It also confused me when I was looking into the possibility of a summoner's huge eidolon having enlarge person cast on it while it was carrying a weapon. How much damage would the weapon deal? How much would the natural attacks deal? I still have no idea.
Sorry Barachiel, we don't know. D:
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We have a pretty good idea, though.
Going big isn't tough to figure out. The damage dice generally double every other size increase.
It's transitioning a few corner cases from small to medium to large, and back again, that cause the most trouble.
For your Greatsword, the progression would (most likely) be:
2d6 (medium)
3d6 (large)
4d6 (huge)
6d6 (gargantuan)
8d6 (colossal)
12d6 (colossal+lead blades)
16d6 (if you can somehow figure out how to make it even larger)
24d6 (ludicrous speed)
|
By RAW, there is nothing past Colossal so anything that specifically says something along the lines of "increases damage as if size category increased" should be capped at Colossal.
Unless Paizo finally answers and comes in and says whether or not there is a damage cap at Colossal size or not.
That wouldn't actually do much outside of hindering the classes who least need to be hindered. Druids already have a Colossal+ exception built into their most common method of breaking the colossal cap, Paladins and Cavaliers can already hit some of the highest single target damage caps by stacking and multiplying huge static modifiers that don't care about weapon size...
Basically, yes, it'd be nice if they'd clarify the math for weapon size category changes, but there's no point in capping the size categories, because that's not even the strongest or most efficient way to scale up melee damage.
I personally am hoping they answer soon. I would like for it to be capped, because there is plenty of game mechanics out there for almost any melee-based character to deal damage beyond Colossal and that kind of damage is just too powerful.
Has there been precedence? Is there a Colossal monster with Improved Natural Attack and the damage actually increased?
In 3.5 it went passed the colossal, so figuring in backwards compatibility, yes there is a precedence for that reason alone.
That being said, when they redesigned the polymorph school, they removed most of the ways to get past it in the core rules. As such, they didn't have a reason to actually go passed that point when the table was written up originally.
The katana.
. . . Greater Mighty Wallop? Exactly what is that?
Undermost circumstances, the max dice a 20th level monk will be capable of pulling off would be nowhere near. I believe it would be 8d8 in fact:
- Start at medium: 2d10
- Enlarge Person: 4d8
- Strong Jaw: 8d8
Even if your DM ruled INA worked with Unarmed Strikes (it doesn't), you would still be looking at 12d8.Whilst 12d8 may seem massive, it's still only an average of 54. The party fighter or Barbarian will probably be dealing that as static damage, if not more.
it is a badly balanced level 3 spell (1 size group increase pr 4 levels 1/ hour pr CL) it is a 3,5 feat.
The problem here is that the OP want Paizo to fix problems that come from using 3pp material.|
|
So you mean to tell me my player, who has a Monk, can have his wizard friend cast Greater Mighty Wallop at 20th level (and now this Strong Jaw spell) and he is dealing 24d8 damage per unarmed strike hit!?
What are these Paladins and Cavaliers doing to get their damage that you speak of?
And isn't that just saying Strong Jaw is the exception, and not the rule?
3.5 did not go past Colossal, only aging dragons in the Epic Level Handbook got the Colossal+ category.
How does anyone run a 15+ level Pathfinder game with damage stacking of that magnitude?! The mega-bosses in the game will die in like two hits. Talk about anti-climactic!
Greater Mighty what now? Your problem isn't size categories, it's apparently using poorly balanced materials that weren't even written for this edition of the game.
As legowaffles pointed out, even 12d8 (which you would have a difficult time actually getting to on a chassis capable of making multiple attacks following the rules) is only 54 damage. A Paladin can use Litany of Righteousness and Spirited Charge to get 160 damage just from his smite against an evil creature, before counting in his actual weapon damage, enhancements, STR modifier, etc. Cavaliers can easily achieve similar results, and Barbarians have been capable of dropping big numbers like that for a long time.
