If i remember correctly enlarge person doen't add damage to ranged attacks sadly
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
So go reduce person for the size bonus to AC and dex bump. Sure you might lose a point on strength, but you'd still get the gravity bow.
'small arrow' does 1d6, as soon as it leaves your bow it goes to 'medium arrow' for 1d8, gravity bow makes 2d6, with a +1 to hit and a +1 size bonus to AC.
So go reduce person for the size bonus to AC and dex bump. Sure you might lose a point on strength, but you'd still get the gravity bow.
'small arrow' does 1d6, as soon as it leaves your bow it goes to 'medium arrow' for 1d8, gravity bow makes 2d6, with a +1 to hit and a +1 size bonus to AC.
+1 Great idea although isn't it +2 to hit +1 for size and +1 for extra dex?
| 4 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
There seems to be an inconsistency that was perhaps intentional for game balancing issues.
Enlarge person does not allow you to get the size bonus to any sort of ranged weapon, and reduce person penalizes the use of projectile weapons but not thrown weapons.
Hmmmmm... I don't know if this IS a deliberate inconsistency or not. Maybe one of the Powers That Be could chime in on it?
Hmmmmm... I don't know if this IS a deliberate inconsistency or not. Maybe one of the Powers That Be could chime in on it?There seems to be an inconsistency that was perhaps intentional for game balancing issues.
Enlarge person does not allow you to get the size bonus to any sort of ranged weapon, and reduce person penalizes the use of projectile weapons but not thrown weapons.
I think the best indicator of whether or not it was deliberate would be checking the 3.5 SRD. If they are the same, that means Paizo left it alone intentionally (as they have made changes to things they believed needed it). If they are different, it would indicate they made whatever tweaks they thought it needed.
I think the best indicator of whether or not it was deliberate would be checking the 3.5 SRD. If they are the same, that means Paizo left it alone intentionally (as they have made changes to things they believed needed it). If they are different, it would indicate they made whatever tweaks they thought it needed.Hmmmmm... I don't know if this IS a deliberate inconsistency or not. Maybe one of the Powers That Be could chime in on it?There seems to be an inconsistency that was perhaps intentional for game balancing issues.
Enlarge person does not allow you to get the size bonus to any sort of ranged weapon, and reduce person penalizes the use of projectile weapons but not thrown weapons.
The 3.5 version of Enlarge has melee and projectile weapons dealing increased damage as appropriate for size, so it looks like this dichotomy was intentional. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/enlargeperson.htm)
That said, the wording of the 3.5 spells is consistent, indicating that while the projectiles in each case return to normal size, they deal damage based on the size of the weapon they were fired from. The Pathfinder version of Reduce Person still indicates this ("Any reduced item that leaves the reduced creature's possession (including a projectile or thrown weapon) instantly returns to its normal size. This means that thrown weapons deal their normal damage (projectiles deal damage based on the size of the weapon that fired them)" -- http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/r/reduce-person). The wording in the Enlarge Person spell is different, though: "Any enlarged item that leaves an enlarged creature's possession (including a projectile or thrown weapon) instantly returns to its normal size. This means that thrown and projectile weapons deal their normal damage." -- http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/e/enlarge-person
I accept that the individual spells are different, and as such each application of the text is not *actually* contradictory with the other, but darned if it isn't frustrating that they don't work the same way, especially since the parenthetical nature of the Reduce Person text seems to indicate that the excerpted remark is a comment on the general state of affairs as opposed to a specific application of the magic at work in the spell.
Edit: To be fair, the 3.5 versions of the spells have Reduce Person with parenthetical text and Enlarge Person without parenthetical text, and the Pathfinder Reduce Person seems to be a direct copy of the 3.5 spell -- only Enlarge Person was changed to preclude increased damage from Enlarged projectiles in Pathfinder.
The 3.5 version of Enlarge has melee and projectile weapons dealing increased damage as appropriate for size, so it looks like this dichotomy was intentional. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/enlargeperson.htm)
That said, the wording of the 3.5 spells is consistent, indicating that while the projectiles in each case return to normal size, they deal damage based on the size of the weapon they were fired from. The Pathfinder version of Reduce Person still indicates this ("Any reduced item that leaves the reduced creature's possession (including a projectile or thrown weapon) instantly returns to its normal size. This means that thrown weapons deal their normal damage (projectiles deal damage based on the size of the weapon that fired them)" -- http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/r/reduce-person). The wording in the Enlarge Person spell is different, though: "Any enlarged item that leaves an enlarged creature's possession (including a projectile or thrown weapon) instantly returns to its normal size. This means that thrown and projectile weapons deal their normal damage." -- http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/e/enlarge-person
I accept that the individual spells are different, and as such each application of the text is not *actually* contradictory with the other, but darned if it isn't frustrating that they don't work the same way, especially since the parenthetical nature of the Reduce Person text seems to indicate that the excerpted remark is a comment on the general state of affairs as opposed to a specific application of the magic at work in the spell.
