I am pretty sure the penalty mentionned there is the to-hit penalty, it does not grant you the ability to wield a large two-handed weapon like a medium two-handed weapon.
The text could easily be interpreted either way.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You have over-sized limbs, allowing you to use Large weapons without penalty.
The “allowing” word means you can do something you can’t normally do. It’s weird to use that word if all it does is remove a penalty. Also it doesn’t specify which large weapons you can wield without penalty, implying you could wield any of them.
You have over-sized limbs, allowing you to use Large weapons without penalty.The “allowing” word means you can do something you can’t normally do. It’s weird to use that word if all it does is remove a penalty. Also it doesn’t specify which large weapons you can wield without penalty, implying you could wield any of them.
Except the rules explicitly restrict creatures from using a weapon that is "larger than 2H" for their size. A Large 2H weapon would be too big for a medium creature. A Large 1H weapon is treated as a 2H weapon.
Every weapon has a size category. This designation indicates the size of the creature for which the weapon was designed.
A weapon’s size category isn’t the same as its size as an object. Instead, a weapon’s size category is keyed to the size of the intended wielder. In general, a light weapon is an object two size categories smaller than the wielder, a one-handed weapon is an object one size category smaller than the wielder, and a two-handed weapon is an object of the same size category as the wielder.
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.
One could argue that a bow isn't actually a 2H weapon. After all, it isn't on the 2H weapon chart and it's description says a bow requires two hands regardless of size. Mechanically, this means that a medium creature could use Fine and Colossal bows at a -8 penalty.
One could also argue that increasing the size of the bow would not make it a light, one-handed, or two-handed weapon, and thus not be allowed.
My personal argument would be that Empty Quiver Style allows characters to use their Bows as a Heavy Mace which is a 1H weapon. This would allow a precedent to argue that bows are 1H weapons that require an additional hand to perform a ranged attack. Given that information, the mechanical consequences imply that a large bow would become a 2H weapon and would require a third arm to operate as a ranged weapon.
Consider a 2 level dip into Alchemist to grab an extra arm or tentacle to allow you to operate the large bow. Please consider that this isn't strictly RAW, but can be argued.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
But the tiefling would be allowed to wield them. Specific trumps general.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My reading of Tiefling Oversize Limbs is that it allows the tiefling to ignore the penalty, but not to do anything that can't otherwise be done.
My reading of Tiefling Oversize Limbs is that it allows the tiefling to ignore the penalty, but not to do anything that can't otherwise be done.
That’s a reasonable reading, but it’s not the only one.
Let’s leave off the end part and imagine if it said this:
“You have over-sized limbs, allowing you to use Large weapons.”
Now that text seems Much clearer that it allows wielding all over sized weapons, but it doesn’t do anything to reduce the penalties for doing so. And so, they added the text “without penalty” to make it clear you don’t take a penalty when doing this either. It’s not uncommon for the books to take this short hand natural reading approach to the rules.
If TOL said "you have over-sized limbs, allowing you to use weapons as if you were large without penalty", THEN I would agree with you.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If TOL said "you have over-sized limbs, allowing you to use weapons as if you were large without penalty", THEN I would agree with you.
Of course, then you’d have people expecting to count as large when tripping with their large sized weapons. It’s surprisingly hard to write rules, especially when word count and page fitting is a strong concern.
you have over sized limbs you can use large weapons now of any and all degrees, this also means you have a -2 to hit when you use medium sized weapons because your limbs are now large size and not medium sized
Of course that would be a penalty. And the ability is "without penalty".
Melkiador,
ANY character can wield ANY weapon as long as it follows these rules:
The character must be able to wield the weapon as a light, one-handed, or two-handed weapon.
The character receives a cumulative -2 penalty per size category difference.
You are suggesting that this ability allows the character to wield "without penalty." However, it seems you are using a generic English definition of penalty instead of the accepted definition of penalty associated with Pathfinder vernacular.
