LA_Viking's page

krobrina wrote:

LA_Viking wrote:

While it may be in the Core Rulebook, the switch to magical enhancement being necessary and mandatory to balance game play has not been messaged strongly or frequently enough considering how important it is - at least I didn't see or hear that anywhere.

What? Pathfinder has been like that since 1st edition some 10 years ago and the 3.5 D&D it came from was as well. Look in google for something called "the big six" which were standard magic items around which game balance was designed for D&D version 3.5 games.

The guidelines aren't that clear, but the core rule book does have "expected wealth" for characters at each level, which will give a guideline of what they should be carrying.

The new Gamemastery Guide (out now!) has an alternative balance system that removes the need for magic items, if you choose to go that way. You may enjoy it.

I will add that it goes even further back. In BECMI D&D a lot of high level monsters (and several low level ones) required magic weapons with a certain + bonus to even be hurt.

High AC and damage resistance are nothing compared.

Because most people who play the game will not read the books back to back and if information that is key to the experience is not obvious, it will be missed. Switching between D&D 5e, PF1, and PF2, this element is new/alien and needs to be positioned so everyone who migrates to the new platform understands its a key piece and not obvious.

LA_Viking wrote:

Thank you all for the feedback as it sounds like we need to throttle the magic bonuses to melee weapons across the board. That should help. We are not getting them mostly because we are all (including our DM) new to the system. I enjoy using the rules for optimization, so not used to leaning on magical bonuses from items for balance. I will forward this thread to my group.

I will say that one thing I have noticed is that optimization via class, feats, and other things used in PF1 to make a highly-optimized character are no longer the way you make the ultimate optimized character. Optimization revolves more around the tactics your group uses, and less about raw numbers.

The reason we're here is because there is no "correct" just discussion. If you agree that anyone with an opinion should be bullied out of a forum, then it would seem this is the place for you.

As a piece of general advice for communication, if you're still learning a rule set, maybe don't come in claiming you 100% see a problem in the rules and don't need anything explained to you. (And for the record, the system has been out less than a year, we are all still learning it.) Ask questions to see if your understanding is correct before you type up a huge manifesto on why the rules are bad.

I understand how it may be frustrating to have repetitive threads and confused players, but this is a brand new game and and this is a gamemaker forum to discuss our experiences with it, so can't see that changing. And I still am not 100% down with this system yet.

It is by no means intuitive to balance inequities in ability to hit and damage with magical enhancements. Logic is more likely to dictate you would gain these abilities through training, experience and increased strength, which is usually granted through feats, skill paths and built in bonuses as you level up.

While it may be in the Core Rulebook, the switch to magical enhancement being necessary and mandatory to balance game play has not been messaged strongly or frequently enough considering how important it is - at least I didn't see or hear that anywhere. And now that I am reviewing those elements and their impact on the game it feels more like a work around than a logical choice. Sure, it works, but one of the issues our group is having with this version is that there are so many baked in automatic bonuses that all the characters seem good at a wide range of things versus being great at a shorter range of skills. Glass cannon specializations have always made the various versions of the game interesting (especially because of the weaknesses that go along with those specializations) and we are finding when everybody is "good," no one is truly great in any given category. It's very evident at lower levels, and somewhat mitigated as we are leveling up as well as class dependent. But if everyone gets magic runes/weapons, then they aren't quite as special and unique.

Debating our experiences with a game can only make the game better and either inspire necessary fixes or solidify existing rules. This system of single damage die with mandatory magical enhancement works okay, but it does feel a little forced. I am also not convinced this formula provides enough individual creativity within game play. I would rather see a system that allowed individual player and character choices to achieve similar results that could be more unique to each player. My group would rather have the choice to choose enhancements, but at a cost to some other skill or ability.

Considering we are only half way through our leveling, we continue to experience the new rules and options as we level up and may feel differently later on. There are some good parts to the new system and some that are not so good. It certainly has not completed it's evolution yet.

Aratorin wrote:

Not only can they, but if you look at the Bestiary, virtually all of them do.

Basically, the only way you can get to 10th level without obtaining one from a slain foe is if your DM actively doesn't want you to have them.

I would quibble about that, slightly... if you don't run into any humanoids, it can happen. I've played in a few games like that, but in them the GM also gave us the chance to stock up on the necessary equipment.

It should be a pretty rare thing, though.