Edit: To be fair, the 3.5 versions of the spells have Reduce Person with parenthetical text and Enlarge Person without parenthetical text, and the Pathfinder Reduce Person seems to be a direct copy of the 3.5 spell -- only Enlarge Person was changed to preclude increased damage from Enlarged projectiles in Pathfinder.
Given that arrows don't actually do the damage per size on the table (there aren't small, medium or large damage listed for arrows) but are instead based on the weapon that fired them for ranged combat, it is consistent with the Pazio's redesign of the rules and trying to simplify things. At worst, Enlarge Person isn't free damage to ranged attackers I guess. It would seem it is supposed to be a melee buff in their view.
Given that arrows don't actually do the damage per size on the table (there aren't small, medium or large damage listed for arrows) but are instead based on the weapon that fired them for ranged combat, it is consistent with the Pazio's redesign of the rules and trying to simplify things. At worst, Enlarge Person isn't free damage to ranged attackers I guess. It would seem it is supposed to be a melee buff in their view.
I don't disagree with this notion vis-a-vis Enlarge Person, but as regards Reduce Person, I find it incongruous that a similar alteration was not included on the same basis of simplification, especially given the manner in which the implementation in Reduce Person is presented: as a parenthetical statement that, just like an appositive, in theory could be removed from the statement entirely without altering the meanings or implications of the statement. I'm not objecting to the change to Enlarge Person, I'm griping about the lack of similar change to Reduce Person and the imbalance thereby created between spells that "counter and dispel" each other.
Given that arrows don't actually do the damage per size on the table (there aren't small, medium or large damage listed for arrows) but are instead based on the weapon that fired them for ranged combat, it is consistent with the Pazio's redesign of the rules and trying to simplify things. At worst, Enlarge Person isn't free damage to ranged attackers I guess. It would seem it is supposed to be a melee buff in their view.I don't disagree with this notion vis-a-vis Enlarge Person, but as regards Reduce Person, I find it incongruous that a similar alteration was not included on the same basis of simplification, especially given the manner in which the implementation in Reduce Person is presented: as a parenthetical statement that, just like an appositive, in theory could be removed from the statement entirely without altering the meanings or implications of the statement. I'm not objecting to the change to Enlarge Person, I'm griping about the lack of similar change to Reduce Person and the imbalance thereby created between spells that "counter and dispel" each other.
I guess it depends on if you actually view it as an imbalance. They seem to think a object fired from a smaller creature doesn't do as much damage no matter what its size, and that an object that starts its journey larger should lose some of its damage potential if it shrinks on its way to the target. At least from the rules they have written.
|
I think this still can work, you just need to carry around a quiver of arrows sized for a large bow. So rounds one, move action drop quiver, std cast enlarge. Round two move action pick up quiver, std gravity bow. Round three, shoot. This way the arrows are excluded from the original enlarge leaving them the right sized, not oversize. Then you can fire them with out them suddenly shrinking when they leave your hand.
I think this still can work, you just need to carry around a quiver of arrows sized for a large bow. So rounds one, move action drop quiver, std cast enlarge. Round two move action pick up quiver, std gravity bow. Round three, shoot. This way the arrows are excluded from the original enlarge leaving them the right sized, not oversize. Then you can fire them with out them suddenly shrinking when they leave your hand.
<goes to look up weapons tables> ... Yeah, except that the damage values for projectiles is listed under the Bow/Crossbow/Sling/other-firing-mechanism, not the Arrows. So the size of the launching weapon usually *does* determine the damage die, in which case the text in Reduce Person is properly parenthetical and the text in Enlarge Person is a specifically called out exception to the norm.
I guess it depends on if you actually view it as an imbalance. They seem to think a object fired from a smaller creature doesn't do as much damage no matter what its size, and that an object that starts its journey larger should lose some of its damage potential if it shrinks on its way to the target. At least from the rules they have written.
... I still don't like that the one spell diminishes projectile damage but the other spell does not produce a commensurate increase - the dichotomy just makes me itch. I'm probably looking at it from the perspective of The Way Magic Works, which is a kind of silly perspective to look at a *spell description* from...
Anyway, with Gravity Bow, an archer gets the benefit of a larger bow without the penalties associated with actually being bigger, so it's mechanically addressed I suppose...
|
I think this still can work, you just need to carry around a quiver of arrows sized for a large bow. So rounds one, move action drop quiver, std cast enlarge. Round two move action pick up quiver, std gravity bow. Round three, shoot. This way the arrows are excluded from the original enlarge leaving them the right sized, not oversize. Then you can fire them with out them suddenly shrinking when they leave your hand.<goes to look up weapons tables> ... Yeah, except that the damage values for projectiles is listed under the Bow/Crossbow/Sling/other-firing-mechanism, not the Arrows. So the size of the launching weapon usually *does* determine the damage die...
