Thanks Imbicatus, that actually supports my statement about Massive Weapons not applying Giant Weapon Wielder (by RAW). But, it also supports that a GM could reasonably houserule it since they are similar abilities.
Hmm, I may be misrembering. Jotungrip may have been written that way from the start.
Edit: I have fixed my original post.
Badwrongfun it is then.
Jotungrip is okay, but mostly in corner cases such as using a glaive and shield together a level before phalanx fighter (albeit at a penalty), It's a shame that it doesn't mesh with the rest of the archetype.
Also
Barbarian--Titan Mauler: Does the Jotungrip class feature (page 30) allow the Titan Mauler to use oversized weapons?
No. Jotungrip allows the titan mauler to use two-handed melee weapons in one hand, but only if the weapon is appropriately sized for the character. The massive weapon class feature allows her to use oversized weapons with decreased penalty, but does not allow her to use two-handed weapons of that size in one hand.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I... They errata'd that in? What kind of... This is like being told that using big weapons is badwrongfun by a dev. What a waste of resources.
It was terrible faq, the author has clearly stated that his intent was to break the weapon size limits but due to sloppiness in clearing obscure rules the archetype will never work as intended. The PDT ruling puzzles me up to this day
Do you all realize the faq was written before something such as titan fighter ever existed? The faq adressed that weilding large weapons was not possible by virtue of titan mauler alone. It does not applies at all to titan fighter
A large light weapon is considered a one-handed weapon for a medium creature, but it is still a large weapon and not appropriately sized. A large one-handed weapon is considered a two-handed weapon for a medium creature but is still a large weapon and not appropriately sized. Normally, a large two-handed weapon is unusable by a medium creature but the titian fighter ability lets it count as a two-handed weapon however, it is still a large weapon and not appropriately sized. The titian mauler ability requires an appropriately sized weapon.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I... They errata'd that in? What kind of... This is like being told that using big weapons is badwrongfun by a dev. What a waste of resources.It was terrible faq, the author has clearly stated that his intent was to break the weapon size limits but due to sloppiness in clearing obscure rules the archetype will never work as intended. The PDT ruling puzzles me up to this day
I believe the original author wanted to break size limits but the devs deemed it overpowered and changed the ability before it was printed.
|
The entire archetype isn't worth it unless you are going to be regularly enlarged and have lead blades, as it trade out weapon training. If you are only gaining 3.5 average damage from the jump from 2d6>3d6, you would be much better of with the +7 to hit and damage from weapon training + gloves of dueling.
|
|
A large light weapon is considered a one-handed weapon for a medium creature, but it is still a large weapon and not appropriately sized. A large one-handed weapon is considered a two-handed weapon for a medium creature but is still a large weapon and not appropriately sized. Normally, a large two-handed weapon is unusable by a medium creature but the titian fighter ability lets it count as a two-handed weapon however, it is still a large weapon and not appropriately sized. The titian mauler ability requires an appropriately sized weapon.
mmmmmm ok ok, i think i got it. Even tought it is considered a medium two-handed weapon for weilding, its not considered a medium two handed weapon for other purposes. I still find it weird and I think its debatable, im pretty sure there was a faq with something referencing phalanx soldier's way of weilding two handed polearms and effect/abilities, i just cant find it
I believe the original author wanted to break size limits but the devs deemed it overpowered and changed the ability before it was printed.
Im guessing the original idea could have created problems (i dont think so tought) but they could have at least gotten a little creative with it. The author even presented many fixes and ideas, the way they ruled it is way too absurd
At 5th level, a titan fighter gains a +1 bonus on combat maneuver checks and to CMD while wielding a weapon sized for a creature of a larger size category.
At 9th level and every 4 levels thereafter, this bonus increases by 1. When wielding over-sized weapons, the titan fighter can attempt to bull rush, drag, overrun, reposition, and trip creatures up to two sizes categories larger than himself.
This ability replaces weapon training.
Not all that impressive, especially since the scaling of CMD with size + strength for monsters gets absurd really fast.
I believe the original author wanted to break size limits but the devs deemed it overpowered and changed the ability before it was printed.I... They errata'd that in? What kind of... This is like being told that using big weapons is badwrongfun by a dev. What a waste of resources.It was terrible faq, the author has clearly stated that his intent was to break the weapon size limits but due to sloppiness in clearing obscure rules the archetype will never work as intended. The PDT ruling puzzles me up to this day
Overpowered? Someone needs to go and take grade five math again.
An entire class feature that gives you what, eight damage per swing? I guess I'll have to go back to my perfectly balanced hippo druid with vital strike feats... Pfff
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Trogdar, I think the fear was that at level 18 there would be no attack penalty for using a Gargantuan Greatsword. Then stack on Enlarge Person and Lead Blades.
