ThirstyBob's page

So I was going through this trying to disprove, RAW, a ridiculous build that someone put up online. Suffice to say the build involved a Colossal Greatsword, Levitation, and Vital Strike. I do not know the details, I stopped reading at this point. But on purely weight alone I thought I would be able to disprove it. I like Yigler's formula but I can't find any RAW to support it, so I think it is just a good DM houserule.

The armor size table, if used for weapons, is ludicrous. The size and weight of a greatsword shouldn't scale linearly. RAW, using armor table for weapons, a 5 foot long greatsword weighs 8lbs; and a 60ft greatsword weighs 96lbs - A character with 10STR could carry it at heavy load - 18STR could carry it and still be light. IN ADDITION, a colossal creature; weighing more than 250,000lbs (RAW); would be wielding a 96lb GREATsword. (This is where I should put a jackiechan.jpg)

The best I could scrounge up is the approximate weight of different sized creatures. There is approximately a x8 difference between size categories:

Medium 60-500 lbs.
Large (tall) 500-4000 lbs.
Large (long) 500-4000 lbs.
Huge (tall) 2-16 tons
Huge (long) 2-16 tons
Gargantuan (tall) 16 - 125 tons
Gargantuan (long) 16 - 125 tons
Colossal (tall) 125 tons or more
Colossal (long) 125 tons or more
(With a ton weighing 2,000 lbs)

So using this x8 per tier and applying it to the weight of the weapon I arrived at the x24 that erian_7 found with the Gargantuan warhammer, and if you continue to Colossal that would be x32. So according to this formula, a 60ft greatsword would weigh 256lbs. This seems more reasonable, at least it would require 25STR to carry it under light load.

At this point we are skittering dangerously around the gaping chasm that is the question of why a colossal creature is wielding a weapon that is .1% the weight of itself.

Yeah I started out just doing Gestalt with 3 people to make up the extra .5 ECL or whatever it's called now. Now I have a party of level 13 Gestalts and some of the combos are getting crazy.

Unarmed Strikes are not Natural Attacks. Unless he's using Feral Combat Training to actually Flurry with one of his natural attacks, then Strong Jaw should not affect his damage die at all.

That's what I thought, but quoting the Monk page we get: "A monk's unarmed strike is treated as both a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon for the purpose of spells and effects that enhance or improve either manufactured weapons or natural weapons."

Hi sorry if this is covered somewhere else but I've looked and can't find anything that directly relates to this issue.

I am running a Gestalt game in which I have a Level 13 Monk/Druid character. Reincarnation Druid archetype. He is in the habit of casting strong jaw and lockjaw then wild-shaping into a mastodon. He is not using the mastodon's natural attacks, so as I understand the rules flurry of blows can be used. Is this correct?

The character has a monk's robe, increasing the normal monk damage at level 13 from 2d6 to 2d8. Continuing using the improved natural attack feat text, strong jaw increases that from 2d8 to 4d8. Turning into a mastodon would further increase that damage to 8d8.Is this correct because he is melting everything I throw at him. He just killed a cr 15, 240hp Crag Linnorm in like 2 turns. Please help!