Bite: 1d4
Claws: 1d4
INA (claws)
Bite 1d4
Claws 1d6
Strong Jaw
Bite 1d8
Claws 2d6
|
Bite: 1d4
Claws: 1d4INA (claws)
Bite 1d4
Claws 1d6Strong Jaw
Bite 1d8
Claws 2d6
Thanks. I've got one more character question, which I expect to see come up some time in my character's career.
Since my character is Kitsune, has a 1d4 bite, and 1d6 claws (ranger natural attack stance with Imp Nat Weapon), what would my damage be when I use the feat Fox Shape? It states my bite would go from a 1d4 to a 1d3 (appears to be a 1step down on the "Tiny and Large Weapon Damage" damage table). Fox Shape states that it functions as Beast Shape II (I'd assume it uses the "Tiny" option and turns me into a tiny fox).
Since I'd change to a Tiny creature I suspect my claws would also be affected, turning them into 1d3's also (since it states my 1d4 bite goes to a 1d3 claw, I assume this is how my claws are affected also). So with Imp Natural Weapon does it then raise my 1d3 claws back up to 1d4's?
---
Assuming with Fox Shape and Imp Nat Weapon: Claws that I'm looking at 1d3 bite and two 1d4 claws.
Also, What table are you using and how to determine Strong Jaw? Most of the tables I see show small, medium, large damage. Do you look at the 1 step increase from the medium to large and then for the second step take that damage number and find it on the medium chart and then look what the damage is that it changes to when going to large?
---
EDIT: Wondering because I'd have to figure out when that gets applied and how in the whole order of Fox Shape, Imp Natural Weapon, and Strong Jaw (the order these are applied and how to apply the steps since a few of these cause different character sizes)
Natural weapons follow some odd rules. And fox shape does weird things, too.
As near as I can read it, fox shape turns you into a tiny fox, but doesn't actually fiddle with you bite attack's size: it just gives you a tiny fox's 1d3 bite. Apply all other effects to that base, rather than your normal 1d4.
Per the polymorph subschool, you lose natural attacks your original form has that your new form doesn't, so you lose the claws. Sorry.
As for the chart I'm following, I'm using my own. Natural attacks that deal 1d8 damage jump to 2d6 in all cases, so the 1d6>1d8>2d6 for strong jaw occurs no matter how you follow the progression. The more interesting question is what the next step up would be (it's either 2d8 for a "real natural attack" or 3d6 for every single other progression in the game). My personal answer is 3d6, because strong jaw is not an actual size increase in the creature.
Point of interest: I get the same result if I enlarge your kitsune. 1d6>1d8 on the real natural attack path, then two steps up for a natural weapon goes 1d8>2d6>3d6 (you are no longer progressing using a real natural attack, so follow the main progression.
Here's an incomplete version of my chart. It doesn't have all the rules written on it, but basically find your base natural attack on the black progression. If you actually change size, go down the orange branch, but only if a physical size increase is the only effect. Otherwise stick with the black progression, following either the green or red branch (green takes precedence), and apply any further size altering effects on those progressions.
So, your claws go 1d4 (black)>INA 1d6 (black)>1st strong jaw 1d8 (black, pointer to green)>2nd strong jaw 2d6 (green).
If we enlarge you, we go 1d4 (black)> enlarged 1d6 (black, pointing to orange)>INA 1d8 (black, ignore orange, this isn't a size increase, pointing towards green)>2 strong jaw steps 3d6 (green).
Doing all that in a different order 1d4 (black)>2 strong jaw steps 1d8 (pointing towards green)>enlarge 2d6 (green)>INA 3d6 (green).
So I just wanna know if I got this right
When increasing damage dice (NOT BY SIZE) it just goes by steps
The highest I could find for medium weapons is 2d10, so the next step after that would be 2d12. After that, I looked at when the damage dice change from single to double, specifically from 1d12 to 2d4. The smallest possible dice is 1d2, so I figured that means that the increased dice would have to be two steps above the lowest dice depending on single or double rolled. What this means is that the step after 2d12 would be 3d8, after which is 3d10.
Does this make sense?
Medium weapon damage dice table
1d2
1d3
1d4
1d6
1d8
1d10
1d12
2d4
2d6
2d8
2d10
I'm not doing medium>large damage dice, I'm doing regular medium weapon dice progression
Okay, now I'm confused.
Generally the only effects that alter the damage dice of a weapon are size increases (exceptions: class abilities that actually increase damage as you go up levels).
There is no progression by which you should alter the damage of weapons except those exceptions. The designers could create a weapon that does 1 point of damage for a medium creature. Likewise, they could create one that does 3d20.
So I'm really not sure what you mean by "progression" for medium weapons: they range from 1d3 to 2d6 to 2d12 (some firearms) and all points in between.