AFAIK, a "penalty" is a negative number applied to a numeric statistic. This is opposed by a "bonus," which is a positive number applied to a numeric statistic. Can you please provide another example where an ability uses the phrase "without penalty" specifically modifies an explicit rule that isn't a penalty?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
As I remember the previous threads about this topic, people agreed to disgree there too.
I'd argue by the power level: If this alternate racial trait 'just' negates a -2 for wielding a Large bastard sword (or a different one-handed weapon), that's already pretty good - for a racial trait. Few other variant tiefling abilities can keep up with that, so I don't see any point into allowing Large two-handed weapons, especially without the penalty.
I asked a similar question. Answer I was given was "Talk to DM".
My DM is letting me get away with it for now, using Large Weapons in the expected amount of hands. But I'm running around with simple weapons(Club, Crossbow) and my main source of damage is Bombs(which don't get a buff).
So in my case, it's a funny gimmick that doesn't crank up the damage numbers too much.
I'd argue by the power level: If this alternate racial trait 'just' negates a -2 for wielding a Large bastard sword (or a different one-handed weapon), that's already pretty good - for a racial trait. Few other variant tiefling abilities can keep up with that, so I don't see any point into allowing Large two-handed weapons, especially without the penalty.
See, I'd say that based on power level, negating the -2 to hit is pretty anemic.
all-around vision+2 cha
bite attack
+5 speed
claws
swim speed 30'
+2 int
curse water 3/day [create 75gp worth of items/day]
healed by both positive and negative channeled energy
scent
see in darkness
+2 wisdon
At will ventriluquism
+2 hp/level
Or the winner. 2 or the above...
Good point, it's an amazing value at a single feat
Feat? You only need the feat if you want to roll 3 times for your pick.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm personally of the opinion that this does not work. Oversized Limbs allows you to avoid the -2 penalty for wielding a large one-handed weapon by a medium creature using both hands. So this works for large longswords, whips, bastard swords (with EWP), but not bows or greatswords.
But ask your GM what they think, that's all that really matters here.
+2 to hit is worth 2 feats (weapon focus + greater weapon focus).
You aren't talking to hit bonuses but negating penalties... If we go that route, weapon proficiency removes -4 making it worth FOUR feats by your estimation and making the ability 1/2 a feat...
Most of the things you have listed are worth a feat at best.
Really? +2 to stats, imm to flank see in darkness [a multi-feat tree], 75gp worth of items/day, +5 speed [without restriction], ect... All I have to show that the list has ANY abilities that are better than a feat to show that 'it's better than a feat' isn't a reason to read the ability in question differently because of 'power'.
There are also options on the list worth 1/2 a feat such as the +1 to saves. +2 to attack is at the higher end of the list.
Again, it's NOT a +2 hit or proficiency feats are worth 4 feats... And we're only looking at how good the options can be so lower power one's don't meaningful add to the debate: it' only how strong can they be and +2 to your main stat seems better than the strongest reading for oversized limbs.
Also, where do you see +2 hp/level? The charts I see say "You receive +1 bonus hit point per level."
Typing error: it's meant to be 1/level. While it's equivalent to toughness, it's more impressive then the feat since it stack with both the feat AND FCB for +3/level, which can be a boon for kineticists.
I didn't realize they changed that, it's an amazing deal in that case.
It was a requirement in Pathfinder 25: The Bastards of Erebus but rebalanced in Blood of Fiends to a non-feat option: though if your DM makes you roll, the extra 2 chances on the chart can be quite valuable.
I'm personally of the opinion that this does not work.
I'm on the fence. As old as it is and being from Pathfinder 25, an AP, I can imagine that the wording is super precise compared to how we're parsing words today.
Add to that the fact that the Red Cap has an ability called Heavy Weapons that says it "can wield weapons sized for Medium creatures without penalty" ant it's combat block shows the red cap, a small creature, using a Medium scythe.
If I HAD to pick one, I'd go with the reading that allows the Red Cap to work as printed.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like the big difference between tieflings and red caps is that the former is a PC appropriate race and the latter is a monster that you fight.
