|
| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
If I had a lvl 12 monk, and had elemental form 3 on him (makes him large) then had enlarge cast on him, and he had impact on his amulet of mighty fists and had animal aspect gorilla on him.. what would his dmg be?
I know at huge the 2d6 would go to 4d8, but past that I'm unsure.
Multiple magical effects that increase size do not stack.
Doesn't work. Lead Blades-type effects still stack, and add to damage dice as other things... I'm not sure if this is theorycraft or a specific situation, so if you want me to parse through the dice-damage-size stuff, give me something in another post?
Polymorphing someone is a magical effect.
Polymorphing someone to be larger than they are increases their size.
Ergo, polymorphing is a magical effect that increases size. Ergo, it does not stack with Enlarge person.
Casting Enlarge person on someone who is polymorphed to be larger would not function.
However. 2d6 medium -> 3d6 large -> 4d6 huge -> 6d6 Gargantuan -> 8d6 Colossal -> 12d6 Colossal+1
Dice double every 2 increases - for a start, go to the Equipment page of the CRB, it's got weapon damage in dice by size in a table.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
I've used the search function, but at the same time nothing ever comes up other than extrapolation. It was actually one of the posts that prompted me to put this one up.
My own guess is that in this hypothetical you go as follows
med (2d6) to large 3d6
med 2d6 to huge 4d8 (look at tiny 2d6 to large size...)
At this point we're left extrapolating further...
med 2d6 to gargantuan 5d10
med 2d6 to gargantuan+ 6d12
You're actively ignoring my post.
The rule for damage dice based on size are simple. Take the value for your creature. When it increases from medium to large, apply the change found under the "Table: Tiny and Large Weapon Damage" in the Equipment section of the Core Rulebook.
For a 2d6 medium weapon, you have a 3d6 large weapon.
After that point, the dice double for every two sizes you gain.
So when you go from a large weapon dealing 3d6 to a huge weapon, you deal 4d6 - double the 2d6 of a medium, which is two sizes smaller.
When you go from a huge weapon dealing 4d6 to a gargantuan weapon, you deal 6d6, which is twice the 3d6 of large, which is two sizes smaller.
When you go from a gargantuan weapon dealing 6d6 to a colossal weapon, you deal 8d6, which is twice the 4d6 of huge, which is two sizes smaller.
When you go from a colossal weapon dealing 8d6 to a size-enhanced colossal weapon - such as one held by a colossal creature under the effect of Lead Blades - you deal 12d6, which is twice the 2d6 of the theoretical "2 sizes smaller" than Colossal+1
You don't change the type of dice after you reach Large with a d6. With other sizes it's trickier, but d6 is the simplest by far. 6d12 is certainly not correct for colossal - which is the size above gargantuan.
|
|
Your extrapolation is terrible.
1d2 => 1d3 => 1d4 => 1d6 => 1d8 => 2d6 => 3d6 => 4d6 => 6d6 => 8d6 => 12d6 => 16d6 => 24d6
Damage dice roughly doubles every other size increase, whether natural or manufactured. Exceptions exist, but there are many examples given where this progression fits perfectly. We can look to feats, spells, and Bestiary examples as evidence.
EDIT: Ninja'd by Bronnwynn
|
|
*sigh*
If you'd done a simple search, you would have found answers to your questions (read: 4th time since Tuesday), and we could be enjoying ourselves doing something else right now.
Look at the feat Improved Natural Attack.
Read the spell Strong Jaw.
Look at any Colossal sized creature from the Bestiaries.
Please actually be open to accepting the evidence that is out there.
|
|
I'm asking other than an unreasonable extrapolation (it's much more reasonable to assume that for going up two sizes you'd find a table that matches it to some degree and extrapolate from there... in which case you discover tiny (2d6) to large is (4d8))
Constantly harping that it stays at d6s and just doubles doesn't make logical sense when you look at the tables provided for monk and equipment.
and we could be enjoying ourselves doing something else right now.
I resent that accusation.
Anyways, yes. There's multitudes of evidence that it is in fact the way that the other two people here are telling you, and no actual evidence for your position. Unless you can find a rules quote somewhere that counters what we're saying, please leave it be.
Edit:
Monk fist damage progression is special, and has nothing to do with size.
Every other change in weapon dice above the size of large keeps the same type of dice. There is evidence of this in multiple feats graciously quoted by nefreet. There is still no evidence against this.
|
|
if we look at monsters advancement from 1d6
we see 1d6 to 1d8 to 2d6 to 2d8 to 4d6 (already a different progression)
we also don't see a table that progresses beyond that.
So it's clear the assumption of increases to the die are incorrect going from one size to two sizes larger.
If we take the same pattern of d6 to d8 then back to d6 then d8...
we could say
2d6 ->2d8 ->4d6 ->4d8 ->8d6 -> 8d8
Or you can look at the existing weapon table and realise tiny weapon (2d6) goes to medium (2d10) to large (4d8)
Neither of the above examples hold a consistant "only d6" pattern
|
|
Also, exceptions exist.