Yeah, the table is taken directly from the weapons page
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What I'm trying to say is, does the table keep going like so
2d10
2d12
3d8
3d10
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This isn't even something that should be FAQ'd, it's a horrible inconsistency that really needs to be errata'd. There needs to be a standard linear progression, and then abilities need to say 'move damage die up xxx steps on the 'standardized damage die chart'. This makes FAR more sense than trying to explain why all the abilities use different scales.
Honestly, I've been following this thread for ages, and I constantly see 20th level monks being singled out as oddballs.
Which they are. My question is, how difficult would it really be to just errata the 20th level Monk Damage to be 3d8, instead of 2d10? It fits the Small > Medimum > Large 20th Level Monk Damage progression perfectly.
CRB, NPC codex aaaaand... Somewhere else that's not springing to mind right now. Not a huge deal, but still a deal which invalidates previously written content.
Also, it should probably be 3d6, which still makes it an oddball.
What would really be great would be one single chart, that had rows for size, and columns for power levels. spells/effects would move damage so many steps horizontally (power increases/decreases) or vertically (size increases/decreases). But this would take publishing said chart, then errating all spells and effects that affect damage die to refer to it.
Holy crow, nearly 500 FAQ requests, never seen it get this high...
I wonder how much pain the PDT is going through for this?
I believe Mark said it was the highest # that any FAQ request has ever received.
If you search this thread for his comments you'll see exactly what the holdup is.
It comes down to an unwillingness to errata a problem inherited from legacy.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It comes down to an unwillingness to errata a problem inherited from legacy.Holy crow, nearly 500 FAQ requests, never seen it get this high...
I wonder how much pain the PDT is going through for this?
I believe Mark said it was the highest # that any FAQ request has ever received.
If you search this thread for his comments you'll see exactly what the holdup is.
It comes down to an unwillingness to make a sweeping change to a system that's connected to pretty much every book in the Pathfinder line at this point.
That's quite a bit different than what you're saying.
How were the values in each of those books determined? Just give us those rules. Oh wait... Yeah. It's also an unwillingness to state that values haven't been derived but we're just assigned. They are trying like hell to pound a square peg into a round hole.
Just put the peg on a lathe and be done with it. Yeah, there will be some sawdust on the floor but it will be far far better for the game moving forward.
Why would having a single chart for increased damage have ANY affect on any of the books? The dev's clearly don't have to follow the same rules we do, so it only has to make sense for players upping the given values (however they came up with them) through their characters abilities/spells.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why would having a single chart for increased damage have ANY affect on any of the books? The dev's clearly don't have to follow the same rules we do, so it only has to make sense for players upping the given values (however they came up with them) through their characters abilities/spells.
This. All existing stat blocks can function as printed. only a handful of items would need printed errata.
Also, notice that I didn't say legacy was the reason they are holding onto the problem, just that the problem is a legacy issue. Which it most certainly is.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Jeff:
Advancing monsters STILL has no impact on books. A chart for GM/players to modify themselves and monsters doesn't alter the base items/monsters/equipment/ect.
As for different damages for PC vs books, that already happens. There are creatures/items/ect that don't expected norms. Dev's can cheat. Look at the ring of invisibility. Note that is doesn't follow any of the guidelines. The game somehow still gets played, so I don't see this chart throwing things out of kilter.
As for a chart having an impact, that's the point of asking for a chart isn't it? there are abilities/items/ect that ALREADY change your dice, so it would be nice to be sure exactly how they work.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ok, I quickly did just that and... I don't see an issue after that. Adding a table for changes doesn't need to alter the already published damages for small people. You work down from small and up from medium. So weapons tables stay the same even if that means they would be different than the new chart for good or bad. Fixed.
Was there another issue I missed?
Don't know, but even if the PDT puts out a chart, your posting history indicates that you'll still complain about it.
Wow, I didn't know I had that many post about weapon damage dice. You must have a stalker level of knowledge on my posts to remember them better than I do.
If you mean that I don't enjoy and praise every FAQ then you'd be right. Most of the latest FAQ have not made me happy though I'm not sure what that has to do with a damage dice chart though.
For instance, point out a post on my complaining about the 10' reach FAQ. Or the 1/2 elf/orc FAQ. Or the SLA counting as spells/spellcasting FAQ. I only complain when I don't like/agree with a FAQ. You know, like everyone else.
-
Congratulations to us all on breaking *500* F.A.Q. Requests, a first on these forums. :D
Everyone give themselves a pat on the back. ;)
-
Ok, I quickly did just that and... I don't see an issue after that. Adding a table for changes doesn't need to alter the already published damages for small people. You work down from small and up from medium. So weapons tables stay the same even if that means they would be different than the new chart for good or bad. Fixed.
Was there another issue I missed?
Weapons are easy. I solved those ages ago. Natural weapons are the problem child, and the problem stems from the following point:
There are not less than three separate natural weapon damage progressions, all of which interact with each other under certain effects. Unfortunately, the progression of each is different.
The problem is that it should be possible to reverse-engineer any natural weapon damage size changes, if you know the final result, and the effects in place. It should then be possible to re-engineer the same final result by applying the effects again. This cannot be done simply. In fact, I'm not even sure it can be done at all, in a consistent fashion.
