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.
Sorry, I should have made it clear that I was talking about the Pathfinder version rather than the earlier versions. I would have thought that this would come up during the 10 years of playtesting that the website refers to. To be clear, I am not criticizing Paizo. I understand that creating and modifying this game is an immense undertaking. I am just surprised that the problem took this long to surface.
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.
I'd say you grandfather in the damage that's listed like weapons. For example a single reduction and increase nullifies each other and you end up not having to pull out the chart because nothing happened. The original damage stands.
James Risner: I don't consistently hate/complain about FAQ's so I find he really doesn't have a point. I don't hate them because they are FAQ. I hate some because I don't agree with them/like them. Since there HAVE been FAQ's that have been altered after they have been made, voicing concerns/complaints seems important. If I don't, how do the DEV's know that everyone doesn't think the FAQ is just wonderful...
"I'm referring to what often happens. 900 posts of "you are wrong it is this" and "no you are wrong it is that".": In that case, all that needs to happen is one side stops. If you and HangarFlying don't like that happening, the easiest way to stop it is to not post "no you are wrong it is that". isn't it? When you do post however, you really can't complain that I'm doing the same on the other side. ;)
I'd say you grandfather in the damage that's listed like weapons. For example a single reduction and increase nullifies each other and you end up not having to pull out the chart because nothing happened. The original damage stands.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.
I agree that's what should happen. Unfortunately, it doesn't. Every single progression that reduces 1d10 drops it to 1d8, but every single progression increases 1d8 to 2d6 (for natural attacks. Weapons are a bit different). Hence the problem. The current rules are not consistent.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But why don't you then just state that "if [the rules] already list a damage die for the weapon/attack at a specific size, use that value rather than the one from [the new table]"?
Then you could just have a single table. As soon as anything upgrades, you just determine the nearest equivalent value on that table, and move a step up on the table.
The simple answer is "because if I have a stat block in an adventure and I want to apply a specific effect to it, I don't want to have to check the bestiary first to see which track I need to follow".
For example, if you have a young tarrasque, it does gore 1d8. Now apply the strong jaw spell to it. 1d8>2d6>3d6, right? Except a tarrasque does gore 1d10, -1 size +2 size is a total of +1 size, which would be 1d10>2d8, but the only way to know that is to check the tarrasque entry. That's an extra reference that shouldn't be required.
The good news is that very few creatures have a natural attack that does 1d10 damage. The bad news is that they exist.
As I said before, with weapons it's easy - if the size change involves the medium/large transition and the damage dice 1d8 or higher at that point in the change, then you follow specific lines of progression. Natural weapons don't have a nice transition point like that (at least not one that I've been able to divine). I can tell you what to do moving upwards from any dice expression. I can tell you what to do moving downwards from any dice expression. What I can't solve is how to move both up and down any dice expression if it involves 1d10 appearing anywhere but at the lowest end of the changes.
It's a hot mess, really, and while "check the source" is a reasonable answer, it's not as elegant and simple as it should be.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Since there HAVE been FAQ's that have been altered after they have been made, voicing concerns/complaints seems important. If I don't, how do the DEV's know that everyone doesn't think the FAQ is just wonderful
you really can't complain that I'm doing the same on the other side. ;)
The only FAQ they change have been the ones where there is a firestorm when it came out. They don't often change the ones where people bring it up all the time in unrelated threads. So doing that just creates an air of negativity that I'm sure if I were Paizo I'd rather not have present. I give them credit, they don't often tell people to shut up. So they are quite liberal (more than any other company I know) about letting people voice dissenting opinions on their forums.
As for both sides not backing down. Yes I can complain. Mostly because I'm nearly always on the side of "both interpretations are correct, why can't we agree on that".
The only FAQ they change have been the ones where there is a firestorm when it came out. They don't often change the ones where people bring it up all the time in unrelated threads. So doing that just creates an air of negativity that I'm sure if I were Paizo I'd rather not have present. I give them credit, they don't often tell people to shut up. So they are quite liberal (more than any other company I know) about letting people voice dissenting opinions on their forums.
