Huge Brawler


Rules Questions


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

I'm playing a mythic campaign and during my next tier I'll be able to have both Titan strike an Titans rage. I can't find any official ruling on how the damage progresses for huge brawler damage.


Damage die increase is in the FAQ


That's this FAQ, specifically. Be sure to read the top text before looking at the actual chart or you are likely to short-change yourself.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Thank you.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

My GM says Titan strike and Titans rage don't stack and says unless I can find a raw stating otherwise he won't change ruling. Apparently that faq is not official enough for him.


Keraki wrote:
My GM says Titan strike and Titans rage don't stack and says unless I can find a raw stating otherwise he won't change ruling. Apparently that faq is not official enough for him.

That would be the next FAQ.

Titan strike is an effective size increase, Titan's rage is an actual size increase, they most certainly stack.

If your GM doesn't believe the FAQ, though, there's not a lot to be done about it. :-(

EDIT: Oh, I see, he's probably looking at Titan's Rage line

Titan's Rage wrote:
This size increase lasts a number of rounds equal to your tier, and doesn’t stack with any other spell or ability that alters your size.

I think it's clear that that's referring to actual size increases, not effective size increases, but I have to admit it's arguable.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

He says that it's just punpun material. He wants official book raw for me to justify my stance. He lumps the as the same type of bonus. Non original size bonuses do not stack in his opinion.


I find it more questionable whether or not Titan Strike lets you use the higher damage table from brawler, because brawler damage is set on your own size and not the size of your unarmed strike.


Brawler unarmed damage is written the same way as monk unarmed damage and titan strike was probably written for the monk - so I don't have a problem with it. I would allow the two to stack, but if he doesn't follow the second FAQ fuzzy posted, there's nothing much more we can say.

It's the whole nature of playing mythic - the game gets out of hand easily.


If your GM thinks stacking one level of actual size increase and one level of effective size increase is munchkiny and therefore unacceptably bad, WTF is he running a mythic campaign? Mythic is all about brokenly overpowered munchkining.


As a caveat, I'd like to note that too much arguing with your GM is a mug's game. Past a certain point, it's like asking why my wife didn't want me playing Occult classes in her first AP: she didn't want to for reasons of personal comfort. In her case, it was to prevent rules overflow for her first time behind a PF screen; for your GM it could be ny reason. Pushing at that either runs into a Rule Zero loss, or your GM starting a lethal+ type of game like Mythic thinking of your character as the one he didn't want and you as the player who badgered him into a rules change. You don't want that, needless to say.

So I recommend you approach the subject politely, cautiously, and respectfully. And honestly if try three doesn't work, drop it and figure something else out.

That said, your GM is house ruling and misinterpreting punpun-- dramatically, in the latter case.

Textually, calling an effective size increase and a physical size increase the same thing is like saying a racial bonus to will save and a resistance bonus don't stack because they both start with r and don't stack internally. The FAQ clarifies that, basically, no matter the source, all size changes are "size bonuses" and all effectives are "effective size bonuses" and while neither stack with themselves, they do stack with each other. He's layering a rule on top that requires extra reading.

That said, that's his right, so I would not suggest leading with that argument unless he's signalling a willingness to negotiate. Telling you to find a text exception to a rule that isn't in the book is a "go away and don't make me hard no you" social maneuver.

What I would suggest is asking him if he's concerned about punpun actual, or punpun as a shorthand for powerful synergy. Punpun actual is where you get reassuring: the problem with punpun is that there weren't any limitations on how high his strength bonuses were to start, and very quickly, on any attribute, then on getting any ability, period. Like an arbitrary end to a magic the gathering loop, the only controls were when punpun decided to stop buffing and start doing, and time to buff.

If his concern is that, your best opening offer is to say you're sticking with your two sources, period. Possibly even promise you'll stick with a net of +2, no questions asked and everything else goes in different directions. Write a contract if you need to, just make sure that your position that you won't be a jerk if he is willing to work with you, THEN go with "and this is why it works RAW."

If he's using punpun as a shorthand for "powerful synergy" then I'd go with both a written/emailed agreement that you won't keep pushing this, and point out you're still playing a martial character with few tricks for flexibility; there's really only so far you can go prior to the point when other direct damage types are one hit killing, anyway.

But, like I said to start, take a hard look at whether or not you want to pay the price of putting a target on your PC's back, potentially even after losing anyway. He's functionally said no twice. It may be a better idea to look for a different way to add oomph.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Huge Brawler All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.