titan mauler longbow?


Rules Questions


ok dumb question but can i make a titan mauler who useses oversized lon gbows?

At 3rd level, a titan mauler becomes skilled in the use of massive weapons looted from her titanic foes.

She can use two-handed weapons meant for creatures one size category larger, but the penalty for doing so is increased by 4. However, the attack roll penalty for using weapons too large for her size is reduced by 1, and this reduction increases by 1 for every three levels beyond 3rd (to a minimum of 0).
This ability replaces trap sense.


No, it works for melee weapons.

FAQ wrote:

From Paizo FAQ:

Barbarian--Titan Mauler: Does the Jotungrip class feature (page 30) allow the Titan Mauler to use oversized weapons?
No. Jotungrip allows the titan mauler to use two-handed melee weapons in one hand, but only if the weapon is appropriately sized for the character. The massive weapon class feature allows her to use oversized weapons with decreased penalty, but does not allow her to use two-handed weapons of that size in one hand.

Update Page 30, in the titan mauler archetype, in the Jotungrip class feature, in the first sentence, insert the word "melee" between "two-handed" and "weapon."


Skylancer4 wrote:

No, it works for melee weapons.

FAQ wrote:

From Paizo FAQ:

Barbarian--Titan Mauler: Does the Jotungrip class feature (page 30) allow the Titan Mauler to use oversized weapons?
No. Jotungrip allows the titan mauler to use two-handed melee weapons in one hand, but only if the weapon is appropriately sized for the character. The massive weapon class feature allows her to use oversized weapons with decreased penalty, but does not allow her to use two-handed weapons of that size in one hand.

Update Page 30, in the titan mauler archetype, in the Jotungrip class feature, in the first sentence, insert the word "melee" between "two-handed" and "weapon."

Your quoting the wrong rule, he's asking about Massive Weapons not Jotungrip. And that rule doesn't say the looted weapon has to be a a melee weapon, so I'd say yes, if you can find a giant with a bow and can kill him, you can take it for your own.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

The next FAQ entry rules that out, too. The horrible mess that is the Titan Mauler is likely the reason for the Titan Fighter.


Yeah check out the titan fighter. It looks to be more what your after.
Edit: Nvm it has the melee restriction too.


JakeCWolf wrote:
Skylancer4 wrote:

No, it works for melee weapons.

FAQ wrote:

From Paizo FAQ:

Barbarian--Titan Mauler: Does the Jotungrip class feature (page 30) allow the Titan Mauler to use oversized weapons?
No. Jotungrip allows the titan mauler to use two-handed melee weapons in one hand, but only if the weapon is appropriately sized for the character. The massive weapon class feature allows her to use oversized weapons with decreased penalty, but does not allow her to use two-handed weapons of that size in one hand.

Update Page 30, in the titan mauler archetype, in the Jotungrip class feature, in the first sentence, insert the word "melee" between "two-handed" and "weapon."

Your quoting the wrong rule, he's asking about Massive Weapons not Jotungrip. And that rule doesn't say the looted weapon has to be a a melee weapon, so I'd say yes, if you can find a giant with a bow and can kill him, you can take it for your own.

Bleh, extremely long night, time to sleep. I just know you cannot do it.

Quote:

Barbarian--Titan Mauler: Can a Medium titan mauler wield a Large two-handed weapon, such as a Large greatsword?

No. The "Inappropriately Sized Weapons" rule (Core Rulebook 144) says (in summary) that a creature can't wield an inappropriately-sized weapon if the size difference would increase it one or more "steps" beyond "two-handed." None of the titan mauler's abilities say the character can break the "steps" part of the "Inappropriately Sized Weapons" rule, so the character still has to follow that rule.

Large 2h bow would increase the "step" and cause you to be unable to do it (as mentioned above by taks).


Actually, there was an errata. That FAQ is out of date.

Titan Mauler wrote:

Massive Weapons (Ex)

At 3rd level, a titan mauler becomes skilled in the use of massive weapons looted from her titanic foes.

She can use two-handed weapons meant for creatures one size category larger, but the penalty for doing so is increased by 4. However, the attack roll penalty for using weapons too large for her size is reduced by 1, and this reduction increases by 1 for every three levels beyond 3rd (to a minimum of 0).