If there is the slightest possibility that my comments can alter those FAQs that I find just awful, then it's time well spent IMO. If I don't continue to complain about them, they might think that they've grown on me and I somehow managed to be ok with them. The unwritten rule faq's fall into this category.
Though again, I'm unsure how ANY of that affects my opinions on damage dice. I quite honestly don't see the issues Chemlak seems to be seeing. AT worst make an exception for d10's if they are the problem child of the chart.
As for both sides not backing down. Yes I can complain. Mostly because I'm nearly always on the side of "both interpretations are correct, why can't we agree on that".
From my perspective, you're not really the middle of the road, lets all get along and sing kumaya guy. You've been more the I'm right and you're wrong kind of guy. Now I don't pretend to know the entirety of your posts here, this is just a comment on posts we've had in shared threads. I don't know that I've ever see you post "both interpretations are correct, why can't we agree on that".
I think a side note along the lines of "When applying multiple size increases/reductions, find the final net increase/reduction and adjust the stats from there" would be useful.
Though again, I'm unsure how ANY of that affects my opinions on damage dice. I quite honestly don't see the issues Chemlak seems to be seeing. AT worst make an exception for d10's if they are the problem child of the chart.
Fair enough. I'm certainly not going to go out of my way to sway someone one way or the other. I'm pretty sure Mark Siefter and I are on the same page, though: a chart with a handful of rules should be able to describe all possible size-change damage dice expressions from any known starting point to any desired end point, consistently and without confusion or room for interpretation.
There will always be bizarre outliers (level 20 monk and crystal ooze, please die in a fire), but gore damage for a young Tarrasque with strong jaw should be simple, calculable, and unambiguous. I'm 100% confident that it should be 2d8. I'm equally confident that I can't use the rules to guarantee everyone will agree with me.
It's not that there's an exception for 1d10 damage. It's a question of when that exception should be invoked. There should be a rule. I do not know what that rule is. It could be creature type, creature size, attack type, or something completely different, I don't know. As a GM, I have a gargantuan magical beast that does gore 1d8. What is the damage if I increase the size by one category? Whatever the answer, it needs to account for being a young Tarrasque (which gives 1d10), and the improved natural attack feat for a creature doing 1d8 damage with a natural attack (2d6), and the monster creation rules (also 2d6).
The simple fact is that unless Mark can take a set of rules to Jason and say "look, I've solved natural attacks, this accounts for every single example given in all books published to date, moving up and down an arbitrary number of size changes, and always gives a consistent answer" we aren't likely to see an FAQ on this subject, because an FAQ from PDT that says "GMs should use the charts presented in the CRB and the bestiary at their discretion, and should just accept unusual results" is a non-starter. It doesn't tell us anything we don't already know.
I've given it my best shot: one chart, a few rules, everything covered except Monk 20 and 1d10 natural attacks moving down and back up. I've also explained to Mark how I got where I have. I don't think the problem can be reduced any further without invoking "because it does, okay?!" which is an argument from authority, and fallacious. PDT can exert that authority, and frankly I encourage them to. But until all four of them agree how it works, no FAQ answer. And all four of PDT are more likely to agree to "here's the rules" than to "here's some of the rules, here's a bunch of exceptions, GMs need to handwave".
And as the single most FAQ flagged topic on the forums, I think this baby deserves a solid answer.
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Actually, as awesome as a formula would be, all I asked for in my original post was an FAQ showing all the various damage progressions in one place, and showing sizes beyond what is currently listed.
Since a formula may not be possible, or may adversely affect small-sized characters, let's just keep everything as is, but put it all in one spot.
That way, when someone asks, "How much damage does my awakened Tarrasque's Greatsword do?", we can point them in the right place.
Actually, as awesome as a formula would be, all I asked for in my original post was an FAQ showing all the various damage progressions in one place, and showing sizes beyond what is currently listed.
