed through enough vetting to confirm they have implemented the rules correctly. The NPC Codex is one book with many known errors in NPC's. This could be another.

I looked through all the PFS scenarios (also listed above as proof of stacking) and there are no bashing spiked shield examples. #0-39 and #2-04 both have bashing shields but neither are spiked.

The whole "as if one/two size" language is frequently use and frequently differently interpreted. I'd love to see one FAQ because it would cover so many different effects:
Spiked Shield/Bashing
Improved Natural Attack/Strong Jaw
Various spell effects
Enlarge Person/Polymorph effects that change size

Sczarni

I don't think the rules for magical effects and stacking applies at all in this instance.

Or, at least, not for me.

I base my opinion solely on the language "as if one or more size categories larger than it actually is".

The only two instances I can think of that haven't been ruled on are Spiked Shields and Bashing, and Improved Natural Attack and Strong Jaw, as I mentioned in the original post.

I can't think of any other similar combinations, except for Lead Blades and Impact, and that's already been ruled on.

Dark Archive

Robert A Matthews wrote:

Two reasons that rule doesn't apply.

I'd like to reiterate a statement I made in the other thread about the Shillelagh spell. This spell states that a druid's club or quarterstaff deals 2d6 damage if medium and 3d6 if large. There is also the Scarred Wanderer which uses a Heavy Spiked Shield of Bashing and is listed as dealing 2d6 damage.

** spoiler omitted **

** spoiler omitted **...

Thank you so much for citing the Scarred Wanderer from the NPC Codex! It proves, at least until we get official word otherwise. That Bashing and Shields spikes do indeed stack. We have been fighting over this in my games for awhile now.

Sczarni

1 person marked this as a favorite.

You may continue to fight over it until it gets answered. The NPC Codex is riddled with errors (like Animal Companions gaining iterative Bite attacks), and is a big reason why I am critical of the Scarred Wanderer as an example.

But, yes, it is something that's in print, so it's better than nothing.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber

I admit I didn't read all of the post but it's not like you can "glue" spikes onto a shield. The shield is either made with or without spikes from start. That's why I believe that Spiked Shield of Bashing would multi differently than a Shield of Bashing. The spikes are part of said shield.

Dark Archive

Nefreet wrote:

You may continue to fight over it until it gets answered. The NPC Codex is riddled with errors (like Animal Companions gaining iterative Bite attacks), and is a big reason why I am critical of the Scarred Wanderer as an example.

But, yes, it is something that's in print, so it's better than nothing.

Bah, well that's good to know. But hey at least an example in print, like you said. But it doesn't seem to have changed from the old 3.5 FAQ entry and it at least supports the argument. So I feel pretty comfortable about it until we get official word otherwise.

Lost Ohioian wrote:
I admit I didn't read all of the post but it's not like you can "glue" spikes onto a shield. The shield is either made with or without spikes from start. That's why I believe that Spiked Shield of Bashing would multi differently than a Shield of Bashing. The spikes are part of said shield.

It has to be added during the creation process, correct?

Sczarni

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tignous 'Tig' Nio wrote:
Lost Ohioian wrote:
I admit I didn't read all of the post but it's not like you can "glue" spikes onto a shield. The shield is either made with or without spikes from start. That's why I believe that Spiked Shield of Bashing would multi differently than a Shield of Bashing. The spikes are part of said shield.
It has to be added during the creation process, correct?

Nobody knows the answer to that question, either. IRL you can either construct a Spiked Shield from the start, or add spikes at a later date, but the game doesn't define when this happens. Many people believe it must be constructed as such from the start, and cite the similarity in cost modifiers to that of a special material, but really there's no strong inclination from the text as to how it occurs.

Sczarni

Figured I'd bring this thread back to the top, considering another recent development:

Worrying implications of size scaling and brawlers


So, I'm guessing no. However, has there been any word on this? A future claw using Monk of mine would be much interested in learning what happens to their damage under the effects of:

  • Feral Combat Training
  • INA
  • Lead Blades
  • Strong Jaw
  • Titan Strike
  • Size Increase (Medium to Huge)

Though, several of those could be argued as not working regardless I wager.


my interpretation: i feel that there's different size 'sources':

-'actual' size of the weapon (such as a medium creature wielding a large-sized weapon)
-'virtual' size of the weapon via feats (INA, titan strike, etc.)
-'actual' size of the weapon via spells (enlarge person, righteous might, other polymorph effects, etc.)
-'virtual' size of the weapon via spells (lead blades, strong jaw, etc.)

each source couldn't stack with itself, but could stack with ones form other categories.

that leaves shield spikes sitting in a weird limbo of being a 'virtual' increase via a physical change to the weapon (but not adjusting it's physical size, or granted by a feat or spell).

