|
5 people marked this as FAQ candidate.
|
Strong Jaw wrote: Each natural attack that creature makes deals damage as if the creature were two sizes larger than it actually is. If the creature is already Gargantuan or Colossal-sized, double the amount of damage dealt by each of its natural attacks instead. The Stegosaurus is only huge, but deals 4d6 with his tail. The chart assumes anything doing 4d6 is already colossal. So would you just double it's damage, or change it's dice? I'm inclined to do the former.
And by doubling the damage, I'm assume it's meaning roll damage, then x2. Is that how others take that?
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Any time you multiply a roll, you roll it again.
So for x2, 4d6+8 would effectively become 8d6+16. That is how the game expects you to handle all multipliers.
As for the damage progression, I personally believe it would go from 4d6 to 6d6 to 8d6. This is supported by the Improved Natural Attack feat which has the same progression.
Ravingdork wrote: Any time you multiply a roll, you roll it again.
So for x2, 4d6+8 would effectively become 8d6+16. That is how the game expects you to handle all multipliers.
As for the damage progression, I personally believe it would go from 4d6 to 6d6 to 8d6. This is supported by the Improved Natural Attack feat which has the same progression.
Is there somewhere it actually states you roll again as a general rule? With empower I think the devs had said specifically don't roll, just do the math.
This seems to get crazy with vital strike. 16d6 tail slap?
INA was a good catch, I shoulda checked that.
Multiplying Damage: Sometimes you multiply
damage by some factor, such as on a critical hit. Roll
the damage (with all modifiers) multiple times and total
the results.
CRB, p. 179
I think the reason for this is to average out damage more: Otherwise, criticals with a Scythe would have max damage (and minimum damage) equally as often as any value. With rolling multiple times, you're going to get fairly average damage the vast majority of the time.
Ravingdork wrote: Any time you multiply a roll, you roll it again.
So for x2, 4d6+8 would effectively become 8d6+16. That is how the game expects you to handle all multipliers.
As for the damage progression, I personally believe it would go from 4d6 to 6d6 to 8d6. This is supported by the Improved Natural Attack feat which has the same progression.
That's not actually how the progression goes Ravingdork...
if you look at the chart for natural weapon progression
Bite 1 1d2 1d3 1d4 1d6 1d8 2d6 2d8 4d6
you can see it doubles every 2 size categories. starting from Diminuative, because smaller than that has to have a minimum damage.
it goes D2 - D4 (x2), D4 - D8(x2), D8 - 2D8 (x2)
It's more apparent that it continues to double if we start at Tiny.
D3 - D6, D6 - 2D6, 2D6 - 4D6. that's not a linear progression. it's exponential.
Therefor, it would not progress to 6D6, it would in fact be 8D6, if you cast strong jaw on a colossal creature.
Using the Improved natural weapons feat example.
the Stegosaurus' tail slap attack would not go from 4D6 - 6D6 - 8D6, it would go 4D6 - 4D8 - 8D6. This is because of the exponential increase of the table.
Troubleshooter wrote: Multiplying Damage: Sometimes you multiply
damage by some factor, such as on a critical hit. Roll
the damage (with all modifiers) multiple times and total
the results.
CRB, p. 179
I think the reason for this is to average out damage more: Otherwise, criticals with a Scythe would have max damage (and minimum damage) equally as often as any value. With rolling multiple times, you're going to get fairly average damage the vast majority of the time.
Cool, thanks for the quote.
So a strong jaw vital strike would add another 4, or 8 dice, that's the part that's not clear to me... Seems like I could argue either way.
Vestrial wrote: So a strong jaw vital strike would add another 4, or 8 dice, that's the part that's not clear to me... Seems like I could argue either way. The vital Strike with the strong jaw, would add a rediculous amount of damage.
I've spoken with our party druid about this... he's only just begun to wildshape at level 7... It's an interesting concept, to turn into a large bear, take improved natural weapon bite, then cast strong jaw on the bite, do to 4D6 damage. then take vital strike, and bite for 8D6 damage.
The Stegosaurus Tail attack goes from 4D6 to 8D6 base damage.
that's the BASE damage of the new tail attack, because of the amplification brought on by Strong Jaw.
and here's Vital Strike
It states that you add the weapons base damage again when you successfully hit with a vital strike.
