Does a Skeletal Centaur use Large-Sized Weapons?


Rules Questions

RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 32

So I'm pretty sure that the RAI answer is "no," but I ran across this odd little corner-case while making a skeletal centaur in HeroLabs, and the more I look into it, the more it seems like the RAW is super clear that a skeletal centaur loses the "Undersized Weapons" special quality, and can therefore use Large-sized weapons with no penalties.

A centaur is a Large creature, but the Undersized Weapons SQ says that it wields Medium-sized weapons like a Medium-sized creature does, owing to their human-sized upper bodies.

The skeleton template, however, explicitly says that a skeleton loses all special qualities unless those qualities improve the base creature's melee or ranged attacks. Undersized Weapons does not improve either of those things, so - by RAW - it the skeleton loses the quality and may freely wield Large-sized weapons just like any other Large-sized creature could.

If you were running such a creature in an official capacity - say you were writing a module, or running a Pathfinder Society game - how would you rule on this? My thoughts are, either:

a.) Decide that the skeleton template language is intended to allow the base creature to keep special qualities that modify or generally affect its melee or ranged attacks, not just ones that strictly improve them; or

b.) Rules are rules, and the skeleton's strength is supernatural (lacking muscle, after all), allowing it to wield Large weapons owing to the supernatural strength and overall size of the creature.

Thoughts? It is possible I am missing a cleverer or more obvious answer.


I would say b) sounds more correct. RAW your centaur-skeleton can wield the giant's club without a problem. RAI, he probably can't, although the "supernatural skeleton strength" argument seems appropriate (he's got all the inertia of any other Large skeleton).


Reading (b) does seem correct, but if I was writing a module, I'd ignore it. The skeletal centaur isn't obliged to use the largest weapon it can wield, and from a non-mechanical viewpoint, skeletons tend to keep using the sorts of weapons they used in life.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

they probably didn't expect any abilities to be negative when they made skeletons.


I would go with the 'No' answer. I think the description of the centaur's physiology is a specific case that overrides the template's normal workings. I would also have their claws do damage as a medium creature. It's pretty clear that that is the size of their upper torso (which is what had the arms/claws and wields the weapons.)

Certainly they could use large-size weapons, but it would be with the same penalty as any other medium creature.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Abandoned Arts wrote:

So I'm pretty sure that the RAI answer is "no," but I ran across this odd little corner-case while making a skeletal centaur in HeroLabs, and the more I look into it, the more it seems like the RAW is super clear that a skeletal centaur loses the "Undersized Weapons" special quality, and can therefore use Large-sized weapons with no penalties.

A centaur is a Large creature, but the Undersized Weapons SQ says that it wields Medium-sized weapons like a Medium-sized creature does, owing to their human-sized upper bodies.

The skeleton template, however, explicitly says that a skeleton loses all special qualities unless those qualities improve the base creature's melee or ranged attacks. Undersized Weapons does not improve either of those things, so - by RAW - it the skeleton loses the quality and may freely wield Large-sized weapons just like any other Large-sized creature could.

If you were running such a creature in an official capacity - say you were writing a module, or running a Pathfinder Society game - how would you rule on this? My thoughts are, either:

a.) Decide that the skeleton template language is intended to allow the base creature to keep special qualities that modify or generally affect its melee or ranged attacks, not just ones that strictly improve them; or

b.) Rules are rules, and the skeleton's strength is supernatural (lacking muscle, after all), allowing it to wield Large weapons owing to the supernatural strength and overall size of the creature.

Thoughts? It is possible I am missing a cleverer or more obvious answer.

This is a classic example of why blind application of RAW can be incorrect. The skeleton of a centaur would have the same "short" upper limb bones that it had in life. So it would still be limited to medium size in both natural and weapon attacks.

Because Herolab is rules enforcement without a sentient brain attached, it will make these kind of mistakes.


While researching this I noticed the race-builder versions of the centaur, and drider for that matter, lack the undersized weapons feature too.

Not super relevant to the OP but still odd and I have to agree with Drahliana here anyways.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

When writing modules or running PFS you go with common sense. There are a few rules that people don't run by RAW because it is not intent.

1. The shield feat that lets you ignore twf penalties for your shield is written to ignore several other penalties by RAW.

2. Dead people can legally take actions<----My favorite one to mention

Contrary to somewhat popular belief the GM is supposed to follow the known intent, not read the book in the most literal sense possible. Reading the book like that also causes some things not to work at all.


What I would do, personally, is I'd see if "large weapons on a centaur skeleton" would cause the resulting creature to do damage out of line with what a creature of it's CR should do. Let's not conflate how rules elements interact with "what makes sense".

Ruling things on logic and the infamously uncommon "common sense" is part and parcel of the GM's job. A given GM may feel centaur skeletons act just like centaurs do when alive, another may see things differently. So without bias, let's examine the skeleton centaur.