It's not unlike how Bestiary Cecaelias get grab on their tentacle attacks but PC Cecaelias do not.
Full disclosure- it's my personal aesthetic bias that oversized weapons look ridiculous and are not cool.
I feel like the big difference between tieflings and red caps is that the former is a PC appropriate race and the latter is a monster that you fight.
For me, red cap shows that [at least for the redcap] that wording means 'wield weapon as if one size bigger'. For me, PC vs monster/npc isn't relevant in understanding the meaning. Ruling what the words means is different than figuring out if that wording is appropriate for a PC.
It's not unlike how Bestiary Cecaelias get grab on their tentacle attacks but PC Cecaelias do not.
IMO, it's NOTHING like that. If "without penalty" means one thing, it's not unreasonable to read it the same way for an almost identical ability. I understand dropping troublesome abilities for PC options, but in that case I'd expect different wording to show that difference.
So I'm making a distinction between what the wording means and what is PC appropriate. The wording is static while what's appropriate will vary.
Full disclosure- it's my personal aesthetic bias that oversized weapons look ridiculous and are not cool.
I don't have a preference. it's not my thing but in world like pathfinder there real life physics is pretty much thrown out the window, I'm not going to blink if it's someone else's thing.
An effective +2 to hit is well within the power range of the options. Just because it isn't the most powerful doesn't mean that it needs to be boosted beyond it's wording.
You keep going back to that "effective +2 to hit" and it's still not true: weapon proficiency isn't worth FOUR feats... What negating the -2 does is HALF of what weapon proficiency does [1/2 a feat]. As such, it's not even coming close to some of those that are clearly worth MORE than a feat. My point is that taking that 1/2 a feat worth of ability PLUS the ability to bump damage die up IMO doesn't exceed things like +2 to a stat or abilities that take multiple feats like see in darkness. As such, I can't dismiss that reading of it because of power: it DOESN'T make it more powerful that other available options.
The list contains things that are generally available to characters with feats and equipment
All around sight? movement bonus BETTER than fleet? See in darkness that requires multiple feats? Racial bonuses to stats that stack with enhancement bonuses from items? Healed by both positive and negative channeled energy?
There are plenty of things that either aren't in feats/items or require multiple ones to get so I don't see the point. Titan Fighter getting a bad deal for it's tradeouts isn't a reason IMO. Archetypes often do not get proportional trades, often trading a lot for a minor ability and/or trading little for a big ability.
So I disagree with:
#1 it's more powerful than other abilities the tiefling can get on that table.
#2 it's SO super strong that it takes 15 levels of fighter to get.
#3 it's worth 2 feats to get rid of -2 penalties when proficiency gets rid of -4...
I feel like we're all better off if we pretend that table (and the Aasimar one) don't exist.
I feel like we're all better off if we pretend that table (and the Aasimar one) don't exist.
I don't know about that. There are lots of fun options on those charts and I've used several of them.
ventriloquism at willspeak to insects or birds or horses
swim 30'
invisible to all unintelligent undead
small size
communicate telepathically on contact
levitate at will
animate a 1 HD skeleton/day
never appear to age
deal non-lethal
Non-magical insects never bite or sting you
mimic the sound of any animal perfectly
gain sustenance from sunlight
No need to 'throw the baby out with the bath water' so to speak. If some things seem too strong, remove them from the list and/or enforce rolling.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
For the sake of the Oversized Limbs confusion, since it was brought up but the ability wasn’t stated.
Heavy Weapons (Ex) A redcap can wield weapons sized for Medium creatures without penalty.
You have oversized limbs, allowing you to use Large weapons without penalty.
Literally an identical ability allowing the Redcap to wield their Medium sized scythe, a two-handed weapon, as a two-handed weapon without penalty.
Weapon proficiency applies to a single weapon the tiefling ability applies to all weapons so they aren't directly comparable.