So, say you're in a combat, and you Move into striking distance and vital strike, Your tail attack with Strong Jaw does a base 8D6 damage.
Vital strike adds the base damage again... so you do an additional 8D6 damage.
for a grand total of 16 D6. Pity you only add the strength damage once. :(
but yes... if you actually do this, can you please video tape yourself holding a bowl full of dice and say to the player "This is how much damage you take!" while dramatically throwing all those dice onto the table.
lol Kantas. I'm actually thinking about playing a druid, so just trying to make sure I know how everything works.
I know it says base damage. I guess my confusion is for Colossal, Strong Jaw says to double the damage. Not that the base damage becomes double what it normally is. I think that's actually what they meant, but the wording is a bit odd. (or maybe it means the same thing and I'm reading too much into it?) lol
16d6 sounds pretty crazy. But I guess the other option is to become something that has like 5 attacks per turn, which would end up being like 10d6, but then you get to add strength and other mods 5 times as well, so the multi-attacker probably still does more damage.
Yep. I've had a Pounce Druid that did gobs of damage, sometimes more than the TWF Fighter, and with full spellcasting on top.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
kantas wrote: Ravingdork wrote: Any time you multiply a roll, you roll it again.
So for x2, 4d6+8 would effectively become 8d6+16. That is how the game expects you to handle all multipliers.
As for the damage progression, I personally believe it would go from 4d6 to 6d6 to 8d6. This is supported by the Improved Natural Attack feat which has the same progression.
That's not actually how the progression goes Ravingdork...
if you look at the chart for natural weapon progression
Bite 1 1d2 1d3 1d4 1d6 1d8 2d6 2d8 4d6
you can see it doubles every 2 size categories. starting from Diminuative, because smaller than that has to have a minimum damage.
it goes D2 - D4 (x2), D4 - D8(x2), D8 - 2D8 (x2)
It's more apparent that it continues to double if we start at Tiny.
D3 - D6, D6 - 2D6, 2D6 - 4D6. that's not a linear progression. it's exponential.
Therefor, it would not progress to 6D6, it would in fact be 8D6, if you cast strong jaw on a colossal creature.
Using the Improved natural weapons feat example.
the Stegosaurus' tail slap attack would not go from 4D6 - 6D6 - 8D6, it would go 4D6 - 4D8 - 8D6. This is because of the exponential increase of the table.
Huh? I'm looking right at the progression listed in the feat (which is clearly indicated as being "like a size increase").
1d2, 1d3, 1d4, 1d6, 1d8, 2d6, 3d6, 4d6, 6d6, 8d6, 12d6.
or
1d10, 2d8, 3d8, 4d8, 6d8, 8d8, 12d8.
This is the same progression used by weapon size increases. To my knowledge, it's the ONLY damage progression for size.
Not really sure what you're going on about.
I asked James Jacobs this question awhile ago.
James Jacobs wrote: Weren Wu Jen wrote: If you cast Strong Jaw on a Gargantuan or Colossal creature, it states:
"If the creature is already Gargantuan or Colossal-sized, double the amount of damage dealt by each of its natural attacks instead."
Would this include any modifiers for strength?
For instance, the bite of an Ancient Blue Dragon (Gargantuan) is 4d6+18.
Under the effects of Strong Jaw, would the dragon's damage be:
A) 8d6+36 (doubling the whole amount of damage dealt)
or
B) 8d6+18 (doubling only the damage dice)
Strong Jaw only doubles the dice involved in the attack. An ancient blue dragon's bite would become 8d6+18.
|
1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.
|
Ravingdork wrote: ... This is the same progression used by weapon size increases. To my knowledge, it's the ONLY damage progression for size.
Not really sure what you're going on about...
Check out the 'natural attacks by size' table in the Bestiary. Table 3-1, page 302. It's (relatively) well known to be different from the progress of either weapons or the INA Feat.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
But that's not size progression. That's just base damage. It has no use beyond monster creation or as a reference from templates and the like.
|
2 people marked this as FAQ candidate.
|
Ravingdork wrote: Huh? I'm looking right at the progression listed in the feat (which is clearly indicated as being "like a size increase").
1d2, 1d3, 1d4, 1d6, 1d8, 2d6, 3d6, 4d6, 6d6, 8d6, 12d6.
or
1d10, 2d8, 3d8, 4d8, 6d8, 8d8, 12d8.