Since a formula may not be possible, or may adversely affect small-sized characters, let's just keep everything as is, but put it all in one spot.
That way, when someone asks, "How much damage does my awakened Tarrasque's Greatsword do?", we can point them in the right place.
I'd be happy with that too.
Though again, I'm unsure how ANY of that affects my opinions on damage dice. I quite honestly don't see the issues Chemlak seems to be seeing. AT worst make an exception for d10's if they are the problem child of the chart.Fair enough. I'm certainly not going to go out of my way to sway someone one way or the other. I'm pretty sure Mark Siefter and I are on the same page, though: a chart with a handful of rules should be able to describe all possible size-change damage dice expressions from any known starting point to any desired end point, consistently and without confusion or room for interpretation.
That's cool. I understand where you're coming from. We're just seeing the difficulty of implementation differently.
|
Actually, as awesome as a formula would be, all I asked for in my original post was an FAQ showing all the various damage progressions in one place, and showing sizes beyond what is currently listed.
Since a formula may not be possible, or may adversely affect small-sized characters, let's just keep everything as is, but put it all in one spot.
That way, when someone asks, "How much damage does my awakened Tarrasque's Greatsword do?", we can point them in the right place.
I agree, even if we can't get a standardized formula, just having a single spot to reference everything would be dandy (but I do love me some formulas, so I'll take that too if possible).
How do Dev's(Devils?) determine Natural Attack damage dice for evolved/advanced creatures that didn't change size, assuming they are not exceptions to the advancement rules?
For example, a Lizardman, CR1 Medium Humanoid, 1 Bite (1d4) and 2 Claws (1d4). If this Lizardman advances to CR20 with levels of Fighter or plain Humanoid levels, now with BAB 16+, how much damage will his Bite and Claws do, and why? Is it supposed to be equivalent to a Barbarian doing 4 attacks with a Greataxe (1d12) or a Rogue doing 7 attacks with TWF and shortswords (1d6)?
What about a Titan Centipede, CR9 Colossal Vermin. Assuming that at this size it's Bite is 4d6, what will the dice damage be if it advances to CR25? And why, what's the math behind this damage, how did they get there?
I'm asking this because I know what the damage of a Huge +1 Impact Bastard Sword in the hands of an enlarged gnome Barbarbarian should be, but I can't tell what should be the damage of a bite from a Werewolf evolved to CR 10 (btw, where did the Werewolf's claws go?).
I got confused because Table 3-1: Natural Attacks by Size on Bestiary (pag 302) kinda gives the impression that all Large creatures with a Gore attack should do 2d6 base damage, but I know that damage should change according to the creature CR. It makes me feel like there should be a table like 3-1 for every CR.
Also, even though it's from the 3.5 EPH, the Claws of the Beast power had it's own Natural Attack damage progression. I can see how the base claw damage increased greatly because you were forfeiting your multiple attacks for just 2 claw attacks, but I don't get why the Large Claw damage was just 1d6 more than the Medium size Claw. Why use that damage if, in theory, one could multiply the Medium Claw damage by 2 they increase in size twice with something like Giant Form II? That seemed like the right way to do this. Is this how NA damage dice progression is supposed to be?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Kchaka, I can't quite follow what your question is.
If you're customizing your own monster, you give it whatever damage dice you want.
But if you're just adding Hit Die to a creature, or applying the Advanced template to it, neither of those effects increase the base creature's damage dice.
The natural attack chart in the back of the Bestiary is just kind of a guideline for constructing your own monsters.
There are plenty of critters out there that break the rules.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
It's not that you disagree, it's the manner in how you disagree and the tone that you use that is a problem.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's not that you disagree, it's the manner in how you disagree and the tone that you use that is a problem.
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.
Pot meet kettle. I don't really think you're really the best person to be casting stones.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ozy, do what I've been doing: flag and move on.
