Maigrey's page

Except that's not a rule.

I don't see anything that even states Arrows have sizes like weapons do.

Exactly, they just messed it up IMO, and made it needlessly complicated and non-intuitive, for little to no pay-off. This is something that i don't think the current team would do if they had it to do over.

Seems... rather pointless honestly.

You buff everybody by increasing everybody's hit chance a few percentage points (since nat 1 is no longer an auto-miss). Beyond that it has an obnoxiously low chance of ever showing up unless people are getting into situations that they really shouldn't.

It is still Auto-miss, they just have the opportunity to turn it into a hit, by risking the chance of a critical fumble.

yes if they take the chance every time, you would see an increase in hits by ~2.5%, with a critical fumble rate of ~2.5% assuming ~50% chance to hit.

Instead of 10 + Spell Level + ability mod vs 1d20 + save modifier, it will be 1d20 + Spell Level + Ability mod vs 11 + Save modifier.

Just don't use critical fumbles? They are optional after all.

I have been DMing for 30 years, I don't use them, I have never liked the mechanics. I always thought they could add some decent flavor, but at the cost of bad mechanics seems like a poor option. That is why I attempted to come up with good mechanics for them.

So, I hate critical fumbles, I have always felt they were unfair and uneven.

Anyway, for an upcoming game, this is what I want to do.

1st spells vs defense. I am putting the roll in the casters hands. Instead of rolling fort/ref/will save when attacked, the caster will make an attack roll to hit the target's fort/ref/will defense. There will also be a chance for critical fumble and hit for the spell. This means that a wizard could roll multiple attacks on a single roll (if multiple crits are scored only one card is drawn and the effect applied to everyone crit, if multiple fumbles are rolled, then draw 1 card for each fumble and the worst effect is applied, DM decides what is worst)

2nd when you roll a natural 1 on the attack you will auto miss. You will then have the option to re-roll attack to turn it into a hit. If the re-roll is successful, then it is a hit as normal (there is no chance of a critical hit on the re-roll). If the re-roll misses then it is a critical fumble. If you roll a 1 on the re-roll draw 2 cards and take the worse effect(DM decides what is worst).

Opinions?

Paizo staff aren't hacks. What they are is people who are very good at creating a world that functions the way many of their customers want it to.

The problem is those of us who want a balanced game that doesn't screw over half of the available characters aren't in said group.

I said were hacks, not are hacks. They have made some nice improvements to the game, but it is my opinion that projectile weapons in pathfinder do damage based on the weapon and not the ammo.

I mean seriously if I cast enlarge person, and fire a large heavy crossbow, and the ammo shrinks and does damage based on a medium crossbow bolt, show me in the rules how much damage a medium crossbow bolt does.

What if I was firing a large light crossbow. They both use the same ammo.

Much like the poor crossbow, throwing weapon combat is not really well-supported in PF.

You'd be correct that if a non-Half-giant Medium character used Expansion, any dagger they'd throw would do damage as a normal medium dagger (though it'd get the Strength bonus from being larger).

But a crossbow, sling, bow, etc, would do damage as a Large or Huge one, because even though the projectile shrinks back down to Medium, it does damage as the size of the weapon it was fired from.

In my opinion, Paizo completely botched the rules on Enlarged Person, and really just shows that the people handling the rules were hacks. Projectile weapons in pathfinder do not do damage based on the ammunition, they do damage based on the weapon that fired them. Why make some silly caveat in Enlarge Person, that contradicts the entire way projectile weapons work in the game. Some can argue balance, but IMO it is balanced just fine, since you are taking a penalty to your attack roll to deal more damage, whereas if you are making a melee attack it is basically pure gravy.

The interesting Question, is if you are colossal, and you using a weapon that is 1 size larger, and it deals damage as if it were 1 size larger than that. What is two sizes larger than colossal?

Correct Spells don't stack.

You have powerful build that lets you use a weapon 1 size larger
You have expansion that makes you 1 size larger
You have gravity bow that makes the damage count as 1 size larger

All 3 of these seems like they should stack.

Expansion makes you large, Powerful build lets you use a huge weapon, and Gravity Bow makes it deal damage as if it were gargantuan.

Yeah, so maybe I posted this in the wrong spot, since it is 99% third party, but at its heart it is a pathfinder mechanics weapon size rules question.

OK, so

Half Giant has powerful build.

Lets take heavy crossbow as an example. A medium heavy crossbow does 1d10 damage.

Powerful build: A half-giant can use weapons designed for a creature one size larger without penalty.

This means I can use a large heavy crossbow and it will deal 2d8 damage. (from the weapon damage size chart 1d10 medium is 2d8 large)

Let's say I cast Gravity Bow(Any arrow fired from a bow or crossbow you are carrying when the spell is cast deals damage as if one size larger than it actually is. )

These means that the large heavy crossbow counts deals damage as if it were huge. Looking at Improved Natural Attack for extrapolation, because there are no rules for using a huge heavy crossbow that I can find 2d8 would become 3d8. http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/monster-feats/improved-natural-attack

so we have a medium half-giant wielding a large heavy cross bow, that deals damage as if it were huge. For a total of 3d8 damage.

Now let's say I use the power expansion(before casting gravity bow) to grow to large. I know, we are getting crazy here.

Expansion: All your equipment, worn or carried, is similarly expanded by this power. Melee and projectile weapons deal more damage. (projectiles deal damage based on the size of the weapon that fired them)

Ok, so now we have a large half-giant wielding a huge heavy cross bow, that deals damage as if it were gargantuan. For a total of 4d8 damage (once again based on improved natural attack).

Now, expansion is interesting, because it can be used to increase more than 1 size category. Let's say I used it again to become huge instead of large.

Now we have a Huge half-giant wielding a Gargantuan heavy cross bow, that deals damage as if it were Colossal. For a total of 6d8 damage (once again based on improved natural attack).

Now this seems like a reasonable interpretation of the rules. (Since it really isn't covered).

Let's go off the reservation now, let's say expansion could increase your size by 3 categories. What would happen?

Would it be a Gargantuan half-giant wielding a Colossal heavy cross bow, that deals damage as if it were Unknown(1 size larger than Colossal)? For a total of 8d8 damage (once again based on improved natural attack).

Then lastly if Expansion could grow you 4 categories. What would happen?

Would it be a Colossal half-giant wielding an Unknown(1 size larger than Colossal) heavy cross bow, that deals damage as if it were Unknown(2 sizes larger than Colossal)? For a total of 12d8 damage (once again based on improved natural attack).

If you are still around Jeremy Smith, just wanted to clear this up.

I noticed this thread from 6 months ago, and it is having the same question as me. I just want to make sure I understand this correctly.

with augmented shot 2d4 goes to 3d4?

so, this means that a 1d8 weapon is far superior to a 2d4 weapon?

because,

2d4>3d4>4d4>5d4

is not nearly as good as

1d8>2d8>3d8>4d8

heck even a 1d6 weapon would be better than a 2d4 weapon at level 20, because 4d6 is better than 5d4.

It seems to me like it would be more balanced, if it increased each base die of the attack.

So, that 2d4>4d4>6d4>8d4

Even reading the chart it says 1d4 becomes 2d4, by that logic the base damage of a 2d4 weapon is 1d4 and 1d4, thus increase both, it would be 2d4 and 2d4.