Barbarian Feat: Giant's Stature


Classes


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

After reading this feat, first thought in my mind was "Really? Just reach?". I checked the enlarge spell, and it also adds damage. I feel like this feat should also be adding the additional damage like the Enlarge spell does.

I also can't seem to find anything about the weapon's damage dice going up (or something similar) for it's increased size.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

It definitely needs to be clearly stated somewhere (in the barbarian entry or in the weapon section, preferably both), but I believe the large weapon uses the standard increased damage dice on page 91.

As far as giant stature goes, I suspect that's intentional. If the above is true, your weapon already has the damage increase (except it isn't necessarily +2, but could be a die type increase if you aren't already using a 1d12 weapon). The damage dice increase of weapons doesn't stack, ever (which makes the heightened version of enlarge...interesting)

Huh. This is messier than I first thought. The enlarge spell is using a simplified bonus that avoids the weapon increase rules limit. It's also more in line with how ogre javelins work.
(+5 strength bonus, their javelins do 1d6+7, or 1d6+str bonus +2 for large. But most giant's have weapons that... don't work like that at all, to the point that they're not worth reverse engineering).

Grand Lodge

The thing is, enlarge grants a conditional +2. But you barbarian rage already grants a conditional +4 damage. And they don't stack. So giant / Titan stature would not benefit from a damage boost.

Grand Lodge

There is nothing in the rules that indicate weapon size increases increase die size.


FLite wrote:
There is nothing in the rules that indicate weapon size increases increase die size.

On the Fighter Class there is this clause.

NCREASING WEAPON
DAMAGE DICE
When an effect calls on you to increase
your weapon damage dice, instead of
using its normal weapon damage dice,
you use the next larger die (so if you were
using a d4, you’d use a d6, and so on). If
you are already using a d12, you continue
to use a d12 and gain a +2 circumstance
bonus to damage rolls instead. You can
never increase your weapon damage
dice more than once. The following is
the progression for increasing weapon
damage di


KroyTheGM wrote:
FLite wrote:
There is nothing in the rules that indicate weapon size increases increase die size.

On the Fighter Class there is this clause.

NCREASING WEAPON
DAMAGE DICE
When an effect calls on you to increase
your weapon damage dice, instead of
using its normal weapon damage dice,
you use the next larger die (so if you were
using a d4, you’d use a d6, and so on). If
you are already using a d12, you continue
to use a d12 and gain a +2 circumstance
bonus to damage rolls instead. You can
never increase your weapon damage
dice more than once. The following is
the progression for increasing weapon
damage di

But that has nothing to do with weapons being made bigger doing more damage. For that to apply, we would first need a rule that says when the size of your weapon increases, increase the weapon damage die. And there is nothing in the rules that says that. Thinking that way is a holdover from old Pathfinder.

The Giant Form barbarian feat even says "Your equipment grows with you. If you’re using the titan mauler ability, your weapon’s even larger size causes it to have the same effects as normal for that ability." Which makes clear that getting bigger in this case is only giving you a reach advantage (stated earlier in the feat).


PF2 intentionally did away with "bigger weapon more damage" largely because PCs are almost always going to be small or medium, and we will use different rules for giant monsters anyway.

If you made a large greataxe do more damage than a medium one you would likewise have to make a small rapier do less damage than a medium one, which would suck for halflings.


Joey Cote wrote:
KroyTheGM wrote:
FLite wrote:
There is nothing in the rules that indicate weapon size increases increase die size.

On the Fighter Class there is this clause.

NCREASING WEAPON
DAMAGE DICE
When an effect calls on you to increase
your weapon damage dice, instead of
using its normal weapon damage dice,
you use the next larger die (so if you were
using a d4, you’d use a d6, and so on). If
you are already using a d12, you continue
to use a d12 and gain a +2 circumstance
bonus to damage rolls instead. You can
never increase your weapon damage
dice more than once. The following is
the progression for increasing weapon
damage di

But that has nothing to do with weapons being made bigger doing more damage. For that to apply, we would first need a rule that says when the size of your weapon increases, increase the weapon damage die. And there is nothing in the rules that says that. Thinking that way is a holdover from old Pathfinder.

The Giant Form barbarian feat even says "Your equipment grows with you. If you’re using the titan mauler ability, your weapon’s even larger size causes it to have the same effects as normal for that ability." Which makes clear that getting bigger in this case is only giving you a reach advantage (stated earlier in the feat).

Exactly. It's even stated directly in the quoted clause, "When an effect calls for you to increase your weapon damage dice...". This is referring to effects like Two-Handed Assault, the Cleric's Deadly Simplicity feat, etc. that call you out as increasing your weapon's dice by a size. And it means size as in the size of the die, not as if it were Large instead of Medium. It's entirely separate from size category.

And the enlarging effects mentioned say nothing about increasing your weapon die, so...


