haha well this came up in my crossbow thread a lil while ago, I guess I'm not the only one who noticed.
I don't much care for the logic of physics etc or not. You could argue that it's magic so there shouldn't be any real effects either. Meshing physics with any magic aspect in an RP is really not agood road.
but I do just wish it was consistant with the two spells, despite being different spells they are in fact their exact opposoites, and one dispells the other. Resulting in normal size. You run into a enlarged raging barb, you might try putting reduce person to mitigate.
Further, the bonus str from enlarge perso nstill applies to that arrows damage anyway. as does the minus to dex.
also I've never seen anything about magic items blocking stuff like enlarge etc.
If that was true then you could mess up most players and several enemies by changing their size. because most won't be carrying bolts/arrows/bullets of all 3 sizes.
Consistancy would be good either way honestly. I suppose you could argue with "it's consistantly the worse for the person" but as it stands it has a ton of weird intereactions with sizes etcs. They should either both default in return to normal or both deal damage due to their weapon sizes.
I've no complaints on the thrown weapon thing since the weapon leave syour grasp and returns to size where as projectile's weapon does not.
TLDR:
The spells are literally their own opposite and dispel each other, there is no reason for that specific descriptor other than avoiding Enlarge helping ranged (hey it already takes dex away). Enlarge is the only place where a weapons damage isn't a factor of weapon size, it is literally the only place I know off where pathfinder ignores it's own rule on it, and for no reason other than avoiding enlarge benefiting range.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Your crossbow thread inspired it, Zwordsman.
I don't care for adding too much physics into fantasy. It's enough to know that gravity makes things fall, fire burns, water can drown, that night is night and day is day; without getting into too much more complicating details.
I do however expect consistency in the game rules. I don't need one spell saying gravity (in general) pulls things sideways, and another saying it moves things down (relatively speaking). When that happens it suddenly calls into question how gravity in the gaming world works, then you get people trying to argue with complicated physics and lots of confusion; when all of that could have been avoided with clear, consistent phrasing in the first place. <-- A crude analogy that I hope at least makes my point.
And I love you too LazarX.
Ravingdork wrote: Your crossbow thread inspired it, Zwordsman.
.
Oh! Haha. Cool Beans.
Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Ravingdork wrote: Your crossbow thread inspired it, Zwordsman.
I don't care for adding too much physics into fantasy. It's enough to know that gravity makes things fall, fire burns, water can drown, that night is night and day is day; without getting into too much more complicating details.
I do however expect consistency in the game rules. I don't need one spell saying gravity (in general) pulls things sideways, and another saying it moves things down (relatively speaking). When that happens it suddenly calls into question how gravity in the gaming world works, then you get people trying to argue with complicated physics and lots of confusion; when all of that could have been avoided with clear, consistent phrasing in the first place. <-- A crude analogy that I hope at least makes my point.
And I love you too LazarX.
The game uses the pre-Newton physics of the midieval world. You drop something, it falls down. Which is occasionally interrupted by the whims of a magic spell that says it falls up for a bit and comes down. Or maybe it just falls slowly depending on the spell. Magic is an Art, not a science, it has less need for consistency since there is a heavy idiosyncratic element to it. Bob's magic works the way it does because it's Bob's Magic, and those who study Bob's Magic, notice that their effects don't quite parallel those of the Disciples of Steve. For the most part though, the practitioners of Bob and Steve do tend to have a lot in common.
If I as a medium druid cast animal growth on myself.
Do my arrows deal damage as if they were medium or as if they were large?
If it counts for anything, this inconsistency has always bothered me, too.
Rikkan wrote: If I as a medium druid cast animal growth on myself.
Do my arrows deal damage as if they were medium or as if they were large?
How do you get to cast Animal growth on yourself? You aren't an animal, even when wildshaped.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Diego Rossi wrote: Rikkan wrote: If I as a medium druid cast animal growth on myself.
Do my arrows deal damage as if they were medium or as if they were large?
How do you get to cast Animal growth on yourself? You aren't an animal, even when wildshaped. Rikkan: This is exactly why we need consistency, a general rule, for without it one of two things happen: People don't know what to do (confusion) or you have to repeat the rule(s) every time a size-change comes up.
Diego: There's a feat in the new Advanced Class Guide that allows for it. The feat allows you to be treated as an animal, but only when you want to be (so yes to maximized awaken, no to favored enemy).
Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Ravingdork wrote: Diego Rossi wrote: Rikkan wrote: If I as a medium druid cast animal growth on myself.