Example:
Gargantuan Greatsword : 2d6(medium)-> 3d6(large)-> 4d6(huge)-> 6d6(gargantuan)-> 8d6(enlarge)-> 12d6(lead blades). Average = 42damage
Compared to Medium Greatsword: 2d6(medium)-> 3d6(enlarge)-> 4d6(lead blades). Average = 14damage
An increase of 28 damage for replacing a crap ability (Trap Sense).
Note: Without Enlarge Person and Lead Blades the difference is 14damage.
Also, this doesn't include what happens when you stack the Vital Strike tree onto this. 48d6 = 168avg damage (without bonus damage) in a single attack.
While this is similar to your Huge Hippo build the Huge Hippo is limited to 4d8 (pre-Vital Strike) while the Gargantuan Greatsword can get up to the afforementioned 12d6 (pre-Vital Strike). Also, since this is a Large Humanoid rather than a Huge Hippo the Greatsword option has better tactical value.
In short, there is a clear mechanical reason to disallow this. The Titan Fighter's Giant Weapon Wielder is a much better approach.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the fear was that at level 18...
Casters.
/argument
DominusMegadeus, you are under the mistaken impression that this is a martials vs casters debate. It is not. I am simply relating the possible mechanical reason why they would have limited this option.
While at level 18 there is no attack penalty this option would have also been doable at earlier levels since it is not level restricted.
Since such a build would vital strike in any case and at full BAB the martial can still probably hit even with penalties you can lower the level that this can happen to earlier levels.
Level 6 (Vital Strike+Enlarge+Lead Blades): Gargantuan Greatsword at -4 penalty. Damage: 24d6 (avg 84)
Level 12 (Imp. Vital Strike+Enlarge+Lead Blades): Gargantuan Greatsword at -2 penalty. Damage: 36d6 (avg 126)
Level 18 (Gr. Vital Strike+Enlarge+Lead Blades): Gargantuan Greatsword at no penalty. Damage: 48d6 (avg 168)
Basically, there is no level restriction (other than attack penalty) to this concept and no size restriction. The possible abuse (for a Martial) was significant.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
DominusMegadeus, you are under the mistaken impression that this is a martials vs casters debate. It is not. I am simply relating the possible mechanical reason why they would have limited this option.
While at level 18 there is no attack penalty this option would have also been doable at earlier levels since it is not level restricted.
Since such a build would vital strike in any case and at full BAB the martial can still probably hit even with penalties you can lower the level that this can happen to earlier levels.
Level 6 (Vital Strike+Enlarge+Lead Blades): Gargantuan Greatsword at -4 penalty. Damage: 24d6 (avg 84)
Level 12 (Imp. Vital Strike+Enlarge+Lead Blades): Gargantuan Greatsword at -2 penalty. Damage: 36d6 (avg 126)
Level 18 (Gr. Vital Strike+Enlarge+Lead Blades): Gargantuan Greatsword at no penalty. Damage: 48d6 (avg 168)
Basically, there is no level restriction (other than attack penalty) to this concept and no size restriction. The possible abuse (for a Martial) was significant.
Admittedly, the damage your seeing is after multiple buff spells and with significant feat investment (especially since it means not taking Extra Rage Power three times). And really, since we're talking barbarians, Vital Strike would also have to compete against pouncing via beast totem. Heck, getting a really strong vital strike option would be valuable for making the other totem powers more tempting.
All that said, I don't think anyone would've been too horribly upset if the devs had just decided that gargantuan swords were a bit too much, and limited the archetype to Huge. Unfortunately, Paizo's nerfbat only has two settings: "largely ineffective" and "Turn it into useless garbage."
LoneKnave, I am not saying someone said that. I was explaining why the Devs might have done it. Please look at the context of my posts.
Chengar Qordath, yes, it is after multiple buff spells and significant feat investment but it is still out of whack for what someone should be able to do that early.
I agree that they could have nerfed it to something more reasonable but when editors get something from someone they are often trying to fix it without too much effort on their part. Nerfing something a bit requires significant effort to look at all the angles. Nerfing it a lot requires very little.
DominusMegadeus, you are under the mistaken impression that this is a martials vs casters debate. It is not. I am simply relating the possible mechanical reason why they would have limited this option.
While at level 18 there is no attack penalty this option would have also been doable at earlier levels since it is not level restricted.
Since such a build would vital strike in any case and at full BAB the martial can still probably hit even with penalties you can lower the level that this can happen to earlier levels.
Level 6 (Vital Strike+Enlarge+Lead Blades): Gargantuan Greatsword at -4 penalty. Damage: 24d6 (avg 84)
Level 12 (Imp. Vital Strike+Enlarge+Lead Blades): Gargantuan Greatsword at -2 penalty. Damage: 36d6 (avg 126)
Level 18 (Gr. Vital Strike+Enlarge+Lead Blades): Gargantuan Greatsword at no penalty. Damage: 48d6 (avg 168)
Basically, there is no level restriction (other than attack penalty) to this concept and no size restriction. The possible abuse (for a Martial) was significant.