The general rule is doubling every other size category. For creatures with d10s it gets tricky, but just today in the other thread I showed that alternating d8s and d10s keeps pace with average damage increases similar to doubling d6s.
EDIT: and what does that progression show?
Doubling every other step.
|
|
what I've shown is that depending on where you look you can extrapolate it several ways, none of which have any clear guide to how to extraplote them beyond what's in the table.
You could take one of three different stances and get different numbers.
There is also no general rule that explains how to do this.
Going off of extrapolation my way the end result could be 6d12 (6-72)
going off of yours we could get 8d6(8-54)
or just going off the alternating pattern 8d8(8-64)
All of which are fairly different values.
We can find inconsistancies with either of the above three methods by comparing them to a different source. To be condescending and declare your way correct is a bit rude to say the least. The idea was to get an FAQ on this... not "look at what we've already said even though we're not rule sources and clearly have errors"
You could take one of three different stances and get different numbers.
You can take one of three different stances. Unfortunately for some people, two of those stances are incorrect.
This'll be my last post of beating my head against the wall on this, though.
Each natural attack that creature makes deals damage as if the creature were two sizes larger than it actually is. If the creature is already Gargantuan or Colossal-sized, double the amount of damage dealt by each of its natural attacks instead
This (among others) sets the standard that two sizes doubles damage in the absence of a table saying otherwise..
Medium->Large progression for 2d6->3d6 sets the standard for it being xd6s.
Extrapolation leads to the numbers Nefreet and I have shown you again and again. If you wish to use different numbers, you are free to house rule it. But that would be just that - house ruling it, not going by RAW.
On the origonal size thing. the polymorph rules prevent aditional size effects while you are polymorphed. the fact that enlarge person isnt a polymorph effect is irrelevant.
|
|
lets look at the d10 issue.
(small to med to large)
lvl 1 1d4 -> 1d6 -> 1d8
lvl 4 1d6 -> 1d8 -> 2d6
lvl 8 1d8 -> 1d10 -> 2d8
lvl 12 1d10 -> 2d6 -> 3d6
lvl 16 2d6 -> 2d8 -> 3d8
lvl 20 2d8 -> 2d10 -> 4d8
we see that so far the monk table is following the weapon table perfectly (and the monster table) as far as single die progression.
Now neither the monk nor the monster table have anything for what happens from 2d6 past large but if you look at the weapon table we see tiny 2d6 goes to 2d10 (med) to 4d8 large..
which does not fit a pattern of just doubling the existing creature table. (because if we look at 1d6 increased two sizes we see it's simply 2d6 so we can't simply say it's 8d6 and call it a day for a colossal monk @lvl 12)
I personally believe they hosed the table and didn't give it a true pattern, but one that's largely based off an idea of how they felt things should progress.
|
|
someone doesn't believe in math or science apparently as fact rather than fiction...
at any rate for this game we can prove patterns or not, we know this does not have pattern we can reasonably infer, so we need the designers of the game to tell us what happens or we have table variation of 6d12s, 12d6s, 8d8s... etc
|
|
You're the only one who's refusing to accept the patterns in place. I am unsure why you feel the need to focus on an outlier. It's not I who is unfamiliar with statistics and proofs.
Since you obviously haven't looked up the examples I've given, I'll post them here, and be done with it.
Each natural attack that creature makes deals damage as if the creature were two sizes larger than it actually is. If the creature is already Gargantuan or Colossal-sized, double the amount of damage dealt by each of its natural attacks instead.
^ Establishing a general rule that damage dice double every other size category.
The damage for this natural attack increases by one step on the following list, as if the creature's size had increased by one category.
Damage dice increase as follows: 1d2, 1d3, 1d4, 1d6, 1d8, 2d6, 3d6, 4d6, 6d6, 8d6, 12d6.
A weapon or attack that deals 1d10 points of damage increases as follows: 1d10, 2d8, 3d8, 4d8, 6d8, 8d8, 12d8.
^ Examples of damage dice doubling every other size category.
Bite: 1 / 1d2 / 1d3 / 1d4 / 1d6 / 1d8 / 2d6 / 2d8 / 4d6
^ Slightly different progression from INA, but still doubles with every other size category.
Longsword / 1d2 / 1d3 / 1d4 / 1d6 / 1d8 / 2d6 / 3d6 / 4d6 / 6d6
Greataxe / 1d4 / 1d6 / 1d8 / 1d10 / 1d12 / 3d6 / 4d6 / 6d6 / 8d6
Greatsword / 1d4 / 1d6 / 1d8 / 1d10 / 2d6 / 3d6 / 4d6 / 6d6 / 8d6
^ Look familiar? All that changed from 3.5 to PF was the extension of the table. But even in 3.5 the doubling pattern can be seen.