Do my arrows deal damage as if they were medium or as if they were large?
How do you get to cast Animal growth on yourself? You aren't an animal, even when wildshaped. Rikkan: This is exactly why we need consistency, a general rule, for without it one of two things happen: People don't know what to do (confusion) or you have to repeat the rule(s) every time a size-change comes up.
Diego: There's a feat in the new Advanced Class Guide that allows for it. The feat allows you to be treated as an animal, but only when you want to be (so yes to maximized awaken, no to favored enemy). Where is the inconsistency? It can't be in the name, as Animal Growth clearly is a spell that makes Animals grow, and in the context of the game, humanoids are NOT animals. It also clearly specifies in the spell target being animals. As a spell clearly intended NOT to enlarge player character types, it's totally consistent.
Extrapolating the rule it's the smaller of the two. The size of the arrow against the size of the bow.
That's the consistency. If there is anything beyond that then there us no general rule and it comes down the the GM.
Simple.
LazarX wrote: Ravingdork wrote: Diego Rossi wrote: Rikkan wrote: If I as a medium druid cast animal growth on myself.
Do my arrows deal damage as if they were medium or as if they were large?
How do you get to cast Animal growth on yourself? You aren't an animal, even when wildshaped. Rikkan: This is exactly why we need consistency, a general rule, for without it one of two things happen: People don't know what to do (confusion) or you have to repeat the rule(s) every time a size-change comes up.
Diego: There's a feat in the new Advanced Class Guide that allows for it. The feat allows you to be treated as an animal, but only when you want to be (so yes to maximized awaken, no to favored enemy). Where is the inconsistency? It can't be in the name, as Animal Growth clearly is a spell that makes Animals grow, and in the context of the game, humanoids are NOT animals. It also clearly specifies in the spell target being animals. As a spell clearly intended NOT to enlarge player character types, it's totally consistent. Not inconsistency in the spell itself, but since there's no consistent way to handle ranged damage from a size changed creature, you don't know how to handle it when a spell doesn't specify.
LazarX wrote: Where is the inconsistency? It can't be in the name, as Animal Growth clearly is a spell that makes Animals grow, and in the context of the game, humanoids are NOT animals. It also clearly specifies in the spell target being animals. As a spell clearly intended NOT to enlarge player character types, it's totally consistent. If you have the feat animal soul Animal soul wrote: For example, you could cast animal growth or reduce animal on yourself, even though those spells normally affect only animals. you can cast it on a humanoid.
The problem is, I don't know if when under the effect of animal growth, my damage is based upon the size of my arrow or the size of my bow.
Consider the following:
Force doesn't care if it's a light object traveling fast or a heavy object traveling slow. A 5 gram object traveling at 25 m/s has the same exact force as a 25 gram object traveling at 5 m/s. The Bow imparts velocity to the projectile and nothing more. So what happens when the Arrow shrinks back down after being imparted a particular velocity by the enlarged Bow? By the laws of physics, if the mass suddenly decreased, the velocity should increase to compensate. That's conservation of energy. It's the same principal that makes an ice-skater spin faster when she starts with arms out and pulls them in. Likewise, if the mass increases, the speed should be reduced. Ergo, by conventional physics, the force should be the same in all cases.
But lets take a quick look at relative damage. A Medium Longbow deals 1d8 damage, a Small deals 1d6 damage, and a Largedeals 2d6 damage. Average it out and you get 3.5 for the Small Longbow, 4.5 for the Medium, and 7 for the Large. Additionally, the weight (and, thus, the mass) doubles for large gear and halves for small gear. From this, we should be able to derive the relative velocity for the different sized bows.
Small Longbow: 3.5 damage = 1 mass * X velocity; X velocity = 3.5
Medium Longbow: 4.5 damage = 2 mass * Y velocity; Y velocity = 2.25
Large Longbow: 7 damage = 4 mass * Z velocity; Z velocity = 1.75
A Large Longbow fires at a lower velocity than a Medium Longbow, relying on the higher mass of the Arrow to make up the difference in force. Likewise, a Small Longbow fires at a higher velocity, compensating for the reduced mass of the arrow.