It's comparable enough to show that removing a penalty isn't the same as getting a bonus and that's all it NEEDS to do.
fighter and barbarian archetypes
What we don't have is proof that the trade that the archetypes have are good oe effective. As to stacking, how can you point to any one thing in the chain as an issue? You're pointing to a "+8d6 to damage" as better than a "+2" but that's a disingenuous comparison as you've added multiple other abilities to that ability to get it to that level. If I add several increases to my stat, like a belt +4, and a 3 feat chain that takes 16th level to get, THEN we can talk about a comparison...
All around vision: Arachnid Goggles, See in darkness: Shadow Piercings, Eye Piercings (greater)
We have different ideas of "easily accessible". I was thinking of items that are reasonable options before you get to double digit levels and racials start to be less important. They are certainly not available at the levels you can get the racial [at 1st].
Movement bonus: Equal to fleet
Not really. Did you read the feat? You MUST wear "light or no armor" and not "carry a medium or heavy load." As such, the tiefling bonus is far superior as it allows for any armor type and encumbrance.
EDIT: site isn't letting me edit.
"Healed by both positive and negative channeled energy: Only other way I can see to get this is being a level 8+ cleric/inquisitor with the death domain. This is a nice ability, but much more difficult to abuse than size increases."
We're talking about stacking 1/2 a dozen thing on an ability: shouldn't that make it powerful? I's be upset if that 16th level trick didn't do that much...
You're looking at what you can add to the ability and NOT what it does at its base. That's like saying the +2 stat means I can buy an equivalent +8 belt!!! that's so uber powerful... You know because they stack... :P
Size is pretty hard to abuse. In general it’s just an extra 1d6 to your damage, average 3.5. It’s nice but not that big of a deal.
Can I get a permanent reduce person on my tiefling and have a small tiefling fight with a Large Two-Handed weapon?
Bows can get out of hand, but it's not like large arms gives you bigger spells, so literally, who cares?
I have always understood this trait to allow the use of large weapons, such as it literally says.
Who freaking cares if someone has a large Greatsword? Greater vital strike, sure. Charging, yes they are. Impact enchanted, yessir. Still just a melee fighter, so nobody should think twice about allowing it. Let the fighter's large weapons get to the damage of the lowest spells, who cares?!
Flying wizards aren't caring about how big your sword is.
Point is, going up one size matters not. Not in melee, or archery. So bring it on.
For reference, there's an active topic floating around here talking about the Hellfire Ray...
Can I get a permanent reduce person on my tiefling and have a small tiefling fight with a Large Two-Handed weapon?only if they are also a titan mauler or titan fighter, otherwise they would be small size with medium weapons
The comic relief this would bring to every battle would be fantastic.
Can I get a permanent reduce person on my tiefling and have a small tiefling fight with a Large Two-Handed weapon?only if they are also a titan mauler or titan fighter, otherwise they would be small size with medium weapons
Why? No where does Reduce Person or Over-sized Limbs indicate that this would be case.
Over-sized limbs doesn't say you can use "a weapon one size larger than normal" without penalty, it says "You have over-sized limbs, allowing you to use Large weapons without penalty."
So, I should be able to have a small tiefling wielding a Large Butchering Axe.(4d6) Do I have to have a strength rating to use it? I'm confused as to exactly which penalties are ignored for using a large weapon and which ones you don't.
You normally take penalties for using a weapon not sized properly for you. This racial feature removes those penalties for size large weapons.
End of story. Literally exactly what it says in the #16 alternative racial abilities.
Sure, be small and use a large butchering axe or size large orc horn bow. Please. It will be hilarious and it won't break the game, so nobody should care or say otherwise.
It's not like large arms cast larger spells so it's a non issue.
So use large hand crossbows. Or those aklys hammers. Or just have an imagination and let them use the oversized bow or butchering axe, just enjoy the silliness, it's a fantasy game, after all.
Exactly. It says you have the ability to use size large weapons without penalties. The end.
Size large butchering axes and size large orc horn bows are size large weapons. The end.
You can use any weapon that is size large, without penalty. The end.
Why is this up for debate. It literally says what it means and means what it says. The end.