.
@legowaffles:
taking the best from each category off of your list of choices would bring the total size increases to...
+3 'virtual' (INA, strong jaw) and +1 'actual' (enlarge) total? that's still pretty hefty i'd think.

end result would have your character as a large-sized creature (with all the space and reach that requires/allows), who would hit like a colossal-sized creature.

.
(EDIT: clarity)

Sczarni

AndIMustMask wrote:
that leaves shield spikes sitting in a weird limbo of being a 'virtual' increase via a physical change to the weapon (but not adjusting it's physical size, or granted by a feat or spell).

Magical + Non-magical?


Nefreet wrote:
AndIMustMask wrote:
that leaves shield spikes sitting in a weird limbo of being a 'virtual' increase via a physical change to the weapon (but not adjusting it's physical size, or granted by a feat or spell).
Magical + Non-magical?

i could see it falling into the feat category, yeah. change it to 'mundane' for clarity maybe?

so you could have a large-sized (+1 'actual' mundane) spiked (+1 'virtual' mundane) bashing (+2 'virtual' magical) light steel quickdraw shield while under the effects of enlarge person (+1 'actual' magical).

in total your character would be large-sized (for reach/space), wielding a huge-sized shield, that bashes as if colossal+1 (not sure if theres an actual thing for that though).

then tack on effortless lace to ease the size penalty and go about your merry way i guess.


AndIMustMask wrote:

my interpretation: i feel that there's different size 'sources':

-'actual' size of the weapon (such as a medium creature wielding a large-sized weapon)
-'virtual' size of the weapon via feats (INA, titan strike, etc.)
-'actual' size of the weapon via spells (enlarge person, righteous might, other polymorph effects, etc.)
-'virtual' size of the weapon via spells (lead blades, strong jaw, etc.)

each source couldn't stack with itself, but could stack with ones form other categories.

that leaves shield spikes sitting in a weird limbo of being a 'virtual' increase via a physical change to the weapon (but not adjusting it's physical size, or granted by a feat or spell).

.
@legowaffles:
taking the best from each category off of your list of choices would bring the total size increases to...
+3 'virtual' (INA, strong jaw) and +1 'actual' (enlarge) total? that's still pretty hefty i'd think.

end result would have your character as a large-sized creature (with all the space and reach that requires/allows), who would hit like a colossal-sized creature.

.
(EDIT: clarity)

Actually, given my size would be Huge, it could be argued that I'd be doing more damage than a colossal sized creature. At the very least, I've never seen anything that suggest damage ceases to increase once you hit colossal. Ideally, this FAQ Request would answer that question as well.


ah, didn't see you were increasing from medium to huge, rather than medium to large. that'd put you at colossal+1, yeah.


PRD Shield Spikes wrote:
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.

When I read this, I'm at a loss as to why this would not apply to a shield with the Bashing property.

Let's say a large shield with Bashing does 1d8. If that were a spiked shield, then you'd follow the rule and damage, "as if the shield were designed for a creature one size category larger than you."

I don't see the confusion.

Now, I would like to know if Lead Blades and Bashing stack as they are based on different spells.

Nefreet seems to focus on this phrasing:

PRD wrote:
as if one size category larger than they actually are.

I'm not sure if this the basis for stacking or not. It's possible that the devs will look at the nature of the effect and that will have more to do with whether things stack. Lead Blades increases the

"momentum and density of your melee weapons just as they strike a foe."

This is a completely different type of effect than Bashing, which is based on the Bull's Strength spell and isn't clear on how/why the damage increases. Of course both spells are Transmutation, so that could work against stacking.

Nefreet wrote:
We know from the "Lead Blades and Impact" FAQ that "similar effects" such as these do not stack. But those are both magical effects. What happens when a magical damage-increasing effect and a non-magical damage-increasing effect interact?