However, they do specify "two-handed weapons". One could take that to mean any weapon that requires two hands to wield (which would allow a bow to be used), but one could also take it as weapons that are in the two-handed category. Personally I'm inclined to allow it to work because wielding a greatbow seems awesome and doesn't seem game breaking, but I have a feeling the more RAW interpretation leans towards the other direction.

Also flagged to be moved to rules questions.


Jotungrip is specific. A two handed weapon as a one handed weapon. Now the other ability to use larger massive weapons comes later and in my mind the penalties never fade enough to really consider it. But yes at higher levels by the rules as I see a Titan Mauler could use a Giant size bow if he really wanted.
Me I'd suggest playing a Ranger or Hunter and cast Gravity Bow.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.

I think they update the the PRD and the faq and prd show 2 different rules, and if we are going with the "no two-handed weapons meant for creatures one size category larger" rule then is the wording on "Massive Weapons" to change

FAQ

Quote:
Barbarian--Titan Mauler: Can a Medium titan mauler wield a Large two-handed weapon, such as a Large greatsword?

No. The "Inappropriately Sized Weapons" rule (Core Rulebook 144) says (in summary) that a creature can't wield an inappropriately-sized weapon if the size difference would increase it one or more "steps" beyond "two-handed." None of the titan mauler's abilities say the character can break the "steps" part of the "Inappropriately Sized Weapons" rule, so the character still has to follow that rule

PRD
Massive Weapons (Ex): At 3rd level, a titan mauler becomes skilled in the use of massive weapons looted from her titanic foes. She can use two-handed weapons meant for creatures one size category larger, but the penalty for doing so is increased by 4. However, the attack roll penalty for using weapons too large for her size is reduced by 1, and this reduction increases by 1 for every three levels beyond 3rd (to a minimum of 0). This ability replaces trap sense.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

There are no rules for using a "Not your sized" long bow. So massive weapons doesn't let you do something you can't do. Another example of things you can't do is a Large Greatsword as a mediume with or without massive weapons.


James Risner wrote:
There are no rules for using a "Not your sized" long bow. So massive weapons doesn't let you do something you can't do. Another example of things you can't do is a Large Greatsword as a mediume with or without massive weapons.

? How is that not a direct contradiction of what Massive Weapons says?

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

_Ozy_ wrote:
? How is that not a direct contradiction of what Massive Weapons says?

Well, simply put. It pays to read the ability instead of going off memory. I use memory for everything, and well. I'm not perfect.

So the penalties would be -4 for a large two handed.

Still doesn't fix the Bow issue, as there are not rules for inappropriate sized bows.


James Risner wrote:
_Ozy_ wrote:
? How is that not a direct contradiction of what Massive Weapons says?

Well, simply put. It pays to read the ability instead of going off memory. I use memory for everything, and well. I'm not perfect.

So the penalties would be -4 for a large two handed.

Still doesn't fix the Bow issue, as there are not rules for inappropriate sized bows.

No problem, I was just confused because the text for the ability was in the post right above yours.

I agree that bows are not 'two-handed' weapons, and thus not affected by the ability. Plus, realism-wise, I don't see how you could manage the extra draw on a weapon twice the normal size.


_Ozy_ wrote:
Plus, realism-wise, I don't see how you could manage the extra draw on a weapon twice the normal size.

Now that's an argument I can get behind. Draw strength is important, but a large bow is going to have a significantly larger draw length that medium sized creatures simply can't do.

However things like crossbows are still up in the air. Because who doesn't want to tote a ballista around?


CampinCarl9127 wrote:
_Ozy_ wrote:
Plus, realism-wise, I don't see how you could manage the extra draw on a weapon twice the normal size.

Now that's an argument I can get behind. Draw strength is important, but a large bow is going to have a significantly larger draw length that medium sized creatures simply can't do.

However things like crossbows are still up in the air. Because who doesn't want to tote a ballista around?

Only if you ignore the fact the game has split weapons into very distinct and comprehensive categories like simple/martial, one-handed, two-handed and ranged.

"Could be taken as..." is when you have to stop yourself from making assumptions or taking things for more than they are stated in the rules 99.9% of the time.

All two handed weapons need both hands to make use of, not all weapons that need both hands are mechanically "two handed" however.


Skylancer4 wrote:

Only if you ignore the fact the game has split weapons into very distinct and comprehensive categories like simple/martial, one-handed, two-handed and ranged.

