Not a lot. Pathfinder has generally gotten rid of a lot of the "astronomical damage due to massive objects" rules due to how they tend to disrupt combats. As such, the weight of a weapon is not a significant factor in how much damage you can do.
The bag is going to be an improvised weapon, and will likely have close to 1d8 as its damage dice. Most of the damage will come from your Strength modifier, and you likely have a very large one if you are using such a heavy weapon.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, the closest thing that is equivalent to, is a sap.
A normal sap made for a medium creature weighs only 2 pounds, and the rules for larger-than-normal weapons says the weigh doubles for each size category increase.
So a large sap weighs 4 pounds, a hug sap 8 pounds, a gargantuan sap 16 pounds, and a colossal sap 32 pounds.
I would just treat it as an improvised weapon with colossal sap stats, which would mean it would deal 4d6 base damage.
If you try to hit somebody with a bag filled with 160 pounds of chainmail, you end up with a ripped bag and 160 pounds of scattered chainmail.
Are you dropping it on them? That's probably falling damage.
If you want the rules, though, that's going to be an improvised weapon. What kind of weapon? Well, it falls between a club and a flail. We'll go with the latter. That's 5 pounds, but we'll generously double that to 10 just as "material differences". It still needs to be 16 times heavier. That's four size categories larger, so to wield it two-handed with a total -6 penalty, you'd have to be gargantuan size, but it's more for colossal wielders. It generally can't be wielded as a weapon by somebody smaller, but somebody of huge size could pull it off with an archetype.
You will have a much better time throwing it at somebody with an Aether Kineticist.
Well, the closest thing that is equivalent to, is a sap.
A normal sap made for a medium creature weighs only 2 pounds, and the rules for larger-than-normal weapons says the weigh doubles for each size category increase.
So a large sap weighs 4 pounds, a hug sap 8 pounds, a gargantuan sap 16 pounds, and a colossal sap 32 pounds.
I would just treat it as an improvised weapon with colossal sap stats, which would mean it would deal 4d6 base damage.
Ah, sap is much better than my "flail, maybe?" improvised weapon solution in the duplicate thread.
If I were GM, it'd be a simply Improvised Weapon; Find a weapon that roughly fits the category for damage... Lets say, an Orc skull ram, for 1d10.
Normal rules for using it as an improvised weapon apply (-4 to attack roll)
Having something exceptionally heavy does not automatically qualify it as a good weapon; In this case, you have a bag of loose, heavy objects, that'd make minimal impact as an actual weapon. It doesn't have a well balanced, weighted, hard end that would make it as useful as a hammer. It isn't a solid object that you're dropping for falling damage, like a boulder. Really, it's just reliant on your strength for damage by shoving a large amount of mass at the target at fairly decent speed.
Attack roll -4 for 1d10+(STR*1.5) damage.
EDIT: True, I didn't account for weapons for a larger size category...At the same time, you Cannot wield a two-handed weapon fit for a creature Larger than yourself if I'm not mistaken.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For starters, 160lbs is way too heavy for a normal person to wield it as a weapon. Yeah, with a high strength, you could lug it into the air, and let gravity do the work, but that isn't a weapon attack.
But to the question, I'd pick a similar weapon, like a sap, which is basically a small bag of rocks, and then scale it up until the weight was accurate.
Ignore the bit regarding hands required to wield it or the actual weapon size, since this is an improvised weapon, not an actual weapons sized for someone.
Basic sap is 2 lbs and 1d6 nonlethal damage. 4lbs is d8, 8lbs is 2d6, 16lbs is 3d6, 32lbs is 4d6, 64lbs is 6d6, 128lbs is 8d6, and 256lbs is 12d6. I used the chart here: http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2ly3p?Damage-by-size-charts-extended
So I'd probably resolve it at the 128lb version. Starts as a light weapon, and this is 6 sizes larger, so two steps and it's 2-handed, then another 4 steps larger. So I'd call it an improvised two-handed weapon with a -8 size penalty to attack rolls (in addition to provicency requirements if they lack catch off guard). That's for a medium character.
Weapon profile would look something like this:
Medium Bag of Chainmail. Two-handed improvised weapon. 160lbs. Costs as chainmail. 8d6 nonlethal damage. Bludgeon. Critical on natural 20 only (as per improvised weapon rules). Improvised weapon (with an extra -8 penalty due to it's awkward size).
And that's a generous interpretation.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why would you scale it up that way? First off, you've already scaled it up to a theoretical weapon way beyond what a medium creature could use. After being modified to two-handed, you Cannot go higher.
Inappropriately Sized Weapons: A creature can't make optimum use of a weapon that isn't properly sized for it. A cumulative –2 penalty applies on attack rolls for each size category of difference between the size of its intended wielder and the size of its actual wielder. If the creature isn't proficient with the weapon, a –4 nonproficiency penalty also applies.The measure of how much effort it takes to use a weapon (whether the weapon is designated as a light, one-handed, or two-handed weapon for a particular wielder) is altered by one step for each size category of difference between the wielder's size and the size of the creature for which the weapon was designed. For example, a Small creature would wield a Medium one-handed weapon as a two-handed weapon. If a weapon's designation would be changed to something other than light, one-handed, or two-handed by this alteration, the creature can't wield the weapon at all.