A Lizardman, CR1 Medium Humanoid, 1 Bite (1d4) and 2 Claws (1d4) is a suitable adversary for a level 1 party. The same Lizardman at CR20 would have to deal more damage with this Bite and Claws to present some challenge for a level 20 party, since it will not be gaining more attacks from a high BAB, even at CR 20 it will still be doing only 1 Bite and 2 Claw attacks with his full attack action. I can't just give him any damage I want, there has to be some rules so that everybody can determine the same damage in this situations.
We can't make an unified damage by size chart if we don't know how to increase the natural attack damages of creatures who evolve but don't increase in size.
FAQ'ed
A Lizardman, CR1 Medium Humanoid, 1 Bite (1d4) and 2 Claws (1d4) is a suitable adversary for a level 1 party. The same Lizardman at CR20 would have to deal more damage with this Bite and Claws to present some challenge for a level 20 party, since it will not be gaining more attacks from a high BAB, even at CR 20 it will still be doing only 1 Bite and 2 Claw attacks with his full attack action. I can't just give him any damage I want, there has to be some rules so that everybody can determine the same damage in this situations.
We can't make an unified damage by size chart if we don't know how to increase the natural attack damages of creatures who evolve but don't increase in size.
+5 Amulet of Mighty Fists
+6 Belt of Giant Strength+4 Strength from hit dice increases.
That's at least +12 more damage than the base one. Which is more than you'd get from bumping dice.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A Lizardman, CR1 Medium Humanoid, 1 Bite (1d4) and 2 Claws (1d4) is a suitable adversary for a level 1 party. The same Lizardman at CR20 would have to deal more damage with this Bite and Claws to present some challenge for a level 20 party, since it will not be gaining more attacks from a high BAB, even at CR 20 it will still be doing only 1 Bite and 2 Claw attacks with his full attack action. I can't just give him any damage I want, there has to be some rules so that everybody can determine the same damage in this situations.
We can't make an unified damage by size chart if we don't know how to increase the natural attack damages of creatures who evolve but don't increase in size.
There is no such thing as what you are proposing in Pathfinder, and this FAQ request is not asking for that, either.
If you really want a CR 20 Lizardman, it's going to require class levels and rely on other abilities to increase its damage. Its claws and bite aren't simply going to "evolve".
You'd probably be best going with a level 20 Warpriest, Barbarian, or Druid, as each of those classes can enhance natural attacks into a devastating fighting style.
Or, you could simply leave the Lizardman as a low CR encounter, and move on to bigger and better things as the party levels up.
Nobody wants to fight goblins at 20th level.
+5 Amulet of Mighty Fist
+6 Belt of Giant Strength
+4 Strength from hit dice increases.That's at least +12 more damage than the base one. Which is more than you'd get from bumping dice.
A Fighter or Monk will also have the same static bonuses from these items AND will get to have their multiple attacks. Unless these high level medium size creatures get some other static bonus that weapon wielding creatures can't get, their DPR will start getting behind once those with weapons start getting their multiple attacks.
I'm not trying to make a custom creature or anything, I'm just, like you, also tring to figure it out how weapons/natural weapons damage dice escalate by size.
I got surprised when I didn't find any CR20 medium size creature that attacks with natural weapons, the best I got was CR13, Morrigna Psychopomp, whatever that is. I always assumed it would be possible to make a CR20 Werewolf with no other special abilities different from other CR2 Werewolfs, simply with sharper claws and teeth. Basically, it would be like a level 20 Fighter that fights with Bite and 2 Claws, with all his other bonuses and magic items. If the claws don't do more damage than they did at level 5, then the "natural weapons" fighting style will never be able to compete with weapon style fighint as the levels go up. Pitty.