For reference, a two-handed character using Power Attack eventually has the equivalent of 5d6 extra damage that will multiply on a crit always available for the cost of 1 feat; bonus damage dice look a little crazy, but as long as you aren't using busted materials designed for a different game, they're perfectly in line with the average capabilities you can find out there.
And to emphasize that yes, Greater Mighty Wallop is ridiculously outside the bounds of the game's standards for balance, giant form II only gets you to huge, and it's an 8th level sorcerer/wizard spell that lasts for minutes/level and can only target the caster. Two more effective size categories from strong jaw would be a 4th level druid spell, also minutes/level. Druids can get pretty big natural attacks by combining a high damage die natural attack, like that possessed by a stegosaurus or hippopotamus, with strong jaw, but you're losing BAB and generally won't get more than 1-3 swings with it.
. . . Greater Mighty Wallop? Exactly what is that?
Undermost circumstances, the max dice a 20th level monk will be capable of pulling off would be nowhere near. I believe it would be 8d8 in fact:
- Start at medium: 2d10
- Enlarge Person: 4d8
- Strong Jaw: 8d8
Even if your DM ruled INA worked with Unarmed Strikes (it doesn't), you would still be looking at 12d8.Whilst 12d8 may seem massive, it's still only an average of 54. The party fighter or Barbarian will probably be dealing that as static damage, if not more.
it is a badly balanced level 3 spell (1 size group increase pr 4 levels 1/ hour pr CL) it is a 3,5 feat.
The problem here is that the OP want Paizo to fix problems that come from using 3pp material.
Correction. It only increase effective size for damage. And it is a spell not a feat. Sorry for the misundestanding. And it is still no good.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Correction. It only increase effective size for damage. And it is a spell not a feat. Sorry for the misundestanding. And it is still no good.
Yeah, that's just terrible. Worse since it would apparently stack with actual size increases (though not with strong jaw or lead blades).
The OP just needs to toss that spell out. Problem solved.
The law of weapon dice states that as most weapons grow larger, their damage dice approach a fireball.
|
|
I am not asking for Paizo to fix an issue from 3pp material.
I am asking Paizo is weapon damage dice capped at Colossal?
For example, can a Colossal creature benefit from Improved Natural Attack? Why or why not?
Would a Humbaba deal extra damage with their weapon if Lead Blades was cast on it? If so, are we saying there is no limit to damage size increase PAST COLOSSAL?!
You know there WILL be more material "increasing damage as if size increase" coming soon, and there WILL be people stacking as many as possible.
Not all Colossal is created equal. In 3.5, Colossal+ was a thing, and relatively common. As strong jaw makes clear, even if you've hit colossal, it's still possible to deal more damage by increasing your effective size.
Precedent and current materials say yes, there is size past colossal and hitting that size helps you deal more damage, there is no rule preventing it, it is not a balance issue with anything other than some wonky and poorly designed spell from another edition of the game...
And Colossal isn't even really that big when you think about it. They take up a 30 square foot area, that's not even the size of a house, or a commuter ferry. You don't think in a magical fantasy world there's going to be things bigger than that? And wouldn't those things be capable of causing proportionally increased amounts of damage?
This isn't really FAQ material.
The colossal-sized Kaiju in Bestiary 4 have the Special Quality 'massive' and they're described as being far larger than just taking up a 30 foot by 30 foot square.
Massive (Ex) Because kaiju are so massive, uneven ground and other terrain features that form difficult terrain generally pose no significant hindrance to a kaiju’s movement, though areas of forest or settlements are considered difficult terrain to a kaiju. A Huge or smaller creature can move through any square occupied by a kaiju, or vice-versa. A kaiju can make attacks of opportunity only against foes that are Huge or larger, and can be f lanked only by Huge or larger foes. A kaiju gains a bonus for being on higher ground only if its entire space is on higher ground than that of its target. It’s possible for a Huge or smaller creature to climb a kaiju—this generally requires a successful DC 30 check, and unlike the normal rules about kaiju and attacks of opportunity, a Small or larger creature that climbs on a kaiju’s body provokes an attack of opportunity from the monster.