Emphasis mine. So, your only option is to make it as close to an improvised two-handed weapon sized for a medium creature. If you did somehow judge for it to be a sap, at the very most it would be a Sap for a Huge creature.
The damage dice progression can be found Here
If I calculate correctly, you'd be using a Huge-sized sap equivalent, at -8 attack, for 2d6+(1.5*str) damage.
Nothing really suggests you take an improvised weapon to be an inappropriately sized weapon from the start, And starting that way just yields a similarly damaging attack with an even worse penalty to attack.
Well, the closest thing that is equivalent to, is a sap.
A normal sap made for a medium creature weighs only 2 pounds, and the rules for larger-than-normal weapons says the weigh doubles for each size category increase.
So a large sap weighs 4 pounds, a hug sap 8 pounds, a gargantuan sap 16 pounds, and a colossal sap 32 pounds.
I would just treat it as an improvised weapon with colossal sap stats, which would mean it would deal 4d6 base damage.
Would you not be able to treat it, at maximum, as a Huge sap? Assuming this is a medium character, they can only feasibly use a 2-handed medium weapon, a 1-handed weapon for a large creature, or a light weapon for a huge creature. Even if you attempt to approximate its damage by considering it an inappropriately large weapon, you're still bound by that rule.
In the other thread, someone suggested a massive sap as well. I ask; Why would you immediately calculate it as an inappropriately sized improvised weapon, instead of the closest form of improvised weapon for the character's size?
Instead of a Huge sap, at -8 attack for 2d6 damage (which is the maximum they can use), I recommend an improvised ram for 1d10 damage at -4 attack.
Would you not be able to treat it, at maximum, as a Huge sap? Assuming this is a medium character, they can only feasibly use a 2-handed medium weapon, a 1-handed weapon for a large creature, or a light weapon for a huge creature. Even if you attempt to approximate its damage by considering it an inappropriately large weapon, you're still bound by that rule.
Seeing as the OP didn't state the manner in which the bag of chain was being used to attack, I didn't want to make any assumptions. For all we know, it is being hurled via telekinesis or something, which would completely bypass the size limitations.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, yes. You'd need to be a giant to use a 160 lb. sack of armor as an effective weapon, and the rules support that. It's most like a sap, but clearly much larger. It doesn't work at all like a ram.
According to the Improved Damage Weapon Quality in the Creating New Weapons rules:
Among weapons sized for Medium characters, the maximum damage is 1d6 for light weapons, 1d8 for one-handed weapons (1d10 if exotic), 1d12 or 2d6 for two-handed weapons, and 1d10 for ranged weapons (1d6 if used or thrown one-handed).
So if this is a normal bag designed to be used by a Medium-sized creature, it would be 1d12 or 2d6, regardless of weight.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
1d12 or 2d6 is the maximum damage die for a medium-sized weapon, regardless of weight. If you're just swinging it around, that's the damage die. If used with a siege weapon or Rock Throwing, it'd most likely be treated as a medium-sized boulder, or 1d10 damage die.
Pathfinder rules don't really scale very well with extreme strength.
You can build characters strong enough to pick up and throw a bus, but not allowed to hit anyone ... because weapon size.
I'd like to see someone fit 160 lbs worth of chainmail into a bag, to get a proper visual of how big it actually is. I'd guess it'd be sized for a large creature, at most.
So just used stats for an improvised, large weapon.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A medieval chain shirt weighs about 25lbs. They're almost as fold-able as normal clothes, surprisingly enough, so you could very conceivably fit 6 chain shirts into a medium-sized suitcase.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A character with 22 strength is at a light load with 173 lbs. Which means their max carrying weight for travel and such is 520 lbs. Which means that his suitcase of 160 lbs of chainmail is perfectly feasible to swing around willy-nilly. It's not shaped for use as a weapon, so it's still improvised, but it's really not that hard to use as a weapon.
Seeing as the OP didn't state the manner in which the bag of chain was being used to attack, I didn't want to make any assumptions. For all we know, it is being hurled via telekinesis or something, which would completely bypass the size limitations.
Ah... That's fair. Though, even by telekinesis, I'd suggest the weight is a bit of a red herring. If I were to use a lead pipe as an improvised weapon, I'd still suggest it was a greatclub despite likely being several times heavier, and as a *massive* sap it's still dealing way more damage that if it were a falling object.
I suppose, as a falling object, you might get away with calling it a large (4 sets of medium chainmail) or medium falling object, that does half damage due to being less solid.... (so, either 3d6/2 or 4d6/2)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
1d12 or 2d6 is the maximum damage die for a medium-sized weapon, regardless of weight. If you're just swinging it around, that's the damage die. If used with a siege weapon or Rock Throwing, it'd most likely be treated as a medium-sized boulder, or 1d10 damage die.