If you plan on using giants stature most of the time when you rage (which you kind of need to wait until lvl 11 to do since barbarians are boned in the three action economy) You can avoid having the sluggish penalty in the off rounds by wielding a normal sized weapon then using giants stature to get the larger conditional bonus. So... that is something.


Bardarok wrote:
If you plan on using giants stature most of the time when you rage (which you kind of need to wait until lvl 11 to do since barbarians are boned in the three action economy)

Giant Barbarians are less hosed here than other Barbarians are regarding their 2nd totem feat costing an action, since there will be situations where if you grow big something will be in your reach which it was not previously, so you can rage, get big, and attack with your one remaining action.

But that level 11 upgrade is huge for everybody.


The reach is currently the only advantage, but it IS an advantage. Not as much as it would be if Barbars had AoO access (which, IMO, they probably should) but they can do some fun stuff with reach, feats like Swipe, and weapon traits like sweep and forceful. To say nothing of Whirlwind Attack at higher levels.

Basically, it makes you the cleave master.


Oh man, hadn't considered AoO, Swipe, or Whirlwind attack. Fighter MC here we come!


Unfortunately, Swipe and Cleave require adjacency, which is not guaranteed to ever happen in the course of a campaign depending on how your GM plays antagonists.

AoO and Whirlwind Attack work great though on the giant barbarian.


PossibleCabbage wrote:

Unfortunately, Swipe and Cleave require adjacency, which is not guaranteed to ever happen in the course of a campaign depending on how your GM plays antagonists.

AoO and Whirlwind Attack work great though on the giant barbarian.

I mean, it won't happen all the time, but I seriously question the existence of a campaign where two enemies are never adjacent to each other. Most dungeons are too small to avoid it happening at least some of the time. A fair number of bestiary creatures also get bonuses for being adjacent to each other

The difference is that in 5 foot reach (or 10 foot PF1 style reach) the positioning has to work out very particularly. But the giant barbarians reach lets you cleave someone in front of you and into someone behind them, for example. And has an easier time cleaving through large+ critters.

Paizo Employee Designer

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Captain Morgan wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:

Unfortunately, Swipe and Cleave require adjacency, which is not guaranteed to ever happen in the course of a campaign depending on how your GM plays antagonists.

AoO and Whirlwind Attack work great though on the giant barbarian.

I mean, it won't happen all the time, but I seriously question the existence of a campaign where two enemies are never adjacent to each other. Most dungeons are too small to avoid it happening at least some of the time. A fair number of bestiary creatures also get bonuses for being adjacent to each other

The difference is that in 5 foot reach (or 10 foot PF1 style reach) the positioning has to work out very particularly. But the giant barbarians reach lets you cleave someone in front of you and into someone behind them, for example. And has an easier time cleaving through large+ critters.

We've got an axe fighter in my War for the Crown game so adjacency matters a lot. I've found that once a pair of enemies uses a straight flank (as opposed to the diagonal flank that is normally a weaker flank since a Step takes you out of reach of both), at that point there is no space a third enemy can stand around that same victim where it isn't adjacent to one of those flankers (this is all with medium creatures not using reach). Then the fighter Sudden Charges into the spot to take advantage (one thing I wasn't thinking of even when I wrote the axe critical effect is how fun it is with Swipe against two identical enemies, since you'll crit both and wind up damaging them both a huge amount).

It turns out to come up really often in fights with 3+ melee foes, making the fighter great at mowing down groups of enemies (she still didn't appreciate when the party using lightning to split a giant ooze into ~20 mini-oozes though).


Adjacency only ever comes up when the player forces it. Otherwise enemies are never going to be adjacent, they'll be flanking. The only time adjacency happens without player forcing is if there's such an overwhelming number of foes that there's more than 2 per PC, or when most of the party is down so you effectively have more than 2 per PC left standing.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Fuzzypaws wrote:
Adjacency only ever comes up when the player forces it. Otherwise enemies are never going to be adjacent, they'll be flanking. The only time adjacency happens without player forcing is if there's such an overwhelming number of foes that there's more than 2 per PC, or when most of the party is down so you effectively have more than 2 per PC left standing.

Just because the enemies will want to flank you, doesn't mean they'll always be able to.


I have found that the "you can just step out of a diagonal flank" does not actively discourage using that technique because that 3rd attack at -10 isn't especially valuable, so the enemies can just move to get their flank back.


He's saying that if the enemies are flanking you on the diagonals you are able to take a step and be out of range of both of the enemies. Which would require both enemies to have to move to regain the flanking where as if they flanked you from opposite sides or a straight flank if you step you will always be in range of one enemy and they wont both need to move to regain that flanking opportunity.


Rysky wrote:
Fuzzypaws wrote:
Adjacency only ever comes up when the player forces it. Otherwise enemies are never going to be adjacent, they'll be flanking. The only time adjacency happens without player forcing is if there's such an overwhelming number of foes that there's more than 2 per PC, or when most of the party is down so you effectively have more than 2 per PC left standing.
Just because the enemies will want to flank you, doesn't mean they'll always be able to.