"Could be taken as..." is when you have to stop yourself from making assumptions or taking things for more than they are stated in the rules 99.9% of the time.

All two handed weapons need both hands to make use of, not all weapons that need both hands are mechanically "two handed" however.

Sometimes I wonder if I should just include brackets to indicate my sarcasm since so many people seem to miss it.

Flippancy aside, I agree that categorically a "ranged weapon" is not a "two-handed weapon". However, all ranged weapons do use a specified number of hands, which means that all ranged weapons are logically one-handed or two-handed in the sense that they require a specific number of hands, even if they are not categorically two-handed.

But it's kind of irrelevant either way because the titan mauler class, even post-errata, is still completely and utterly terrible. Which is such a shame.


CampinCarl9127 wrote:
However things like crossbows are still up in the air. Because who doesn't want to tote a ballista around?

There's even a feat for it, Artillery Team.

Dark Archive

So for clarification .... a medium sized character can or cannot use a large great sword?


CampinCarl9127 wrote:
Skylancer4 wrote:

Only if you ignore the fact the game has split weapons into very distinct and comprehensive categories like simple/martial, one-handed, two-handed and ranged.

"Could be taken as..." is when you have to stop yourself from making assumptions or taking things for more than they are stated in the rules 99.9% of the time.

All two handed weapons need both hands to make use of, not all weapons that need both hands are mechanically "two handed" however.

Sometimes I wonder if I should just include brackets to indicate my sarcasm since so many people seem to miss it.

Flippancy aside, I agree that categorically a "ranged weapon" is not a "two-handed weapon". However, all ranged weapons do use a specified number of hands, which means that all ranged weapons are logically one-handed or two-handed in the sense that they require a specific number of hands, even if they are not categorically two-handed.

But it's kind of irrelevant either way because the titan mauler class, even post-errata, is still completely and utterly terrible. Which is such a shame.

The category is actually two-handed melee weapons, but you are probably right on the distinction. However, what about firearms? They unlike other ranged weapons ARE categorized into one-handed vs two-handed.

An argument could be made that since massive weapons does not specifically call out melee like the titan fighter ability, that any weapon categorized as two-handed (melee or firearm) could be legal.

Shadow Lodge

Slightly correcting the penalty people state for a Titan Mauler: A medium-sized Titan Mauler Barbarian can use a large-sized two-handed melee weapon with Massive Weapons at L3, but the math isn't in their favor until L12ish.

It's -2 for inappropriately sized.

It's an additional -4 for a inappropriately-sized two-handed weapon per the ability.

So, -6 to hit.

However, the penalty is reduced by 1 at L3 from Massive Weapons.

So, -5 to hit.

The penalty is reduced by 1 for every 3 levels after L3.

L6 -4

L9 -3

L12 -2

L15 -1

L18 0

Dark Archive

In that case I'll mark my entry above for FAQ since the the update is contradiction of the "massive weapons" entry and does not correct it


Ranged weapons don't have "handedness" categories, but they can and do have "virtual handedness" categories. The crossbows, for instance, are neither light, one-handed, or two-handed weapons; but they can function as one of those for the purpose of interacting with various rules elements like TWF. The same logic would, naturally, apply to the bows. The bows explicitly specify rules for needing two hands to wield a "wrong-sized" bow; therefore, you can wield a wrong-sized bow. But there is a logical limit; for instance, it wouldn't make sense for a medium creature to wield a tiny or smaller creature's shortbow. The bows, unlike crossbows, don't specify the virtual handedness category, thus, we need to extrapolate. The rules of thumb is that a two-handed weapon is the same size category as an object as the creature it is intended for; for example, a medium Greatsword is a medium-sized object. Its size is comparable to a medium creature. A Longsword is a small-sized object and a dagger is a tiny-sized object. A medium creature is roughly 5-6' tall and this corresponds to the size of most medium two-handed weapons. A Longbow is about 5' long so we can presume that it is equivalent to a 2-h weapon. A Shortbow is about 3' long so we can presume it is equivalent to a 1-h weapon. Ergo, the virtual handeness categories, for the purpose of determining how far you can go from your intended size category, are 1-h for a Shortbow and 2-h for a Longbow. So, normally, a medium creature can't wield a large Longbow, but he could wield a large shortbow. Likewise, you could wield a tiny creature's longbow, but not their shortbow.