The problem with referencing this FAQ is that the FAQ explicitly states that Impact is powered by a Lead Blades spell.

From a fairness/"balance" perspective, I am hard pressed to see how letting Bashing and Lead Blades stack as being an issue. Shield-toting Rangers/Hunters are hardly breaking the game, so we'd have to look for some form of exploitation. Most likely you're looking at someone dipping Ranger/Hunter to get access to the spell through a wand.

How often do we see this happen in general? How many Barbarians or TH Fighters are dipping Ranger to get to Lead Blades? What about Rogues using UMD or dipping? Using a wand in combat eats an attack and/or move actions. I'm guessing that going from 2d6 to 3d6 by the time you can afford a Shield of Bashing is probably not going to break the game or marginalize other comparable classes at that level.

Are there other implications outside of LB and Bashing? If these two stack, does that mean we have other things that would have to stack that we don't want to?

Sczarni

Bashing, Lead Blades, and Shield Spikes (as well as INA, Strong Jaw, Shillelagh, and probably others) all use the same language:

"as if X size categories larger than they actually are"

Bashing would overlap Lead Blades, just as Shillelagh would overlap Lead Blades, since 2 > 1.

This, as far as I've encountered, is not up for debate.

What *is* still questionable is whether a non-magical dice-increasing effect, such as Shield Spikes, or Improved Natural Attack, sufficiently increases the actual base damage dice, which could then be enhanced by another effect, dealing damage "as if X size categories larger than the already enhanced size".

Personally, I don't believe any of these stack, but there's enough of an opposition that it requires clarification in the form of an FAQ (as ~100 other posters thus far seem inclined to agree upon).

Until that FAQ is released, YMMV.

(I recommend reading the whole thread, though. There's good stuff in here)


Nefreet wrote:


"as if X size categories larger than they actually are"

Yes, you keep coming back to that as if it's written somewhere that his automatically precludes stacking. While I can agree that this does suggest an intent to preclude stacking, I don't see anything official in any of the threads you've linked which states this. There's nothing that precludes the devs from saying, "apply one and then apply the other based on the modification of the first." We've certainly seen some official rulings that defy common perceptions about the game. And even if they allow stacking, the gaming world is not going to implode or suddenly cause Rogues to be the dominant class.

Quote:
(I recommend reading the whole thread, though. There's good stuff in here)

I've read the whole thread and its filled with opinions.

If I've misses some official statement saying Bashing and Lead Blades don't stack, please link it. One increases the weapon's momentum and density the other improves the shield through Bull's Strength. Otherwise, they are not similar effects, they are simply using the same method for determining the benefit. Qualitatively, there's no reason they can't stack.

Maybe they don't stack. But that's not clear from anything that's been posted.

Sczarni

If you've joined one of those "I'm only going to listen to official rulings, and everything else is opinion" camps, then our discussion is over.

But I've participated in discussions with you in the past, and I've respected what you've had to say, and how you've gone about it, so I'm going to believe that hasn't happened to you.

So, let's rationalize through this.

A medium-sized club gets targeted with Shillelagh. It now deals damage "as if" it was a huge-sized club. But its "actual size" is still medium.

If the same club was then targeted by Lead Blades, whose effect is "one size category larger than it actually is", you'd have a medium-sized club dealing damage "as if" it was large-sized.

Which wouldn't help you, since your club was already dealing huge-sized damage.

With me so far?

Sczarni

And, let's leave this sort of rhetoric out of the discussion. I've never gone there. You needn't, either.

N N 959 wrote:
And even if they allow stacking, the gaming world is not going to implode or suddenly cause Rogues to be the dominant class


Nefreet wrote:
If you've joined one of those "I'm only going to listen to official rulings, and everything else is opinion" camps, then our discussion is over.

And if you've joined the club that your interpretation of how something works is tantamount to how it works, then yes, there's no point in discussing it. And that's how your posts come off when you state that Lead Blades and Bashing don't stack as if it's an actually written rule.

Quote:
So, let's rationalize through this.

Let's talk about what outcome makes sense for the game and/or the way the devs think. While I completely understand your rational in focusing on "actual size," that in and of it self means little in light of all the loose language and odd ball interactions this game produces.

Quote:
A medium-sized club gets targeted with Shillelagh. It now deals damage "as if" it was a huge-sized club. But its "actual size" is still medium.