According the skeleton template, this creature is a CR 2. It would have AC 22, a longsword attack at +4 for 1d8+2 (medium sword), and 2 hooves at -1 for 1d6+1, as well as 18 hp.

A CR 2 monster should have ~20 hp, AC 14, +4 to hit on it's high attack, +3 to hit on it's low attack, 10 average damage on it's high attack, and 7 average on it's low attack.

Offensively, the skeleton centaur looks behind the curve at first glance. 2d6+2 for a large longsword (the only weapon it would be proficient with, as a skeleton) gives an average damage of 9, which does sound more in line with what it should be doing. The secondary attacks are still terrible compared to a CR 2, but it does get 2 of them, so it's arguable that it's a wash.

On the other hand, 22 AC (as it has 1 more natural armor and Dex than a standard centaur) is EIGHT points higher than what a CR 2 should have. Unless it's armor is intended to be chainmail, in which case it only has 21 AC (the entry for centaur, at least the one I'm using, doesn't state if it's a breastplate or not).

Even then, that's still 7 more points of AC. Now granted, this isn't natural armor, and one could outfit their own skeleton with gear (at cost) at their leisure; it just so happens to be proficient with the armor it used in life.

(This isn't explicitly spelled out in the skeleton template that I saw, but the undead type grants proficiency in weapons if the creature is described as wearing any, and the "classic" human skeleton is wearing a broken chain shirt as evidence.)

So, if we were to look at the centaur sans armor, it's AC is 8 points lower and it is a weak CR 2- allowing it to use a large longsword brings it up to snuff.

If we look at a centaur wearing armor, it's higher than CR 2, which falls in line with how a creature with PC level equipment is +1 CR, as would any skeleton outfitted by a necromancer.

So while it may not "make sense", there is nothing unbalanced about centaur skeletons losing the weapons restriction.


I can follow the rules, and stay within the guidelines. Your argument appears biased to me because you were trying to prove a point when you could have stayed withing the rules and stayed within the guidelines for a CR 2 creature.

You also misunderstood the average damage rules which is taken care of below.

The Centuar has a 4 HD. That is a 3 BAB when is a skeleton.

Let's also remember that it has the natural attacks even as a skeleton.

He also has a 15 strength. That is a +2 to hit.

So that total attack bonus is a +5(1 higher than the +4 a CR 2 creature normally has.
The natural attacks are at a +0

Now let's look at damage which is 1d8+2 from a medium sized longsword. The average is 6.5
The natural attacks with regard to damage assuming it uses the longsword are limited to the hoofs. They do 1d6+1 each or 3.5
3.5 x 2=7

So the average damage is 6(weapon)+7hooves=13

That is the high damage for a CR 3 monster.

However let's move the longsword up to 2d6. That increase the total average by 2.5, pushing the monster into the low range of a CR 4 encounter.

Also the high and low attacks are not referring to individual attacks, but the total output damage for the round.

Quote:
Average Damage: This is the average amount of damage dealt by a creature of this CR if all of its attacks are successful.

PS: I just realized the normal centuar in the book should have a +6 to its attack roll, not a +5.


I had missed that bit about the average damage, in that case, I retract my argument entirely! Especially since, taking a second look at the wording on Undersized Weapons, I noticed that doesn't apply to the 2 claw attacks a skeleton centaur would gain, which would both do large-sized damage. It precludes the use of a shield, but is otherwise similar damage to a large longsword in any case, which means the centaur skeleton is not terribly weakened by retaining undersized weapons.

EDIT: at least, I don't think undersized weapons would affect natural weapons...

RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 32

Wow, this thread really took off.

Thanks for your thoughts, folks. Glad to see that my interpretation of RAW was correct. Silly, but correct.

I think wraithstrike basically summed up my feelings with:

wraithstrike wrote:
When writing modules or running PFS you go with common sense. There are a few rules that people don't run by RAW because it is not intent.

In other news...

wraithstrike wrote:
PS: I just realized the normal centuar in the book should have a +6 to its attack roll, not a +5.

Not sure this is right. The centaur has:

-1 size penalty
+4 base attack bonus
+2 Strength modifier
-------------------------------
+5 total


Abandoned Arts wrote:


Not sure this is right. The centaur has:

-1 size penalty
+4 base attack bonus
+2 Strength modifier
-------------------------------
+5 total

You are right.

That also means my attack bonus for the skeleton version is off by one. I for about the size penalty due to the medium sized weapon.


wielding large weapons is not a matter of strength, but a matter of limb size

a skeletal centaur still has human-sized hands, and therefor will use medium sized weapons; the "undersized weapons" should still apply.

Indeed, RAW implies that he doesn't, but RAI is quite clear in this case.

Remember, programs like Herolab are not rule references; there are so many possible iterations that errors are expected; this is one specific corner-case.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Does a Skeletal Centaur use Large-Sized Weapons? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.