Normally, colossal monsters with a bite attack do 4d6 damage, but the Agyra deals 6d6 and the Mogaru deals 8d6. Normally, colossal talons deal 2d8 damage, but the Agyra deals 3d8. There are other differences too; 4d6 changed to 6d6 or 10d6, 2d8 to 4d6, 2d8 to 3d6… They don't follow the normal guidelines, but for monsters of such a high CR value, that's to be expected. It's only when players can produce such weirdness with their own equipment and spell-casting that it becomes an issue. I've seen Mark Seifter's posts on the matter though, and I appreciate the difficulty inherent with reconciling all the damage types, sizes and progressions. It should be done, but it's not easy.
And Colossal isn't even really that big when you think about it. They take up a 30 square foot area, that's not even the size of a house, or a commuter ferry. You don't think in a magical fantasy world there's going to be things bigger than that? And wouldn't those things be capable of causing proportionally increased amounts of damage?
As far as monsters are concerned, colossal is the biggest size category.
Colossal is actually pretty enormous, at least for some monsters. A Thunder Behemoth, a quadruped monster for example, can swallow whole a group of adjacent brachiosauruses in one standard action and carry them around inside its multiple stomachs. The only reason it takes up a 30 ft. Square is that it's meant to be usable by the GM.Another example is the sea serpent from bestiary 1 advanced to colossal. It's supposed to be over 300 ft. long, but it still takes up a 30 ft square.
|
|
And Colossal isn't even really that big when you think about it. They take up a 30 square foot area, that's not even the size of a house, or a commuter ferry. You don't think in a magical fantasy world there's going to be things bigger than that? And wouldn't those things be capable of causing proportionally increased amounts of damage?As far as monsters are concerned, colossal is the biggest size category.
Colossal is actually pretty enormous, at least for some monsters. A Thunder Behemoth, a quadruped monster for example, can swallow whole a group of adjacent brachiosauruses in one standard action and carry them around inside its multiple stomachs. The only reason it takes up a 30 ft. Square is that it's meant to be usable by the GM.Another example is the sea serpent from bestiary 1 advanced to colossal. It's supposed to be over 300 ft. long, but it still takes up a 30 ft square.
Yes, but as the kaiju example directly above your post shows, there's colossal and then there's massively colossal. Just because the chart ends at colossal doesn't mean it's not possible for an individual creature to become bigger than it already is. If the sea serpent goes from 300 feet long to 500 feet long, it's still colossal, even though it's nearly doubled in size. That doubling may not change its size category, but it should increase its other attributes (like damage die).
Yes, but as the kaiju example directly above your post shows, there's colossal and then there's massively colossal. Just because the chart ends at colossal doesn't mean it's not possible for an individual creature to become bigger than it already is. If the sea serpent goes from 300 feet long to 500 feet long, it's still colossal, even though it's nearly doubled in size. That doubling may not change its size category, but it should increase its other attributes (like damage die).And Colossal isn't even really that big when you think about it. They take up a 30 square foot area, that's not even the size of a house, or a commuter ferry. You don't think in a magical fantasy world there's going to be things bigger than that? And wouldn't those things be capable of causing proportionally increased amounts of damage?As far as monsters are concerned, colossal is the biggest size category.
Colossal is actually pretty enormous, at least for some monsters. A Thunder Behemoth, a quadruped monster for example, can swallow whole a group of adjacent brachiosauruses in one standard action and carry them around inside its multiple stomachs. The only reason it takes up a 30 ft. Square is that it's meant to be usable by the GM.Another example is the sea serpent from bestiary 1 advanced to colossal. It's supposed to be over 300 ft. long, but it still takes up a 30 ft square.
my point originally was that 30' space colossals aren't the size of their square and not necessarily small.
While it does make sense that bigger colossals have larger natural damage dice, according to RAW all it means is that they have larger spaces. The tempest behemoth, for example, has a wing attack that deals 8d8 damage, probably the highest base damage out of any monster even though it's smaller than kaiju.