You do know that Shillelagh doesn't use the phrase "actual size" right?

Yes, I understand your logic. It has merit. But let's look at a very interesting FAQ which you've linked.

FAQ wrote:

Weapon Special Ability, Impact: Does this stack with the lead blades spell?

No. The weapon special ability and the spell are similar effects; note that impact lists lead blades as a construction requirement.

What's interesting about this FAQ is what they didn't say. They didn't address Bashing, Lead Blades, shield spikes, and most importantly, they didn't talk about "as if the actual size". This FAQ was an opportunity to kill three or four birds with one stone and they didn't do it. They could have said...,

"When an effect is based on a weapon's actual size, use only the largest increase."

or

"When an effect increases the weapons damage "as if", use only the largest size modifier that applies."

Several of the discussions you linked, predate this FAQ. So the devs knew the question was out there and yet they didn't specifically foreclose the stacking of Lead Blades and Bashing. It's important to know that Impact provides a "kinetic jolt" as if the weapon were one size larger. This is qualitatively similar to what Lead Blades does. I should also point out that Impact does not use the phrase "actual size." So the non-stacking with Lead Blades may have absolutely nothing to do with the mechanics, but instead with the qualitative manner in how they are both are affecting the weapon

Everyone seems to agree that Lead Blades works with Shield Spikes, yes? We also agree that Enlarge Person and Lead Blades stack, yes?

It's not unreasonable to think Lead Blades works with both Bashing and Bashing works with shield spikes. If you want to say that you don't think some of these stack because they are based on the "actual size" of the weapon, that's fine. But that's still your interpretation at this point.


Nefreet wrote:

And, let's leave this sort of rhetoric out of the discussion. I've never gone there. You needn't, either.

N N 959 wrote:
And even if they allow stacking, the gaming world is not going to implode or suddenly cause Rogues to be the dominant class
TGMaxMaxer wrote:
I really hate how people ask for a biased FAQ.

As with TGMaxer, I perceive a bias/slant from your posts that you think this is unfair. I get the same thing from other posters. Based on what I perceive, I'm exposing the hypocrisy in such an approach.

I both this thread and the other thread, you come off as trying to dictate what the the rule should be as if you're trying to influence others and stop people from allowing them to stack.


My 2 cents on the matter, INA stacking seems fine as natural attacks tend to be weaker, but bashing plus spikes make a weapon that does as much as a 2 handed weapon and is easily dual wielded, and that seems a tad over the top. i will say i have no backup to these statemnts so ill follow any official ruling that comes of this though

Sczarni

@ N N 959:

The FAQ we have now (Impact and Lead Blades) exists because the frequently asked question at the time was "Do Impact and Lead Blades stack?"

When a narrow question is asked, a narrow response is given.

So, since questions still exist regarding other similar rules elements, I created this FAQ request to address them.

I'm allowed to have a voice in this discussion. I can state what I believe the answer to be, and provide evidence, just as you can.

But the question this thread is asking isn't about Lead Blades and Bashing, or Impact and Shillelagh.

It's about non-magical increases stacking with magical increases.

In that regard, I tried (as with all of the FAQ requests I've had answered, and hope to have answered) to phrase the question with as little bias as possible.

Rereading it again now, I do not see what you apparently see, so if it comes across as biased to you, please point out my error.

But do not confuse the question I am asking, with how I feel it should be answered.

That is not bias, and if you think it is, then you (and every other poster) are equally as guilty. Either way, we're all on the same playing field.

And one other point.

The FAQ we have states two reasons why Lead Blades and Impact don't stack. One is because Lead Blades is a requirement of Impact. The other reason they don't stack is because they are "similar effects".

Even if we disagree on "actual size" vs "virtual size", you'd be hard pressed to argue that they aren't "similar effects".


"Nefreet"The FAQ we have states [b wrote:

two[/b] reasons why Lead Blades and Impact don't stack. One is because Lead Blades is a requirement of Impact. The other reason they don't stack is because they are "similar effects".

Even if we disagree on "actual size" vs "virtual size", you'd be hard pressed to argue that they aren't "similar effects".

The FAQ only gives one reason: "similar effects."

It "notes" that Impact uses Lead Blades as one of its spells. It also uses Bull's Strength.