This is the same progression used by weapon size increases. To my knowledge, it's the ONLY damage progression for size.
Not really sure what you're going on about.
Well, it wouldn't be the first time that conflicting information was present.
I quoted the size chart for natural weapons, listed in the strong jaw spell.
I did a direct copy / paste from the table for natural attacks.
Apparently they use a different size damage chart for the feat.
I use the SRD more frequently cause it's an easier URL to remember.
so, here's two URLS that showcase the issue the two of us are having.
I'm looking at the chart, you're looking at the feat. Both give conflicting information, and i'd assume that both could be considered correct.
Improved Natural Attack Feat
Natural Attack size chart
(that's actually the strong jaw spell but it has the table in an easy to find location)
So, as we can see here, the Feat Improved natural weapon has it's own progression line listed in the feat, while mentioning that it functions like increasing the creatures size category.
Awkwardly these are different things. and i'm curious why they gave a seperate progression in the feat, as opposed to just using the table they already provided...
My apologies for coming across as hostile ravingdork, that was not my intention. I suffered from not reading the entire feat, i read "does damage as one size category larger" passed over the numbers given, assuming they just mirrored the table... but evidently they do not.
i also just checked the PRD to make sure the tables and other information are the same, and they are.
improved natural attack
Natural Attack table
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Except you don't use that table. You use the ones that I presented. As I said the one you showed is only meant to be used during monster creation or when it is SPECIFICALLY referenced.
I dislike PFSRD for exactly this reason: They make mistakes and accidentally mislead people.
The Strong Jaw spell does not have that table in its description, and doesn't even reference it.
Ravingdork wrote: Except you don't use that table. You use the ones that I presented. As I said the one you showed is only meant to be used during monster creation or when it is SPECIFICALLY referenced.
I dislike PFSRD for exactly this reason: They make mistakes and accidentally mislead people.
The Strong Jaw spell does not have that table in its description, and doesn't even reference it.
Regardless, it's pretty dumb they have two charts, with contradictory information, referring to the same thing (damage by size).
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Vestrial wrote: Ravingdork wrote: Except you don't use that table. You use the ones that I presented. As I said the one you showed is only meant to be used during monster creation or when it is SPECIFICALLY referenced.
I dislike PFSRD for exactly this reason: They make mistakes and accidentally mislead people.
The Strong Jaw spell does not have that table in its description, and doesn't even reference it.
Regardless, it's pretty dumb they have two charts, with contradictory information, referring to the same thing (damage by size). Except it's NOT contradictory! They are used for two completely separate things.
Ravingdork wrote: Except you don't use that table. You use the ones that I presented.
I hate PFSRD for exactly this reason: They make mistakes and mislead people.
The Strong Jaw spell does not have that table in its description, and doesn't even reference it.
The PFSRD provides the same information, I just quoted both websites, and the only difference is that the natural attacks by size chart isn't listed on the strong jaw spell on the PRD...
however, the spell states that you do damage as if you were two size categories larger... So having the table in the strong jaw entry helps out whoever is looking up that information. Thus the SRD is laid out a little better in this particular case.
now when casting the strong jaw spell, would you reference a feat, or would you reference the Natural Attacks by Size chart?
what is more intuitive to you?
At what point does this spell reference the improved natural weapon feat? I'll tell you where... no where... the word Feat doesn't show up in the text for strong jaw at all... It only states that you do damage as if you were two size categories larger... and guess what? There's a table created for just such and occasion
Natural Attacks by size
therefore, please tell us why we should use values presented in an obscure area unrelated to the question at hand, instead of the table created specifically for this type of scenario?
There's a reason the SRD posts the size chart in the strong jaw spell entry... and that's because it's useful information pertaining to the strong jaw spell.
Ravingdork wrote: Except it's NOT contradictory! They are used for two completely separate things. Completely separate? More like 'slightly separate because there's this second chart which must have a reason to exist.'
Monster A grows from a tad to a giant, does X damage. Monster B gets magic'd up from a tad to a giant, does Y damage, even though it specifically said 'as if it were larger.' Not 'as if it were larger via magic. Or 'larger in the general sense, not actually, like a larger creature.'
It's silly. There should be one chart. 'As if larger,' should mean, as if larger.
i hit FAQ btw, i recommend it for all :-)
Recent threads in Rules Questions
|