Even if Dev's havent printed anything yet, there should be a way to escalate these natural attacks of creatures that advance/evolve but don't change in size, in case someone want's to know the claw damage of a CR20 Wolverine with INA and under the effects of "Enlarge Animal" and Strong Jaw. If they can provide some rules for it, we could help make a unified table with that too.
btw, I found these creatures of medium size with unusual natural weapons damage:
Barbed Devil CR11 - Claw 2d8
Invisible Stalker CR7 - Slam 2d6
Morhg CR8 - Slam 2d8
Night Hag CR9 - Bite 2d6
Dorvae CR11 - Claw 3d8
Psychopomp, Morrigna CR13 - Slam 2d6
+5 Amulet of Mighty Fist
+6 Belt of Giant Strength
+4 Strength from hit dice increases.That's at least +12 more damage than the base one. Which is more than you'd get from bumping dice.
A Fighter or Monk will also have the same static bonuses from these items AND will get to have their multiple attacks. Unless these high level medium size creatures get some other static bonus that weapon wielding creatures can't get, their DPR will start getting behind once those with weapons start getting their multiple attacks.
I'm not trying to make a custom creature or anything, I'm just, like you, also tring to figure it out how weapons/natural weapons damage dice escalate by size.
I got surprised when I didn't find any CR20 medium size creature that attacks with natural weapons, the best I got was CR13, Morrigna Psychopomp, whatever that is. I always assumed it would be possible to make a CR20 Werewolf with no other special abilities different from other CR2 Werewolfs, simply with sharper claws and teeth. Basically, it would be like a level 20 Fighter that fights with Bite and 2 Claws, with all his other bonuses and magic items. If the claws don't do more damage than they did at level 5, then the "natural weapons" fighting style will never be able to compete with weapon style fighint as the levels go up. Pitty.
Even if Dev's havent printed anything yet, there should be a way to escalate these natural attacks of creatures that advance/evolve but don't change in size, in case someone want's to know the claw damage of a CR20 Wolverine with INA and under the effects of "Enlarge Animal" and Strong Jaw. If they can provide some rules for it, we could help make a unified table with that too.
btw, I found these creatures of medium size with unusual natural weapons damage:
Barbed Devil CR11 - Claw 2d8
Invisible Stalker CR7 - Slam 2d6
Morhg CR8 - Slam 2d8
Night Hag CR9 - Bite 2d6
Dorvae CR11 - Claw 3d8
Psychopomp, Morrigna CR13 - Slam 2d6
Okay, I just did a quick check, and advancing a lizardfolk to CR 20 (assuming no size increase occurs) results in 63 HD being added. So my assumption of ability score increases was woefully low. Still think that bite is getting a raw deal with a BAB of +46 and a Str bonus of +13? Plus all those feats...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Lizardfolk - Masters of the Universe
Anyway, How will we know which creatures are breaking the rules if there are no rules to create such creatures?
And even though some don't wanna play fighiting with their claws, I'm pretty sure some do.
Well, I still would like to see an official way to advance creatures with natural attacks without changing their size, in a way they'll be in equivalent strenght to players.
Until then, if natural weapons damange for different CR are not a problem, then you can just use standard damage progression to calculate all weapon damage increase by size.