Now, lets take a look at Enlarge and Reduce person. Reduce person states that projectile damage is based on the weapon that fires it (the bow's velocity). Therefore, since the attack deals 3.5 relative force worth of damage and we know the mass of the arrow is, indeed, changing, we can work out what's going on:
3.5 damage = 2 relative mass * 3.5 velocity * Q
Q = 1/2
So instead of a small Arrow of relative mass 1 traveling at a velocity of 3.5, we have a medium Arrow of relative mass 2 traveling at the original velocity of 3.5. Ordinarily, that would instantly double its Force. But, in practice, doubling the Force means doubling the penetrating power which means it is practically a given that the Arrow will go straight through the target, splitting the Force of damage between the target and whatever was behind it. By contrast, a thrown weapon isn't likely to fully pierce through the target so it just gets its force doubled and deals damage as a medium rather than as a small (technically, according to physics, it should deal damage as a large but lets keep it simple).
Now lets look at Enlarge person. Since we know that the Force is being doubled when going from Reduce to normal, we know that the Force is being halved when going from Enlarge to Normal. So, strictly speaking, if you are Enlarged and fire a Bow, you should deal less than damage than the original medium size would warrant since it's half the mass and also less velocity than a Medium Bow would impart. But, for the simplicity of mechanics, they "fudge" it up and say, "Just use your normal damage without size increases". And, since neither the projectile nor the thrown weapon gets enough force to penetrate the target, you don't have the same loss you have with the Reduced projectile.
PS: Another way to reconcile the different values that I just thought of: In the case of the Reduced->Normal projectile, the energy needed to cause the mass to increase does cause the velocity to decrease. In other words, the projectile converts its velocity into mass so the Force remains consistent. But a thrown weapon, for some reason, absorbs the energy not from its velocity but from some other source. But in the case of Enlarged->Normal, both projectile and thrown weapon are "bleeding off" energy in the conversion of mass and, in both cases, simply bleed it off into the surrounding space rather than into additional velocity. Use whichever method you prefer to fluff the mechanical happenings which are probably the way they are for pure balance considerations.
Well thats a lot of good math, so that's nifty!
but very little of pathfinder keeps to physics properly. I've never seen anyone able to throw a bastard sword 50ft. I suppose it is actually possible though..
Also I'll have to ask ,since I'm reallly not good a tphysics, but wouldn't your formula prove true on thrown items the same as projectiles though? If it normally would, then I think the spells don't follow it physics really. If it does, then thats pretty amusing.
Ravingdork wrote: Diego Rossi wrote: Rikkan wrote: If I as a medium druid cast animal growth on myself.
Do my arrows deal damage as if they were medium or as if they were large?
How do you get to cast Animal growth on yourself? You aren't an animal, even when wildshaped. Rikkan: This is exactly why we need consistency, a general rule, for without it one of two things happen: People don't know what to do (confusion) or you have to repeat the rule(s) every time a size-change comes up.
Diego: There's a feat in the new Advanced Class Guide that allows for it. The feat allows you to be treated as an animal, but only when you want to be (so yes to maximized awaken, no to favored enemy). :( That is really a bad idea. This millisecond I am an animal, the next I am not, I can change my type at will. And that will not generate confusion?
My ACG is still in the Paizo deposit, but I am not losing much if that is an example of the content.
Diego Rossi wrote:
:( That is really a bad idea. This millisecond I am an animal, the next I am not, I can change my type at will. And that will not generate confusion?
My ACG is still in the Paizo deposit, but I am not losing much if that is an example of the content.
There's also a feat that lets most divine casters add their Charisma bonus to their saves. Other than that and a couple of other things, though, the stuff in the book isn't too overpowering. Very poorly edited, but not overpowering.
Rikkan wrote: LazarX wrote: Where is the inconsistency? It can't be in the name, as Animal Growth clearly is a spell that makes Animals grow, and in the context of the game, humanoids are NOT animals. It also clearly specifies in the spell target being animals. As a spell clearly intended NOT to enlarge player character types, it's totally consistent. If you have the feat animal soul Animal soul wrote: For example, you could cast animal growth or reduce animal on yourself, even though those spells normally affect only animals. you can cast it on a humanoid.
The problem is, I don't know if when under the effect of animal growth, my damage is based upon the size of my arrow or the size of my bow. PRD - Animal growth wrote: All equipment worn or carried by the animal is similarly enlarged by the spell, though this change has no effect on the magical properties of any such equipment.
Any enlarged item that leaves the enlarged creature's possession instantly returns to its normal size.