Here is the problem: take a natural weapon that does 1d10 damage. Apply a single size reduction to it. Then apply a single size increase to it. What, using only the rules of the game as currently presented, is the damage of that natural weapon? Solve that one, and I'll buy you a cookie.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
I only complain when I don't like/agree with a FAQ. You know, like everyone else.
Which is sort of the problem he is referencing. The FAQ clarify how the rules work. If you don't like how the rules work, you can make use of this thing called Rule 0 rule. Complaining about the rule clarification on here doesn't do anyone much good.
I only complain when I don't like/agree with a FAQ. You know, like everyone else.Which is sort of the problem he is referencing. The FAQ clarify how the rules work. If you don't like how the rules work, you can make use of this thing called Rule 0 rule. Complaining about the rule clarification on here doesn't do anyone much good.
So what? Are we not allowed to share our opinions on the forum boards... which exist specifically for the purpose of sharing opinions? Or are we just not allowed criticize stuff? Are opinions only valid when they offer praise? Because that doesn't do anyone much good either...
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
So what? Are we not allowed to share our opinions on the forum boards... which exist specifically for the purpose of sharing opinions? Or are we just not allowed criticize stuff? Are opinions only valid when they offer praise? Because that doesn't do anyone much good either...
I welcome opinion sharing.
I'm referring to what often happens. 900 posts of "you are wrong it is this" and "no you are wrong it is that".
Where opinions are shared but no one agrees to disagree.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I welcome opinion sharing.
I'm referring to what often happens. 900 posts of "you are wrong it is this" and "no you are wrong it is that".
Where opinions are shared but no one agrees to disagree.
Well, that isn't the tone that comes from your last post... It sounds like you were condemning graystone for voicing a negative opinion.
Besides, discussions don't necessarily have to end with "let's agree to disagree, hold hands and sing kumbaya".
There is nothing wrong with disagreeing and criticizing rules and FAQs (or even opinions). If graystone (or anyone else) feels like criticizing Paizo or Pathfinder, they are allowed to do so. And this forum is a great place to do so. Here his opinions will be heard and criticized by fellow players, maybe even a dev...
I welcome opinion sharing.
I'm referring to what often happens. 900 posts of "you are wrong it is this" and "no you are wrong it is that".
Where opinions are shared but no one agrees to disagree.
Well, that isn't the tone that comes from your last post... It sounds like you were condemning graystone for voicing a negative opinion.
Besides, discussions don't necessarily have to end with "let's agree to disagree, hold hands and sing kumbaya".
There is nothing wrong with disagreeing and criticizing rules and FAQs (or even opinions). If graystone (or anyone else) feels like criticizing Paizo or Pathfinder, they are allowed to do so. And this forum is a great place to do so. Here his opinions will be heard and criticized by fellow players, maybe even a dev...
You're wrong it is this.
Here is the problem: take a natural weapon that does 1d10 damage. Apply a single size reduction to it. Then apply a single size increase to it. What, using only the rules of the game as currently presented, is the damage of that natural weapon? Solve that one, and I'll buy you a cookie.
Thank you. That is clarifying.
Given the centrality of combat in this game, I'm amazed that this wasn't one of the first issues settled back when the game was first created.
You're wrong it is this.I welcome opinion sharing.
I'm referring to what often happens. 900 posts of "you are wrong it is this" and "no you are wrong it is that".
Where opinions are shared but no one agrees to disagree.
Well, that isn't the tone that comes from your last post... It sounds like you were condemning graystone for voicing a negative opinion.
Besides, discussions don't necessarily have to end with "let's agree to disagree, hold hands and sing kumbaya".
There is nothing wrong with disagreeing and criticizing rules and FAQs (or even opinions). If graystone (or anyone else) feels like criticizing Paizo or Pathfinder, they are allowed to do so. And this forum is a great place to do so. Here his opinions will be heard and criticized by fellow players, maybe even a dev...
I disagree (obviously)
|
Here is the problem: take a natural weapon that does 1d10 damage. Apply a single size reduction to it. Then apply a single size increase to it. What, using only the rules of the game as currently presented, is the damage of that natural weapon? Solve that one, and I'll buy you a cookie.Thank you. That is clarifying.
Given the centrality of combat in this game, I'm amazed that this wasn't one of the first issues settled back when the game was first created.
Well, let's see.
I don't remember much of anything in Chainmail about changing sizes.
White box? I don't recall anything like Enlarge Person existing at that time. Nor the Monk, originally.
AD&D? Well, that added the Monk, but the Monk, like the Bard and the Druid, followed some really weird rules.
AD&D2? Other than the proliferation of the Player Toolbox/class kit books, not much changed between 1 & 2.
D&D3E? I think their sights were set at other things than consistent damage dice, really, like making stat modifiers consistent between stats, a consistent XP chart, and adding a bunch of new concepts (Can we say actual skills, and something called Feats?) to the game.