Universal Damage Dice Progression: -/0 >>> 1 >>> 1d2 >>> 1d3 >>> 1d4 >>> 1d6 >>> 1d8 >>> 1d10 >>> 2d6 >>> 2d8 >>> 3d6 >>> 3d8 >>> 4d6 >>> 4d8 >>> 6d6 >>> 6d8 >>>
8d6 >>> 8d8 >>> 12d6 >>> 12d8 >>> 16d6 >>> 16d8 >>> 24d6 >>> 24d8 >>> 32d6 >>> 32d8 >>> 48d6 >>> 48d8 >>> 64d6 >>> 64d8 >>> 96d6 >>> 96d8 >>> 128d6 >>> 128d8 >>>
Most spells and abilities that change creatures sizes and their attacks, like the Enlarge Person or Reduce Person spells, normaly do so by a full size change, from Small to Medium or Medium to Large sizes. These full size changes, when they increase a creature size to anything beyound medium size and more than 1d8 damage, they advance 2 steps in the damage progression for every full size change they suffer. Likewise, any full size decrease to anything below medium size or any damage less than 1d8 will adavance only 1 step in the damage progression. For example, a Halfling using a Greatsword(1d10) and under an Enlarge Person spell will be dealing only 2d6 points of damage with it, only 1 step above in the damage progression, since he's a small creature and the size change didn't bring him beyond medium size. Now, the same Halfling under a Giant Form II spell would get to Large size, and this second full size increase would his Greatsword to deal 3d6 points of damage, 2 steps above his previous full size increase, because now this 2nd size increase got him above Medium Size to Large size. On another example, if a Human using a Short Sword on each hand(1d6) were under a Enlarge Person spell, his Short Swords would now be dealing only 1d8 points of damage, only 1 step above in the damage progression even though the spell brought him to Large size, one full size incrase above Medium, because his Short Swords were only dealing 1d6 points of damage before that size increase. If instead of Short Swords the Human were using Longswords(1d8), then this full size increase would bring his damage to 2d6 with each Longsword, 2 steps above in the damage progression, because now both his new size is beyound Medium and his weapon was dealing at least 1d8 points of damage.
- Any weapon who's damage got reduced below 1 point of damage now does no damage at all, it's become smaller than a needle and represents no threat under our average HP scale system.
- Enlarge Person spell doesn't stack with similar spells and abilities that change the creature's size, like Beast Shape, Plant Shape, Giant Form, Form of Dragon, Elemental Body, Polymorph, Shapechange, Righteous Might, Animal Growth. You may only have one form at a time, so you may only under the effect of one spell with polymorph subschool, though you may be under the Alter Self and Enlarge Person spells at once. Wils Shape is a supernatural Druid ability, but it seems to also not stack with Enlarge Person or similar spells and effects.
- The Strong Jaw spell stacks with spells and abilities that change the creature's size.
- Other effects that increase your weapons and natural weapons size should not stack, like Improved Natural Attack Feat, Lead Blades spell, Impact magical weapon special ability, Bashing magic shield special ability or Jotungrip's Titan Mauler ability. Shield Spikes do stack with Bashing magical shield special ability, to a total of a damage as of a shield 3 sizes larger, equivalent to another one handed weapon with the Impact magic weapon special ability. The Monk's Robe is an strange item that seems to stack the other effects.
A Monk may not benefit from the Improved Natural Attack Feat, but he may benefit from the Lead Blades Spell with a Ring of Spell Storing or an Amulet of Mighty Fists with the Impact special ability, although Unarmed Strikes are normaly considered Light weapons, it shouldn't be unreasonable for Monks to use the Impact special ability, after all they do pack a punch. In theory, Jotungrip and Impact special ability could stack, since one ability allows a creature to wield a weapon larger than he could and the other ability doesn't actually change the size of the weapon, just it's impact, but for game balance these two are viewed as the same type of bonus, extra size damage bonus if you will.
Sidenote.: Understand how weapons damages are determined:
Weapons of the same "size" may have different damages. A Greatsword is a martial two-handed weapon that deals 2d6 of damage. A Glaive is a martial two-handed weapon that deals 1d10 of damage, but has reach to compensate. The Kyoketsu shoge is an exotic two-handed weapon that deals 1d4 of damage, but has reach, disarm, grapple and monk special properties to compensate. For every special property a weapon has it's damage decreases by one step in the damage progression. Commom special properties are Blocking, Brace, Deadly, Disarm, Distracting, Double, Fragile, Grapple, Monk, Nonlethal, Performance, Reach, Trip. A light-weapon is considered as an weapon special property. Ranged weapons also count as a weapon special property, and the longer the range the less damage they do. A critical range of 19-20 counts as one special property, and so does a x3 critical multiplier. A critial range of 18-20 and a critical multiplier of x4 count as two special properties. Weapons should not have both special critical range and multipliers, only one of the two per weapon. A Heavy Mace is one of the most simple weapons, it a one-handed weapon that deals 1d8 of damage with a critical of 20/x2. Martial weapons are better than simple weapons, so they either do more damage or have more special properties than simple weapons, like Warhammer is exactly like a Heavy mace, but has a better critical multiplier of 20/x3. An exotic weapon is better than a martial weapon, like a Dwarven Wareaxe is exactly like a Warhammer, but has a better damage of 1d10 and is slashing instead of blunt. Two-handed weapons are better than one-handed weapons, but require two hands to use.