What is not clear is what the devs are talking about when they say "similar". Are they talking about the fact that Impact uses a "kinetic jolt" and that Lead Blades increases density and momentum? Or are they referring to the "as if" mechanic?

I don't know, do you? What I am certain of is that there is nothing that specifically states these two do not stack.

Here's another fact, not all of the effects use the same OOC language.

The damage is "as if..."

shield spikes = "...the shield were designed for a creature one size category larger than you."

Bashing = "...it were a weapon of two size categories larger."

Lead Blades = "...one size category larger than they actually are."

Impact = "...the weapon were one size category larger."

Shillelagh ="...it were two size categories larger."

I legitimately don't see why Shillelagh and Lead Blades would automatically not stack. Shay-shay makes the weapon deal damage like it's two categories larger and LB makes it heavier and denser than it would be.

As I stated, two things can give a "similar effect" such as a +1 bonus to attack and stack because they are from different qualitative effects: morale bonus and a competence bonus. Shay-shay doesn't say why the weapon does more damage so the reason is untyped. Untyped bonuses typically stack.

Now, I agree that the wording of Lead Blades suggests a built-in non-stacking interpretation, but none of the other effects use the "actually are" language, so I don't know what to make of the word choice.

EDIT:
Perhaps another way to explain this is how we view the instruction for Lead Blades. IC, the effect is "increases the momentum and density of your melee weapons just as they strike a foe". OOC, that translates to damage based on size +1 to the actual size. You are wanting to read the OOC instructions as the IC mechanism. In other words, you're viewing LB as a spell that increases damage to size +1 as the effect, and ignoring the density and momentum increase as being fluff. Now maybe that's right. But maybe it isn't.

Paizo Employee Official Rules Response

9 people marked this as a favorite.

FAQ:

FAQ wrote:

Size increases and effective size increases: How does damage work if I have various effects that change my actual size, my effective size, and my damage dice?

As per the rules on size changes, size changes do not stack, so if you have multiple size changing effects (for instance an effect that increases your size by one step and another that increases your size by two steps), only the largest applies. The same is true of effective size increases (which includes “deal damage as if they were one size category larger than they actually are,” “your damage die type increases by one step,” and similar language). They don’t stack with each other, just take the biggest one. However, you can have one of each and they do work together (for example, enlarge person increasing your actual size to Large and a bashing shield increasing your shield’s effective size by two steps, for a total of 2d6 damage).


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.

A few questions to get more clarification.

Does improved natural attack provide a "virtual" size change, or does it change the actual base damage allowing it to stack with strong jaw?

Is a spiked shield its own weapon, or do the spikes provide a "virtual" size change meaning it will not stack with lead blades?

Would a heavy spiked shield with the bashing enhancement do 1d6 or 1d8 damage?

I think that is enough to set a precedent for any other question.


Pathfinder Design Team wrote:
As per the rules on size changes, size changes do not stack, so if you have multiple size changing effects (for instance an effect that increases your size by one step and another that increases your size by two steps), only the largest applies.

Is this for all size changes or just magical ones? For example: do the Giant Creature (+1) template and enlarge person stack?

Designer

Rikkan wrote:
Pathfinder Design Team wrote:
As per the rules on size changes, size changes do not stack, so if you have multiple size changing effects (for instance an effect that increases your size by one step and another that increases your size by two steps), only the largest applies.
Is this for all size changes or just magical ones? For example: do the Giant Creature (+1) template and enlarge person stack?

Not part of the FAQ here, just me on my lonesome, but the giant creature template (or advancing a monster's size as part of a non-simple template advancement) are not considered size changes. They are the new actual base size for that creature, which happens to be bigger than a usual creature would be, similarly to how a Large giant spider and a Huge giant spider are different base sizes.


Pathfinder Design Team wrote:

FAQ:

FAQ wrote:

Size increases and effective size increases: How does damage work if I have various effects that change my actual size, my effective size, and my damage dice?

As per the rules on size changes, size changes do not stack, so if you have multiple size changing effects (for instance an effect that increases your size by one step and another that increases your size by two steps), only the largest applies. The same is true of effective size increases (which includes “deal damage as if they were one size category larger than they actually are,” “your damage die type increases by one step,” and similar language). They don’t stack with each other, just take the biggest one. However, you can have one of each and they do work together (for example, enlarge person increasing your actual size to Large and a bashing shield increasing your shield’s effective size by two steps, for a total of 2d6 damage).