Thank you all for the feedback as it sounds like we need to throttle the magic bonuses to melee weapons across the board. That should help. We are not getting them mostly because we are all (including our DM) new to the system. I enjoy using the rules for optimization, so not used to leaning on magical bonuses from items for balance. I will forward this thread to my group.

You still haven't explained why you're only doing one die of damage. At level 10 you should definitely have greater striking runes, and some property runes.

The campaign is in a remote area and have only found one striking rune weapon so far. Only in the last session we are amongst creatures who could transfer the rune to my primary weapon. Obviously this is our first 2e campaign and we aren't doing crafting, so perhaps our DM needs to add more magical melee items? As we discover the feats and abilities aren't delivering are we meant to compensate with magical bonuses?

ROFL - Ok I'm done here. Apparently this guy is a game designer, author, physicist and also a martial artist trained with deadly weapons... good luck here folks, it's not worth my time trying.

You give up too easy metric system! And you can try and marginalize me if you like, but I am actually a published author, game creator, studied physics in college and have taken many years of martial arts. Google me if you want. But I didn't realize this was a resume competition. I am simply stating that either the die system needs adjustment or the bonus system does. At higher levels, there aren't enough options to increase damage to melee weapons. Somewhere between 5 and 10 there is a plateau-ing effect and the bad guys are doing way more damage than we are.

Okay, so that was a whole lot, so let me see if I can walk you through the question that is the main chunk of your issue here.

Using larger weapons does not innately assume that you are going to do more damage with that weapon. For a variety of reasons, but the primary one is that weapons are designed with a certain size and weight in mind in order to maximize their efficiency.

Look at real life Greatswords compared to real life Longswords and you'll find that they aren't just bigger and smaller versions of each other. The Greatsword is shaped and weighted differently in order to make use of the added mass and reach and be usable by humans.

Paizo has not made a mistake in not letting larger weapons do more damage. This question has been asked before and it was stated that they kept the damage the same between oversized weapons and regular weapons because oversized weapons are unweildy and difficult to make work, but they compensate by having more mass in the swing. So it balances out to the same.

I disagree with this statement. As someone who does practice cutting with swords, oversized weapons should do LESS damage, because it is so difficult to get momentum in the swing of bludgeoning weapons or the edge alignment correct on slashing weapons, and those elements are were most of the damage in weapons come from. However that would feel weird and bad and so I accept the decision made.

The point of the Giant Instinct Barbarian is not that they are so proficient with oversized weapons that they don't have to deal with these shortcomings, but that through training they can use these weapons well enough while they aren't raging to not be gimped by them. Then when they DO rage, the weapons are now properly sized for them and their own mass can overcome the inertia of the oversized weapons and do a s%$$-ton more damage.

Enlarge works the same way, by the way. It gives you a status bonus to damage because you, yourself are larger, and thus can handle the weapon size increase.

Smaller weapons ALSO...

Thanks Vali, but I have to disagree with you about damage proportional to size argument. An enlarged dagger does actually become a short sword eventually, and as an experienced martial artist, I can do waaaay more damage with a larger sword. Yes, there is a momentum issue, but if you swing a 3lb sword and a 5lb sword with the same force, the 5lb sword will have more inertia and cut deeper...every time. And only getting +2 to damage for enlarging is way underpowered if that's all you get. Don't forget you have to take clumsy 1 and your AC goes down when you get big, so unless the weapon gets bigger and there is a way to stack that, it's not worth blowing the spell as the benefits are minimal.

You're confused fundamentally about this.

Weapon Size does NOT increase Weapon Damage Dice. The only benefit ANYONE can get from using any weapon that's larger are those that which themselves define the ability to use said weapons in the first place.

A Large Weapon, a Medium Weapon, and a Small Weapon all have the same Damage Dice stats, there isn't any linkage for PC rules and Character/equipment size.

Giant Instinct bonus is the additional damage they get to their Rage Bonus, the Weapon Die it uses is not altered or improved. The same thing applies to creatures that are Enlarged etc. You're bringing assumptions into the equation, likely because how INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT Actual and Effective Weapon Size Damage Dice were in 1st Edition but make no mistake, these rules all were left on the cutting room floor and for good reason.

I noticed you replied almost immediately, but you did not actually respond to the spirit of what I posted, which is the rule is not working properly. The die size rule is not accommodating the increase in size of the weapon and the damage bonuses are not providing enough to create a balanced effect during melee. Any character above level 5 using melee weapons are grossly underpowered with a single die of damage even with max bonuses. Thank goodness druids can cast because the spells are better balanced than melee. If you want to compensate with damage bonuses, then they need increasing. There has to be a way to manage and balance damage better.