To determine a different size Monk's Unarmed Strike damage, first check his base damage on the Monk's Table 3-10 as if he were a medium size Monk of the appropriate level, then adjust his damage on the Universal Damage Dice Progression chart depending on how many times his size is different from a medium size Monk.
The level 20 Large Monk's Unarmed Strike damage entry of 4d8 in the "Small or Large Monk Unarmed Damage" side Table is wrong. The right damage for a level 20 Large Monk's Unarmed Strike should be 4d6. 2d10 should be just an special alternative way to roll 3d6 just for Monks.
It's one chart, and yes, 6d8 progresses to 8d6, like this:
Gartantuan Greatsword (6d6) >>> Colossal Bastard Sword (6d8) >>> Colossal Greatsword (8d6) >>> Colossal+1 Bastard Sword (8d8) >>> Colossal+1 Greatsword (12d6) >>>
When you use an spell like Enlarge Person, you progress 2 steps in the chart, not just one (that is, IF you are increasing from a size at least Medium to something larger AND the weapon damage that's increasing is at least 1d8.
IF you are increasing from a size below medium OR the weapon damage being increases is below 1d8, then the Enlarge spell effect will only advance you one step in the chart, which is what happens when a small creature uses enlarge to get to medium, his damage doesn't increase like another creatures that go from Medium to Large.
There's almost no difference between 6d8 and 8d6. The minimum goes up by 2, the average goes up by one, the max stays exactly the same, and the bell curve gets slightly tighter around the average.
Universal Damage Dice Progression: -/0 >>> 1 >>> 1d2 >>> 1d3 >>> 1d4 >>> 1d6 >>> 1d8 >>> 1d10 >>> 2d6 >>> 2d8 >>> 3d6 >>> 3d8 >>> 4d6 >>> 4d8 >>> 6d6 >>> 6d8 >>>
8d6 >>> 8d8 >>> 12d6 >>> 12d8 >>> 16d6 >>> 16d8 >>> 24d6 >>> 24d8 >>> 32d6 >>> 32d8 >>> 48d6 >>> 48d8 >>> 64d6 >>> 64d8 >>> 96d6 >>> 96d8 >>> 128d6 >>> 128d8 >>>
Is this supposed to be one chart or two?
If it's one 6d8 should not progress into 8d6.
If it's two the formatting ends up making it look like a single one.
It's one chart. It's the same one I proposed in October on page 6. It works for almost everything.
|
|
Kchaka: the epic lizardman you're looking for doesn't exist out-of-the-box because PF actually wants size and CR to be related to each other. (Unless you're using class levels.) The chapter in the Bestiary with guidelines on monster creation has a table with suggested size/CR combinations for every creature type.
I must be totally missing something. I've read all of this, at different parts in time.
Can someone care to explain to me how the 1d10 people are broken?
The issue, from what I understand, is that if you subtract 1 size then gain 1 size, you don't end up back at 1d10.
Myself, I come up with a total size change and apply it to the base so I never run into the issue.
I FAQ'd. Good luck on getting an answer, guys.
1d10 -> 1d8 -> 1d10?
Is there something that doesn't allow you to arbitrarily say that 1d10 drops to 1d8 and 1d8 increases to 1d10?
Not at all, unless you don't know where you started. If you are presented with a stat block for a creature that has had a size decrease and does 1d8 damage, I consider it a waste of time to have to check the bestiary for the base creature's damage if you are applying a size increase. It would be far nicer if that step could be eliminated from the size chart.