Let us continue on this line of silliness. Instead of large arrows, simply get a large bow. Drop it before casting Enlarge Person, pick it back up, then cast gravity bow. 3d6 for the win!
Let us continue on this line of silliness. Instead of large arrows, simply get a large bow. Drop it before casting Enlarge Person, pick it back up, then cast gravity bow. 3d6 for the win!
But then you end up with a large weapon and medium arrows and need to suck up that penalty for using the wrong sized weapons.
And yes, arrows are sized (they inflict damage as per a light improvised weapon of the appropriate size I believe) :(
So go reduce person for the size bonus to AC and dex bump. Sure you might lose a point on strength, but you'd still get the gravity bow.
'small arrow' does 1d6, as soon as it leaves your bow it goes to 'medium arrow' for 1d8, gravity bow makes 2d6, with a +1 to hit and a +1 size bonus to AC.
Incorrect. Check reduce person again ;)
Enlarge person and reduce person contradict each other on how the magic works. Enlarge says the projectile returns to normal size as soon as it leaves your control. Reduce says it stays the smaller size. Neither spell will work especially well with gravity bow.
Incorrect. Check reduce person again ;)
Enlarge person and reduce person contradict each other on how the magic works. Enlarge says the projectile returns to normal size as soon as it leaves your control. Reduce says it stays the smaller size. Neither spell will work especially well with gravity bow.
Ummm... Reduce Person
Melee and projectile weapons deal less damage. Other magical properties are not affected by this spell. Any reduced item that leaves the reduced creature's possession (including a projectile or thrown weapon) instantly returns to its normal size. This means that thrown weapons deal their normal damage (projectiles deal damage based on the size of the weapon that fired them).
Try again I guess.
Incorrect. Check reduce person again ;)
Enlarge person and reduce person contradict each other on how the magic works. Enlarge says the projectile returns to normal size as soon as it leaves your control. Reduce says it stays the smaller size. Neither spell will work especially well with gravity bow.
Ummm... Reduce Person
(projectiles deal damage based on the size of the weapon that fired them).Try again I guess.
Read your own damned post. Here, I'll quote the relevant portion for you again:
(projectiles deal damage based on the size of the weapon that fired them)
|
It would be pretty hard to lug around large arrows. A normal arrow is between two and three feet in length depending on the bow. So a large arrow would be between 4 and 6 feet long. If you're using a long bow, you would want to figure more towards the 6 feet length. Unless your PC is really tall, that might be hard to lug around.
An Efficient Quiver, however, would allow you to stow 24 large arrows (18 in the javelin spot, 6 more in the longer section). If you GM allows it you might also be able to stow 11 more in a Handy Haversack and use them as you would if they were in a quiver because of the ease of getting something from the Haversack.
So go reduce person for the size bonus to AC and dex bump. Sure you might lose a point on strength, but you'd still get the gravity bow.
'small arrow' does 1d6, as soon as it leaves your bow it goes to 'medium arrow' for 1d8, gravity bow makes 2d6, with a +1 to hit and a +1 size bonus to AC.
Incorrect. Check reduce person again ;)
Enlarge person and reduce person contradict each other on how the magic works. Enlarge says the projectile returns to normal size as soon as it leaves your control. Reduce says it stays the smaller size. Neither spell will work especially well with gravity bow.
Bold'd was what I was correcting - projectiles DO change back to their original shape.
I did read my own post as well as the rules, I'm correcting your erroneous post. Maybe if you actually read before posting I wouldn't have had to. Get over yourself...
Congratulations on criticizing the trees and missing the forest.
Get over yourself...
Pot, kettle.
Yes, I made an error that in no way changed the actual point of my post. Big whoop. Your "try again" implied that my entire post was invalidated by it. Perhaps you could check your ego at the door and just accept that occasionally mistakes don't really matter? If I were to track down every minor mistake on these boards and post "try again" on them, I'd have to make a business out of it, because there would not be enough hours in the day to do it myself. I can go through your own posts if you like, though, since it seems to give you the jollies.
Before this goes any further, I'd like to declare myself the winner of the pissing match that's about to unfold between the two of you.Congratulations on criticizing the trees and missing the forest.
Get over yourself...Pot, kettle.
Yes, I made an error that in no way changed the actual point of my post. Big whoop. Your "try again" implied that my entire post was invalidated by it. Perhaps you could check your ego at the door and just accept that occasionally mistakes don't really matter? If I were to track down every minor mistake on these boards and post "try again" on them, I'd have to make a business out of it, because there would not be enough hours in the day to do it myself. I can go through your own posts if you like, though, since it seems to give you the jollies.
No pissing match, it's not worth ruining my computer over. Just trying to make sure the correct information is being posted. Apparently that offends some people...