PRD - Enlarge person wrote:
All equipment worn or carried by a creature is similarly enlarged by the spell. Melee weapons affected by this spell deal more damage (see Table: Tiny and Large Weapon Damage). Other magical properties are not affected by this spell. Any enlarged item that leaves an enlarged creature's possession (including a projectile or thrown weapon) instantly returns to its normal size. This means that thrown and projectile weapons deal their normal damage. Magical properties of enlarged items are not increased by this spell.
Reading the text of the two spells my conclusion is that the damage of the arrow would be based on the original (not enlarged) size even when under the effect of animal growth.
Reduce animal don't have this problem as ti say: "This spell functions like reduce person, except that it affects a single willing animal."
Forget Animal growth. Polymorphs only meld equipment when used to turn into an animal, dragon, elemental, magical beast, plant, or vermin unless the spell itself overrides the general polymorph rules.
What happens when a halfling archer bard uses Alter Self to turn into a half-orc or a human turns into a ratfolk?
Then there's Giant Form. That's pretty much always a size changer. Undead Anatomy can be a size changer as well.
This is not a niche problem for druids with a specific feat. It potentially comes up every time someone builds an alchemist or bard as an archer or gives a magus a ranged backup weapon.
Jeff Merola wrote: Diego Rossi wrote:
:( That is really a bad idea. This millisecond I am an animal, the next I am not, I can change my type at will. And that will not generate confusion?
My ACG is still in the Paizo deposit, but I am not losing much if that is an example of the content.
There's also a feat that lets most divine casters add their Charisma bonus to their saves. Other than that and a couple of other things, though, the stuff in the book isn't too overpowering. Very poorly edited, but not overpowering. [sarcasm]Oh yes, giving one of the strongest abilities of paladins to inquisitors, clerics and oracles at the cost of a feat isn't a strong ability.[/sarcasm]
That is the reason why it was part of the capstone ability for the Enlightened Philosopher archetype oracle.
Atarlost wrote: Forget Animal growth. Polymorphs only meld equipment when used to turn into an animal, dragon, elemental, magical beast, plant, or vermin unless the spell itself overrides the general polymorph rules.
What happens when a halfling archer bard uses Alter Self to turn into a half-orc or a human turns into a ratfolk?
Then there's Giant Form. That's pretty much always a size changer. Undead Anatomy can be a size changer as well.
This is not a niche problem for druids with a specific feat. It potentially comes up every time someone builds an alchemist or bard as an archer or gives a magus a ranged backup weapon.
I was making the same mistake. Animal growth don't polymorph you into an animal, it is a transmutation spell but it isn't a polymorph spell, so with this feat it become a way stronger enlarge person: +8 size bonus to Strength and a +4 size bonus to Constitution, -2 to dexterity and 2 points of natural armor vs +2 size bonus to Strength, a –2 size penalty to Dexterity.
Diego Rossi wrote: Jeff Merola wrote: Diego Rossi wrote:
:( That is really a bad idea. This millisecond I am an animal, the next I am not, I can change my type at will. And that will not generate confusion?
My ACG is still in the Paizo deposit, but I am not losing much if that is an example of the content.
There's also a feat that lets most divine casters add their Charisma bonus to their saves. Other than that and a couple of other things, though, the stuff in the book isn't too overpowering. Very poorly edited, but not overpowering. [sarcasm]Oh yes, giving one of the strongest abilities of paladins to inquisitors, clerics and oracles at the cost of a feat isn't a strong ability.[/sarcasm]
That is the reason why it was part of the capstone ability for the Enlightened Philosopher archetype oracle. Hey, I said didn't say it wasn't strong! I said that other than that and a couple other things, the book isn't that bad.
There's a reason that the Cha to saves feat is banned in PFS (as well as in my homegames, where I almost never ban things).
Jeff Merola wrote: Hey, I said didn't say it wasn't strong! I said that other than that and a couple other things, the book isn't that bad.
Sorry, I misread what you meant.
Lately there a lot of abilities that don't seem so strong alone (but often are) that when mixed together become horrendously broken.
From another thread, check the last sentence of the cloak of feinting:
Quote:
If a swashbuckler wearing the cloak of feinting performs the superior feint deed or uses this cape’s ability, the opponent is also dazed until the start of the swashbuckler’s next turn.
AFAIK the superior feint cost a standard action but has no other cost, so it can be repeated forever.
With this item a swashbuckler with the superior feint deed can daze lock a target forever. End of the encounters with a single big BEEG and of a lot of encounters where there is only 1 worthy adversary while the others enemies are low level lackeys.