Medium / Tiny / Large
1d2 / — / 1d3
1d3 / 1 / 1d4
1d4 / 1d2 / 1d6
1d6 / 1d3 / 1d8
1d8 / 1d4 / 2d6
1d10 / 1d6 / 2d8
1d12 / 1d8 / 3d6
2d4 / 1d4 / 2d6
2d6 / 1d8 / 3d6
2d8 / 1d10 / 3d8
^ Notice that the Tiny 2d6 => Medium 2d10 => Large 4d8 is an outlier
BUT, what's the missing piece of the puzzle, here? Seems like Tiny 2d6 => Small 2d8 => Medium 2d10 => Large 4d8 can still fit within the patterns established above.
This would make Huge 4d10 => Garg 8d8 => Colossal => 8d10, or you could even go by the INA table and go 4d8 => 6d8 => 8d8.
But, again, this one example is an outlier.
Please also note that in only one example does damage ever increase to 1d12: when increasing from a tiny 1d8.
Unless you're advocating that a Tiny 1d8 going to a medium 1d12, according to this table, is the norm. If you're presenting that as the general rule, a lot of PCs, NPCs, and monsters are going to want a word with you.
Exceptions exist. Don't base your patterns off of exceptions.
Good luck with your FAQ.
|
|
Exceptions exist. Don't base your patterns off of exceptions.
The point of it all is that there is no established pattern, regardless of what you think, it's clear there isn't based on the fact there are "outliers"
Hence it needs something official said, either a revision of the table to make it actually have a pattern or an extension of the table to include variations all the way out to colossal ++ for every base damage die.
|
|
I know the feeling...
hey, what's the damage do
"I think it does this based on this"
"well what about this?"
"naw you can't count that it's an outlier, look at the other pattern"
"so there isn't a clear pattern because theirs exceptions"
"no man there's a pattern, just not that one..."
"so which do you use"
"the one I said is right"
"but there's nothing that proves it's right"
"rips hair out, goes to bed"
"agrees and writes this..."
If I had a lvl 12 monk, and had elemental form 3 on him (makes him large) then had enlarge cast on him, and he had impact on his amulet of mighty fists and had animal aspect gorilla on him.. what would his dmg be?
I know at huge the 2d6 would go to 4d8, but past that I'm unsure.
Note: I have no need for a long discussion (weekend, baby!), so I'm going to only make this one post, and you won't hear a peep out of me again, I promise.
1. Monk advancement is "special" (in that it is actually crap. You don't get a size increase with every increase in damage which is generally better.)
2. Size increases follow the Improved Natural Attack table (which gives damage increases up to 12d8 and then double that for every size increase after that).
So with these two things, we can figure out the damage for most colossal foes (and certain PCs who know how to multiclass druid and monk)
There are several problems with your concept.
- Enlarge doesn't stack with elemental form as per the polymorph rules
In addition, other spells that change your size have no effect on you while you are under the effects of a polymorph spell.
- Impact doesn't work for unarmed strikes, since
This special ability can only be placed on melee weapons that are not light weapons.
and Unarmed Strikes
An unarmed strike is always considered a light weapon.
but, assuming you are the DM or the DM's girlfriend, technically (and wrongly) this is how it would stack:
2d6 base damage (from 12 levels of Monk) -> 3d6 -> 4d6 -> 6d6 -> 8d6 (for 4 size increases).
If you want to get onto the d8 track and keep the 4 size increases, might I suggest getting a Monk's robe and becoming the DM's girlfriend?
prototype00
If you were in my home game, and you wanted to roll 6d12, whether because you have six d12s or just like rolling the least-used dice in the game, I'd probably let you do it rather than 12d6. Same average, same maximum, lower minimum.
Umm... Lower minimum? Check.
Same Maximum? Check.But... same average?
12d6 average at 12 x 3.5 = 42
6d12 average at 6 x 6.5 = 39...
ah there we go, thanks for pointing out the monster feat improved natural attack... it lays it out further than any other table.
clear and dry. no need for FAQ or long drawn out speeches about patterns to follow that aren't really patterns.
How can you say it's not a pattern after looking at improved natural attack? The pattern is clearly there, exactly the same pattern that was explained to you before. Damage doubles every other size increase.
A clear table that showed a size progression for each damage die would be wonderful. As would a million other things that are not perfectly crystal clear with the rules in any RPG system but who is going to want to buy a $400 rulebook that is 2000 pages long, full of endless tables.
Seems like OP is trying to force perfection on an imperfect world and RPG system and being intentionally obtuse when he doesn't get his way.
|
|
As would a million other things that are not perfectly crystal clear with the rules in any RPG system but who is going to want to buy a $400 rulebook that is 2000 pages long, full of endless tables.
I've played several RPGs with tables for damage die laid out ad nausem, or that gave you a "use this method to determine what's next" much how with str and carrying capacity they tell you what to do with what's beyond the table...
Oh and those rpgs I mentioned, were the same or cheaper than a core pathfinder book and around the same page length.
The point if this thread was to ask for a clear answer of what happens when you go over into unexplored size categories.
Evidently everyone agrees that such a clear answer does not actually exist, and are just trying to figure it out.
So... Lets FAQ lol
to put the polymorph doesn't stack questions to rest, "what would a mountain giant with levels in monk's unarmed damage look like at regular intervals?" would be a better question.