I don't like it. =(

I was looking forward to my Mythic Tetori being able to hit like a Gargantuan creature with his Unarmed Strikes instead of Huge once I got Stonefist Gloves (already have Titan Strike and the ability to get large when Raging).

One wonders why Titan Strike even exists if you can get its effect with only 10k gp.


Mark Seifter wrote:
Not part of the FAQ here, just me on my lonesome, but the giant creature template (or advancing a monster's size as part of a non-simple template advancement) are not considered size changes. They are the new actual base size for that creature, which happens to be bigger than a usual creature would be, similarly to how a Large giant spider and a Huge giant spider are different base sizes.

Aha, I see; I was wondering because the template says: "Rebuild Rules: Size increase by one category;"


So, you can have:

Base Size + Actual Size Increase + "As If" Size Increase on Damage

Right?

Actual Size Increase: (Examples)
Enlarge Person
Giant Form
Form of Dragon
Shapechange

"As If" Size Increase on Damage: (Examples)
Impact Weapon
Improved Natural Attack Feat
Lead Blades
Strong Jaw
Bashing Shield

This is going to be asked, so I'll ask already, what about wielding weapons of a bigger size, like Titan Mauler using a 2h weapon in one hand, a weapon that is actualy of larger size, not "as if".

Also, I always thought Bashing shield property was an exception to make shields balanced weapons.


I always thought INA increased base damage.


wraithstrike wrote:
I always thought INA increased base damage.

For me, it can go either way. Does it make you more skilled in attacking with that attack allowing you to inflict more damage[as if] OR does it inprove the actual attack[actual]?

Grand Lodge

I want to know, specifically, if this effects Spiked Shields.

Especially, Bashing Spiked Shields.

I feel I should repeat:

I really want this to be specifically addressed.


blackbloodtroll wrote:

I want to know, specifically, if this effects Spiked Shields.

Especially, Bashing Spiked Shields.

I feel I should repeat:

I really want this to be specifically addressed.

Yep.


blackbloodtroll wrote:

I want to know, specifically, if this effects Spiked Shields.

Especially, Bashing Spiked Shields.

I feel I should repeat:

I really want this to be specifically addressed.

I brought this up in my post also alone with 2 other questions.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
Bashing: A shield with this special ability is designed to perform a shield bash. A bashing shield deals damage as if it were a weapon of two size categories larger (a Medium light shield thus deals 1d6 points of damage and a Medium heavy shield deals 1d8 points of damage). The shield acts as a +1 weapon when used to bash. Only light and heavy shields can have this ability.
Quote:

Size increases and effective size increases: How does damage work if I have various effects that change my actual size, my effective size, and my damage dice?

As per the rules on size changes, size changes do not stack, so if you have multiple size changing effects (for instance an effect that increases your size by one step and another that increases your size by two steps), only the largest applies. The same is true of effective size increases (which includes “deal damage as if they were one size category larger than they actually are,” “your damage die type increases by one step,” and similar language). They don’t stack with each other, just take the biggest one. However, you can have one of each and they do work together (for example, enlarge person increasing your actual size to Large and a bashing shield increasing your shield’s effective size by two steps, for a total of 2d6 damage).

It looks to me like two virtual size increases and therefore wouldn't stack. Am I missing something?


Why could they not just say one physical and one magical?

Enlarge is a physical change, Lead blades is Magical.

Shield Spikes is a physical change, Bashing is magical.

INA is a physical change, Strong Jaw is magical.

That covers every corner case that has been brought up here.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Rynjin wrote:
I don't like it. =(

Many won't like it, but it is something that has has a lot of people on both sides. It does shut down my INA + Strong Jaw Druid. But I'm on board with I was running the rules incorrectly to this point.


James Risner wrote:
Rynjin wrote:
I don't like it. =(
Many won't like it, but it is something that has has a lot of people on both sides. It does shut down my INA + Strong Jaw Druid. But I'm on board with I was running the rules incorrectly to this point.

This isn't one I necessarily disagree with, but it does make me kinda sad.

I wanted to swing 6d8 punches or whatever.

Shouldn't affect INA though, should it? It increases the die by 1 step, not increases the size, technically.

51 to 100 of 221 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Magical + Non-magical size increases and stacking All Messageboards