This still seems like the best answer. The weight is a red herring; You're still using it as an improvised weapon for an (assumably) medium sized creature. If I were to grab a lead pipe, I'd still be using it as a greatclub sized for me, despite it being many pounds heavier.
Perhaps the ram wasn't the best choice for 'shoving as much weight into an opponent as possible', but it's what I could find as a weapon that didn't reliably have a haft, grip or chain.
Again, I'd suggest you look for an improvised weapon suited for you rather than an inappropriately sized weapon suited for someone else. As a falling object, I'd probably be calling it a large (4 sets of medium chainmail) or medium falling object, that does half damage due to being less solid.... (so, either 3d6/2 or 4d6/2)
|
|
Why would you scale it up that way? First off, you've already scaled it up to a theoretical weapon way beyond what a medium creature could use. After being modified to two-handed, you Cannot go higher.
For actual weapons, yes, that's the limit. I've always understood it to reference that the weapon is designed to be held by a creature of that size, so if we make it too small or too large, they can't grip it right or it is otherwise awkward to hold.
I think a bag of chainmail is too heavy to normally wield as a weapon, but if pressed for improvised rules, I will note that the bag design can certainly be gripped by a medium creature, so I'm not going to say they can't wield it at all. I would increase the damage dice as I did, until the weight of the weapon matches the weight of the improvised weapon, especially since the offensive value of a bag of chainmail is in how heavy it is.
As for using the sap, the sap was the closest weapon description to the bag of chains I could find. It lacks the hard impact of a proper bludgeoning weapon, as it will likely smush up against a target which would diffuse the impact. So non-lethal damage does seem reasonable. Granted, that's a super heavy weapon, so even non-lethally, it may do enough damage to kill things. I might allow half damage in lethal damage against targets immune to non-lethal, but that would depend on how damaging I thought that weapon would be against a specific target.
As for tacking on the size penalties, a medium creature swinging a 160lb object should result in issues. Even with full plate, most medium creatures aren't going to weight more than double that number. It would be very hard to wield a weapon like this.
So, as above, I would make the improvised "sap" two handed and apply each step above that as a penalty to attack due to the extreme awkwardness of this improvised weapon.
|
|
A character with 22 strength is at a light load with 173 lbs. Which means their max carrying weight for travel and such is 520 lbs. Which means that his suitcase of 160 lbs of chainmail is perfectly feasible to swing around willy-nilly. It's not shaped for use as a weapon, so it's still improvised, but it's really not that hard to use as a weapon.I think we should hesistate in using carrying capacity as an indicator of what one can swing willy nilly as a weapon. I can carry about a fairly heavy pack. My leg, back and shoulder muscles have become accustomed to do so, though I doubt my pack would be much use if attacked by a marmot. I'm probably average strength (certainly not 22), but my arms are much weaker than my legs, which is where most of ones carrying capacity is accounted for.
I'm going to echo this one. Carry weight is not wield weight. Wielding isn't just about carrying a weapon, but in actually being able to control it.
I would also consider myself having at least decent strength. As more of a joke, I'm built I ball and chain with a very oversized ball. Maybe 50lbs in that ball. Could I swing it through a door? Sure. A wall? Also yes. Could I hit a moving target or use in a situation where I had to actually defend myself while using it? Not a chance. It's a joke item that my nerd buddies laugh at. I also use it for exercise sometimes (just lifting and setting down). Makes a great door stop, too.
I'm going to echo this one. Carry weight is not wield weight. Wielding isn't just about carrying a weapon, but in actually being able to control it.
I would continue to argue that the weight is a red herring, and steer away from real world physics. Mechanically, it means diddly squat in the Pathfinder rules system, and this is indeed a rules question. EDIT: Provided you can still lift up the weapon, of course.
Again, if my 16-str character chose to pick up a chunk of lead pipe, or the femur of a large creature, he'd Still treat it as an improvised Greatclub. At best, you could argue that the femur has the fragile property while the lead pipe does not. They'd still do identical damage because that's the form the weapon is taking. It's not designed to be a weapon; Hence, it's improvised.
So, the character wants to try to wield a sizeable 160lbs sac of chainmail as a weapon. The GM has presumably OK'd this, else they wouldn't be asking, and now wants to know the damage.
It doesn't have a haft, a blade, a grip, a chain, or anything else. It's a solid (Edit2: Well... not 'solid', but concentrated) mass. A sap, sized large enough to be a Huge creature's sap, is one legal possibility for the medium character to wield (albeit at -8 attack). Personally, I'd say a sap or blackjack still has a grip, so I'm against it. I'd suggest instead using an improvised Ram, at -4 attack.
Either way is legal, with one skipping the step of enlarging up a weapon several sizes. Both give similar damage. Previous examples of giant/gargantuan/colossal weapons are Not legally usable by a medium character.