Indeed. Combat often occurs within choke points, and if the enemy becomes aware you've got AoO in the party, that further limits their mobility. You can also have enemies wind up adjacent to each other while they are still pursuing flanks-- when a melee gets crowded enough it just happens sometimes.

Players forcing adjacency also doesn't really sound like a knock against it-- tactical options are cool.

Paizo Employee Designer

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Captain Morgan wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Fuzzypaws wrote:
Adjacency only ever comes up when the player forces it. Otherwise enemies are never going to be adjacent, they'll be flanking. The only time adjacency happens without player forcing is if there's such an overwhelming number of foes that there's more than 2 per PC, or when most of the party is down so you effectively have more than 2 per PC left standing.
Just because the enemies will want to flank you, doesn't mean they'll always be able to.

Indeed. Combat often occurs within choke points, and if the enemy becomes aware you've got AoO in the party, that further limits their mobility. You can also have enemies wind up adjacent to each other while they are still pursuing flanks-- when a melee gets crowded enough it just happens sometimes.

Players forcing adjacency also doesn't really sound like a knock against it-- tactical options are cool.

In fact, even without chokepoints, all it takes is having the PC that the enemies want to focus-fire stand next to a wall to guarantee that any group of three enemies attacking that target will have to include an adjacency. Now, if enemies are avoiding focus fire and spreading out to attack just a few on each PC because they see that axe (or know you have Sweep) and want to avoid any adjacencies no matter what, the amount your presence has helped the party in forcing the enemies to avoid focus fire is probably more significant than the increased damage you would get from the Sweep.


Mark (and others): focus fire is actually a good thing from the party's perspective, provided that the person being focused on is the right one.

Given two PCs with AC cakes 16 and 18, I'd rather have the AC 18 PC taking all the swings (or at least, a majority) because of the 10 percentage point higher miss chance than hits against the lower AC PC. Does it mean the tank gets hot more, needs more healing, and falls unconscious more? Yes, but that's his job.

Which is another reason retributive strike "feels bad": because a tankaladin wants to never need to use it. But using it means more damage dealt, less damage taken, and a faster fight...

He wants to use it (because the fight ends sooner with the party taking less damage), but using it means someone attacked not-the-tank, violating a tank's mission: talking all the hits.

And also because the paladin can never choose when to use it, or force a situation where it gets triggered. Compare to the fighter, "Suck it Wizface, move or cast and eat AOO!"


Draco18s wrote:

Mark (and others): focus fire is actually a good thing from the party's perspective, provided that the person being focused on is the right one.

Given two PCs with AC cakes 16 and 18, I'd rather have the AC 18 PC taking all the swings (or at least, a majority) because of the 10 percentage point higher miss chance than hits against the lower AC PC. Does it mean the tank gets hot more, needs more healing, and falls unconscious more? Yes, but that's his job.

Which is another reason retributive strike "feels bad": because a tankaladin wants to never need to use it. But using it means more damage dealt, less damage taken, and a faster fight...

He wants to use it (because the fight ends sooner with the party taking less damage), but using it means someone attacked not-the-tank, violating a tank's mission: talking all the hits.

And also because the paladin can never choose when to use it, or force a situation where it gets triggered. Compare to the fighter, "Suck it Wizface, move or cast and eat AOO!"

I think you are missing the point of Mark's scenario. The party member getting focus fired probably isn't your high AC tank (the person most likely to be using the sweep weapon,) it is the low AC wizard flinging fire balls or the cleric who has kept healing the party.

If a party focuses their fire on the caster with their back to the wall, they are leaving themselves vulnerable to a sweep/swipe/cleave/whatever. As such, canny enemies may avoid putting themselves in that position, but that means you have reduced focus fire on the squishies and drawn it to yourself just by virtue of existing.

The paladin stuff feels like a bit of a non-sequitur, but...

Retributive Strike works on similar principles-- the enemy strikes your buddy, pays for it, learns a lesson, and then begins attacking you. There's really not a better way to draw fire beyond "make yourself too dangerous to ignore" which literally every character is trying to do, or MMO style aggro mechanics.

I think we will just have to agree to disagree on how good this feels, especially as it relates to AoO. You actually have about as much control in forcing AoOs. The caster can choose to just strike instead of using magic (most monsters with spells are still nasty in melee) or step, for example. Yes, there are scenarios where AoO severely limits an enemy's options, but the same is true for the paladin reactions. An melee brute is basically forced to attack the paladin or suffer for it. And in either case, you probably only get these reactions triggered about once per battle.


We did one of the missions where the boss had two minions that had a touch heal. They both went invisible and (apparently) cast mirror image. The boss took a bunch of damage and the minions both moved into base to base to heal. My character had see invisible up so on my action I moved up and hit all three with dust of appearance.

So the GM wasn't playing the monsters stupid but it still ended up with a situation where cleave/swipe or any other such attack could have done some serious damage after the dust hit.

Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Player Rules / Classes / Barbarian Feat: Giant's Stature All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.