Admittedly, the damage your seeing is after multiple buff spells and with significant feat investment (especially since it means not taking Extra Rage Power three times). And really, since we're talking barbarians, Vital Strike would also have to compete against pouncing via beast totem. Heck, getting a really strong vital strike option would be valuable for making the other totem powers more tempting.
All that said, I don't think anyone would've been too horribly upset if the devs had just decided that gargantuan swords were a bit too much, and limited the archetype to Huge. Unfortunately, Paizo's nerfbat only has two settings: "largely ineffective" and "Turn it into useless garbage."
This person gets it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Unfortunately, Paizo's nerfbat only has two settings: "largely ineffective" and "Turn it into useless garbage."
If this forum had signatures, good lord.
Unfortunately, Paizo's nerfbat only has two settings: "largely ineffective" and "Turn it into useless garbage."If this forum had signatures, good lord.
Lately it seems to have only one setting...
Dual wielding two large greatswords is just not thinking large enough.
By mixing some stuff you can do much better.
- Scion of humanity aasimar can start large and still be a legal target of enlarge person.(Some people don't like it but the rules allow it)
- one level of aegis allows you to get the powerful build trait to count as one size larger for several things, including what weapon size you can use.
- With titan mauler and titan fighter you can now wield collossal greatswords one-handed.
But just dual wielding greatswords seems bland. I would go aberrant aegis with powerful build and some tentacles and wield a collossal meteor hammer or flying blade and a huge scorpion whip (light for me).
For more fun take a level of anything that gets a domain and select the growth subdomain. Now you can enlarge yourself as a swift action for one round 3+wis mod times per day.
|
Hmmm, is this Titan Fighter archetype compatible with the Lore Warden archetype?
Lorewarden replaces:
Armor and shield proficiency, Bravery 1, Armor Training 1, 2, 3, 4 and Armor Mastery.
Edit: never mind, I just noticed I didn't fully read one of the posts on page 1 which stated that armor training is being replaced by the Titan Fighter.
I mean, unless you play in PFS exclusively or your group uses absolutely nothing outside the PRD, you could always just use Monkey Grip and Oversized Two-Weapon Fighting from 3.5
They were both perfectly balanced feats (maybe a little on the weak side, but better to have something slightly weak than nothing at all).
I take a general "nothing but Pathfinder" stance when I DM, but Monkey Grip and OTWF are two notable exceptions.
|
|
I wonder if a Titan Fighter can wield a gargantuan aklys two-handed (as any medium character can wield a huge aklys two-handed).
It would be pretty awesome to have a weapon that does 4d6 damage with the capacity to be thrown. Lead Blades and Enlarge Person could raise the damage to 8d6, then Greater Vital Strike could raise it again to 32d6.
Add in the capacity to throw the weapon 20 feet and retrieve it as a move action and a character could GVS at 20 feet then retrieve his weapon.
If you check the Teifling book I'm sure there is an alternate racial trait that gives you massive hands and allows you to wield large weapons as medium. That may help what your trying to achieve.
A question. You are mounted halfling. Can you wield 2 medium sized lances in one hand each with the titan fighter.
Did I break the thread?
A question. You are mounted halfling. Can you wield 2 medium sized lances in one hand each with the titan fighter.Yes, but you can't two-weapon fight because they're still two-handed weapons.
what if your a barbarian with pounce?
A question. You are mounted halfling. Can you wield 2 medium sized lances in one hand each with the titan fighter.Yes, but you can't two-weapon fight because they're still two-handed weapons.
You can still TWF you just aren't getting the greatest of attack bonuses while doing so.
See here.what if your a barbarian with pounce?A question. You are mounted halfling. Can you wield 2 medium sized lances in one hand each with the titan fighter.Yes, but you can't two-weapon fight because they're still two-handed weapons.
That FAQ specifically addresses iterative attacks with one lance. I'm specifically talking about pointing two lances at the same target. Both lances hitting the same target at the same time.
The FAQ specifically says it doesn't make sense to get the double damage on an iterative attack because you have to pull back and stab again.
Well it makes sense that two lances hitting the target at the same time should both qualify for double damage.
See here.what if your a barbarian with pounce?A question. You are mounted halfling. Can you wield 2 medium sized lances in one hand each with the titan fighter.Yes, but you can't two-weapon fight because they're still two-handed weapons.That FAQ specifically addresses iterative attacks with one lance. I'm specifically talking about pointing two lances at the same target. Both lances hitting the same target at the same time.
The FAQ specifically says it doesn't make sense to get the double damage on an iterative attack because you have to pull back and stab again.
Well it makes sense that two lances hitting the target at the same time should both qualify for double damage.
TWF is still iterative. You don't stab a with both at one time. You stab with one, then the other.
I never heard that the first attack with a second weapon is an iterative attack.