Diego Rossi wrote: Jeff Merola wrote: Hey, I said didn't say it wasn't strong! I said that other than that and a couple other things, the book isn't that bad.
Sorry, I misread what you meant.
Lately there a lot of abilities that don't seem so strong alone (but often are) that when mixed together become horrendously broken.
From another thread, check the last sentence of the cloak of feinting:
Quote:
If a swashbuckler wearing the cloak of feinting performs the superior feint deed or uses this cape’s ability, the opponent is also dazed until the start of the swashbuckler’s next turn.
AFAIK the superior feint cost a standard action but has no other cost, so it can be repeated forever.
With this item a swashbuckler with the superior feint deed can daze lock a target forever. End of the encounters with a single big BEEG and of a lot of encounters where there is only 1 worthy adversary while the others enemies are low level lackeys.
Cloak of Feinting was one of the things in my "couple other things" actually :P
Diego Rossi wrote: Atarlost wrote: Forget Animal growth. Polymorphs only meld equipment when used to turn into an animal, dragon, elemental, magical beast, plant, or vermin unless the spell itself overrides the general polymorph rules.
What happens when a halfling archer bard uses Alter Self to turn into a half-orc or a human turns into a ratfolk?
Then there's Giant Form. That's pretty much always a size changer. Undead Anatomy can be a size changer as well.
This is not a niche problem for druids with a specific feat. It potentially comes up every time someone builds an alchemist or bard as an archer or gives a magus a ranged backup weapon.
I was making the same mistake. Animal growth don't polymorph you into an animal, it is a transmutation spell but it isn't a polymorph spell, so with this feat it become a way stronger enlarge person: +8 size bonus to Strength and a +4 size bonus to Constitution, -2 to dexterity and 2 points of natural armor vs +2 size bonus to Strength, a –2 size penalty to Dexterity. Animal Growth is a red herring. It has almost nothing to do with the problem of what die size to use for ammunition and thrown weapons after a size change. There needs to be a consistent rule in the transmutation section of the magic chapter because any polymorph not into a specific list of types brings it up, not just because of an edge case with a new druid feat from a poorly edited book interacting with an older spell.
Why can't we get an office Paizo FAQ update to this debate? There is obviously a conflict of wording here.
At least if James Jacobs can chime in? He posted on another Enlarge vs Reduce Person thread back in 2010: "Sounds like an error to me too." Maybe he can finish his thought....?
I don't see any real conflict - just different spells working in different ways, for reasons of game balance, 'physics' (damage is based on ammo or weapon, whichever is smallest), or carelessness.
While a different rule might have been simpler, there are currently way too many 'errata' FAQs out there. As a GM, I find it hard to keep track.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
ckdragons wrote: Why can't we get an office Paizo FAQ update to this debate? 1) There is no real conflict. The rules are crystal clear. Some people just don't like that similar abilities work differently. That's tough. Get over it.
2) Even when there is a real rules conflict Paizo hardly ever weighs in on them anymore. I contribute this almost entirely to bad rules lawyers.
Matthew Downie wrote: While a different rule might have been simpler, there are currently way too many 'errata' FAQs out there. As a GM, I find it hard to keep track. This is why I use the PFSRD when I am playing. They usually keep very up to date with erratas and even relevant FAQs.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
They are fine, it's conservation of momentum.
A large weapon shrinks, and just isn't capable of the larger damage, even though you initially threw/shot it with more force, it cannot do that larger damage since it is weaker and more easily pushed around by wind resistance (same reason heavier riders go downhill faster)
A small weapon expands, but because it's now heavier, the small amount of force you shot it with cannot propel it with as much velocity as necessary to do the normal damage that an appropriate sized person/bow would.
No contradiction at all. It makes perfect sense.
In both cases, your damage goes down. That is what makes it consistent.
The ONLY odd thing is that a smaller person throwing a weapon does normal damage, I would expect it to also deal smaller damage. So if I were to make a change, I'd change the thrown weapons, making the thrown weapon do less damage for reduce person as well. But I guess they figured that would be too confusing...
Besides there should be an easy way around this: have your friend carry around a quiver of large arrows. After you are Enlarged, grab the large arrows from him and shoot them with your bow. Then they won't shrink down to medium size when they hit their target.
Yep. No problem or contradiction. It's a feature.
It's why we have the spell Gravity Bow.
Didn't see it mentioned. But what if i use the item Spear Thrower from the Adventurers Armory? I am now using thrown weapon from a launcher.
|