The "sum all size changes, then apply" method works, it's fine, and I would use it when constructing my own stat blocks, but it's brute force rather than a solution.
I know I keep harping on about this, and I apologise if I seem ridiculously stubborn on the issue, but it really does come down to whether or not this gets an FAQ response:
Getting all of the size-alteration rules in one place is a laudable goal, but it's effectively useless if we don't also have clear rules on how they all interact with each other. That's why I keep on it. Getting a single answer in one place should be the goal.
|
|
@Chemlak: your goal is laudable, it's just getting a bit hard to keep track of all the various solutions that have been proposed. It's a kind of technical issue.
I really hope the eventual FAQ will be a thorough and well-written one, not a hastily-written one that leaves us with more questions than it answered.
What determines if 1d8 is going to increase to 1d10 or 2d6, or vice-versa, is the size of the 1d8 weapon or creature:
# If the 1d8 is, for example, a Bite of a small creature, or any size smaller than Medium, it will increase to 1d10.
# If the 1d8 is a weapon designed for a Small or smaller creature, like a small bastard sword, or a tiny greatsword, it will also increase to 1d10.
# If the 1d8 is a Slam of a Medium or larger creature, it will increase to 2d6.
# If the 1d8 is a weapon that does 1d8 in the hands of a Medium or larger creature, like a medium longsword, a tiny greatsword or a large shortsword, it will increase to 2d6.
It happens this way because a shortsword that grows into a longsword is relatively a "smaller growth" in comparison to a longsword that grows into a greatsword.
In a larger example, to make it more clear, if a mouse grows to the size of a cat it doesn't make much different to us, but if a bear grows into a bigass huge bear, it makes a hell lot of a difference.
1d10 -> 1d8 -> 1d10?
Is there something that doesn't allow you to arbitrarily say that 1d10 drops to 1d8 and 1d8 increases to 1d10?
Yes, the unwillingness to apply arbitrary rules doesn't allow it.
I guess another complicating factor is that when you change a weapon's size you also change it's wielding effort, from two-handed to one-handed to light, but this disconsiders the "bastard sword effort", so it seems someone with martial weapon proficiency could wield a small greatsword as a one-handed for 1d10 of damage and -2 to attack, even though he would not be able to wield a bastard sword in one hand with a -4 penalty to attack without the exotic weapon proficiency feat.
I guess, to make things right, you should not be able to one-handed weapons that deal 1d10 of damage at all without an extra feat for it. In fact, there should be no [Bastard Sword: Exotic Weapon Proficiency Feat], there should be a feat that allows you to wield all these "A little Oversized Weapons that deal more damage than normal".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Actually, as awesome as a formula would be, all I asked for in my original post was an FAQ showing all the various damage progressions in one place, and showing sizes beyond what is currently listed.
Since a formula may not be possible, or may adversely affect small-sized characters, let's just keep everything as is, but put it all in one spot.
That way, when someone asks, "How much damage does my awakened Tarrasque's Greatsword do?", we can point them in the right place.
I've kind of lost track of the state of the debate here, but I'd like to say that if one master progression can't be produced, I think that two complete progressions, and guidance on which to use when, would still be superior to the current situation.
Correction #1 (and Final, I hope):
What determines if 1d8 is going to increase to 1d10 or 2d6, or vice-versa, is the size of the 1d8 weapon designed wielder, or the size of the creature in the case of a natural weapon:
# If the 1d8 is, for example, a Bite of a small creature, or any size smaller than Medium, it will increase to 1d10.
# If the 1d8 is a weapon designed for a Small or smaller creature, like a small bastard sword, or a tiny greatsword, it will also increase to 1d10.
# If the 1d8 is a Slam of a Medium or larger creature, it will increase to 2d6.
# If the 1d8 is a weapon designed for a Medium or larger creature, like a medium longsword, a large shortsword, or a huge dagger, it will increase to 2d6.