There is no confusion. As I laid out over and over again, the rule doesn't work. A larger weapon does more damage and that's not being accommodated with adding damage bonuses. I see it in game play and it is grossly underpowered. I have been c reading and producing games for over two decades and I understand you can't make something complex simple just for convenience. No one needs to explain to me the rules. I understand them, but they aren't providing a balanced experience during combat.

Wanted to share a conversation we just had in my game group regarding the broken die sizing rule.

I am halfway through my first campaign using Pathfinder 2e and am playing a Half-Orc Druid with Barbarian dedication. This gets me Titan Mauler, which allows me to use oversized weapons. We are at level 10.

The normal (medium) Greatsword damage is 1d12. With the Titan Mauler feat this weapon can be increased to size large. The feat says it grants extra damage when raging (instead of +2 to damage, it's +6). That's cool, but the weapon would also do extra damage when I am not raging, which exposes the broken aspect of the rule. The feat says the ability to wield oversized weapons applies in or out of rage, so where is the extra damage during normal use?

The 2e die sizing rule reads, "When an effect calls on you to increase the size of your weapon damage dice, instead of using its normal weapon damage dice, use the next larger die, as listed below (so if you were using a d4, you’d use a d6, and so on). If you are already using a d12, the size is already at its maximum. You can’t increase your weapon damage die size more than once.
1d4 ➞ 1d6 ➞ 1d8 ➞ 1d10 ➞ 1d12"

Their “rule” is conveniently simple, but inconsistent with basic physics which governs the world our game exists in.

Let’s tear this overly simplistic rule to shreds.

1. First off, the rule contradicts itself. When an effect calls on you to increase the damage, you use a larger die…but not if it’s a d12?!! That doesn’t make any sense. So big weapons can’t get bigger or do more damage, only little ones?

2. Fact: If someone hits you the same way with a medium sized weapon, and one that is large, the large one would do more damage, every time. Duh. So a large sword absolutely does more damage than a medium one. They acknowledge in their rules larger weapons do more damage (hence the various die sizes for different sized weapons). You can’t decide to throw out physics whenever you want to make your rules simpler.

3. The “Titan Mauler” trait/feat they created is solely designed to use a larger weapon. But if you take this die size rule at face value, your can’t get more damage for a larger greataxe or greatsword?!!! Doesn’t make any sense.

4. When my character is Enlarged (4th) to “huge” this weapon becomes gargantuan sized…and it still only does 1d12?!!! Nonsense.

5. Weapon Storm creates a storm of weapons - my weapon - which when enlarged to huge is a gargantuan sized greatsword. Imagine a storm of them, like torrential rain, that’s badass and should do waaay more damage than 4d12. It doesn’t say "weapon shower” or" weapon smattering," its WEAPON STORM, like a hurricane!

The push toward "simplicity" has screwed up the accuracy of the mechanics of 2e. Unless my character can do SOMETHING that stacks, he's pretty useless. All the ACs of our enemies are so high it’s impossible to hit them. We have been unable to fight anything and win in the last half dozen sessions.

at level 10, first melee attack roll with bonuses against a 38AC is 50/50, and we’ve been up against foes with HIGHER AC. Even if I do hit, their one die damage rule is ridiculous once you're past 5th level. Who cares about 1d12+5? The enemies from our last battle would shred us with that.

And why would I burn a 5th level spell for Weapon Storm for 5d12? That’s only about 30 damage?!! In any fight, I would be dead before I could kill the enemy every single time when they’re doing 60-90 damage per round.

If this were a made up game, they could “make up” any rules they want. But this is a game based on actual physics with layers on top. You can’t simply throw out physics to make a rule simpler. That’s just lazy game producing.

Here is my suggestion (and how we are going too apply house rules to correct this error). Allow the weapon to increase damage dice incremental as it grows larger (like in 1e). So in regular melee at size huge the gargantuan striking greatsword would do 10d6 [3d6 for large, add striking rune to get 6d6, then stepped up from large to huge (4d6x2=8d6) and huge to gargantuan (5d6x2=10d6)] … but still need to hit. With Weapon Storm, it would do 5x the regular damage of a regular (not striking) gargantuan great sword or 5d6x5=25d6 with Reflex save for half. That is more in line with what I would expect to achieve at that size with that spell.

Thanks for reading!