Since Massive Weapons was altered in how it functions, we can apply these rules to show that, as a Medium creature with Massive Weapons, you can wield a Large Longbow for a total of -6 to attack (-2 from 1 size category difference, -4 specific to overcoming normal category difference maximum) and this goes down by 1 for every 3 levels.


Virtual handedness could or could not be a reference. We know for a fact two handed (melee weapons) are a concrete game mechanic. Ergo, that is what we should be looking at when another game mechanic refers to "two handed weapon" opposed to "a weapon that takes two hands to use." The wording is distinctly different, and that means something. Bows having explicit rules allowing for something to happen doesn't mean you can "extrapolate" for every other rule that remotely relates to the subject.

That is bad logic. We don't "need" to extrapolate as the rules are already fairly obvious in regards to what they point to. And that doesn't include the category of ranged weapons. If it doesn't include them, there is no valid reason to "extrapolate" past that.

The only reason to "extrapolate" is to bend the rules beyond what they allow. You can make all the logical and reasonable arguments you want, but that still doesn't change the mechanics we actual do have nor the lack of need to push the rules beyond what they state they allow mechanically.


Skylancer4 wrote:

Virtual handedness could or could not be a reference. We know for a fact two handed (melee weapons) are a concrete game mechanic. Ergo, that is what we should be looking at when another game mechanic refers to "two handed weapon" opposed to "a weapon that takes two hands to use." The wording is distinctly different, and that means something. Bows having explicit rules allowing for something to happen doesn't mean you can "extrapolate" for every other rule that remotely relates to the subject.

That is bad logic. We don't "need" to extrapolate as the rules are already fairly obvious in regards to what they point to. And that doesn't include the category of ranged weapons. If it doesn't include them, there is no valid reason to "extrapolate" past that.

The only reason to "extrapolate" is to bend the rules beyond what they allow. You can make all the logical and reasonable arguments you want, but that still doesn't change the mechanics we actual do have nor the lack of need to push the rules beyond what they state they allow mechanically.

Incorrect. Reference this FAQ:

FAQ/Ultimate Combat wrote:
The text of the rule is, "The size of a firearm never affects how many hands you need to use to shoot it." The intent of that rule was to prevent a Medium character from using a Small rifle as a one-handed pistol; it wasn’t intended to let a Medium character use a Large, Huge, Gargantuan, or Colossal two-handed firearm as a two-handed weapon. Just like with non-firearms, a creature cannot wield a weapon that’s far too big or small for it. Specifically in the case of firearms, a Medium character can’t use a two-handed firearm sized for a Large or larger creature, and a Small character can’t use a two-handed firearm sized for a Medium or larger creature.

We need some means to determine whether a weapon is far too big or too small when dealing with wrong-sized weapons. Otherwise, a medium creature would be able to wield a colossal longbow.


Or in this case they couldn't, as nothing allows them the ability to do so.

Which makes "extrapolating" a non issue. Because there isn't a reason to do it. It isn't allowed regardless.

That isn't to say there isn't an ability out there that could allow it. But we aren't talking about that ability right now are we? Or if it exists, someone hasn't brought it up in all this time maybe?

We have a mechanic, that has reference words that match up with other real mechanics. And then we have people trying to show horn in other "stuff" because the wording matches up. Strictly speaking, I'm going to use the "mechanics" definition. Because it exists. It is simple and it is clean, and best of all it functions without issue.

The game uses a language, and some times the mechanics are going to cross with words, used in that language, it doesn't mean the "general" use of those words is what was referred to. When there is an actual mechanic, it becomes very unlikely that the "general use" had anything to do with it. Yet here we are debating that very situation.

We have a mechanic, refer to another mechanic and it functions. Why debate more or past that point?


Skylancer4 wrote:
Or in this case they couldn't, as nothing allows them the ability to do so.

Ahh, I see the issue here. You didn't know that there are rules for wielding oversized and undersized weapons. Yes, you see, the default rules allow for a character to wield weapons made for larger or smaller creatures, with certain restrictions. A Medium creature, for instance, could wield a Small creature's crossbow or longbow. But this involves a "step-down" of the size category. Ranged weapons don't really "have" size categories, thus, we must extrapolate virtual ones to determine how small (or large) they can go, as just because it doesn't have a size category doesn't mean that a medium creature can wield all the way down to a fine ranged weapon nor all the way up to a colossal one.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / titan mauler longbow? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.