Giant Barbarian Rage Damage Bonus


Rules Discussion


So the giant Barbarian info says that you only get the bonus rage damage when you are wielding the large weapon, including the specialisation damage increases.

My question is if you are using a one handed large weapon, would the rage Bonus apply to whatever weapon you might use in your off hand?


Not unless your offhand weapon was also large.


Is this a rules as intended vs Written aspect or do I just not understand how wielding is used in this context?


I think it's probably the former. Then again, I think that all large weapons are two-handed by default so I'm not sure that you can wield a weapon in your off hand.


Perpdepog wrote:
I think it's probably the former. Then again, I think that all large weapons are two-handed by default so I'm not sure that you can wield a weapon in your off hand.

In PF2 being Large does not change the handyness or statistics of a weapon, only its Bulk and Price (and the fact that it inflicts clumsy 1).


If you're trying to find a way to ignore the clumsy penalty while getting the damage bonus, don't.

In order to get the damage bonus, you have to be using a large weapon to make the attack. Wielding one large weapon one medium size weapon? Your large weapon gets the bonus damage, your medium weapon does not.


I wasn't trying to avoid clumsy, I was wanting to grab people and thrash them getting the damage bonus while still having an actually weapon to wield.

Or to multiclass range and use some of the 2 weapon feats while still getting the bonus on the other weapon attack with twin takedown.

Hadn't decided the build fully yet


You can use large 1 handed weapons, so that you have a free hand. Or use two large 1 handed weapons if you want to TWF.

That works fine. IIRC, there's nothing that restricts your ability to TWF or grab enemies due to using large weapons.

Unlike PF1, larger weapons don't change how many hands are required to wield them. There's also no benefit to wielding larger weapons unless you have Giant Instinct.


But you only get a single large weapon so both can't be large. And it's whether the rage bonus applies to hits with a non-large weapon if you are wielding a large weapon in one hand and a normal weapon in the other


Abyssiensis wrote:
But you only get a single large weapon so both can't be large. And it's whether the rage bonus applies to hits with a non-large weapon if you are wielding a large weapon in one hand and a normal weapon in the other

While it's true that you are only stated to get access to a single large size weapon, I imagine that you can:

1) craft your own
2) commision one from a smith
3) find large size weapons
4) Have a somewhat lenient GM who isn't going to restrict access to large size weapons for a character that depends on them for the class function (which is probably very reasonable except in PFS)

So in my view for anything except PFS it's not problem, unless you just have a jerk of a GM.


And on the grappling front, thrash says add the rage damage but you don't get the increased damage?


I see what he is saying, unless there is a specific ingame defenition for wielding (is their?) then you don't need to be attacking with a weapon to wield it and its the wielding of the weapon rather than the attacking that increases the rage bonus and then the rage bonus applies as standard to all melee attacks.

So you should be able to hold your mighty large one handed flick ace and be punching someone in the face at same time getting the bigger rage bonus on the punch (halved because of agile of course).

Ps playing devil's advocate here the only reason to rule it this way is to avoid punishing giant barbarians that want to grapple and thrash though I suppose you could count a person as a large weapon for the purpose of that feat.


Quote:
You can use a weapon built for a Large creature if you are Small or Medium (both normally and when raging). If you’re not Small or Medium, you can use a weapon built for a creature one size larger than you. You gain access to one weapon one size larger than you, of any weapon type otherwise available at character creation. It has the normal Price and Bulk for a weapon of its size (page 295). When wielding such a weapon in combat, increase your additional damage from Rage from 2 to 6, but you have the clumsy 1 condition (page 618) because of the weapon’s unwieldy size. You can’t remove this clumsy condition or ignore its penalties by any means while wielding the weapon.
Quote:

Wielding Items

Source Core Rulebook pg. 272
Some abilities require you to wield an item, typically a weapon. You’re wielding an item any time you’re holding it in the number of hands needed to use it effectively. When wielding an item, you’re not just carrying it around—you’re ready to use it. Other abilities might require you to merely carry or have an item. These apply as long as you have the item on your person; you don’t have to wield it.

Wielding, IMO, pretty clearly means using.

It's unlike PF1, they tried to stop all the silliness of "wielding" that happened there.

So yeah, Giant Instinct Barbarians don't get the extra damage on Thrash because they're not using their weapons to deal the damage.


Claxon wrote:
Quote:
You can use a weapon built for a Large creature if you are Small or Medium (both normally and when raging). If you’re not Small or Medium, you can use a weapon built for a creature one size larger than you. You gain access to one weapon one size larger than you, of any weapon type otherwise available at character creation. It has the normal Price and Bulk for a weapon of its size (page 295). When wielding such a weapon in combat, increase your additional damage from Rage from 2 to 6, but you have the clumsy 1 condition (page 618) because of the weapon’s unwieldy size. You can’t remove this clumsy condition or ignore its penalties by any means while wielding the weapon.
Quote:

Wielding Items

Source Core Rulebook pg. 272
Some abilities require you to wield an item, typically a weapon. You’re wielding an item any time you’re holding it in the number of hands needed to use it effectively. When wielding an item, you’re not just carrying it around—you’re ready to use it. Other abilities might require you to merely carry or have an item. These apply as long as you have the item on your person; you don’t have to wield it.

Wielding, IMO, pretty clearly means using.

It's unlike PF1, they tried to stop all the silliness of "wielding" that happened there.

So yeah, Giant Instinct Barbarians don't get the extra damage on Thrash because they're not using their weapons to deal the damage.

This may be me being stupid but according to that definition of wielding requires you to be holding a weapon (in the correct number of hands) and be ready to attack with it so as far as I can see if you wielding a 1 handed large weapon in one hand and medium weapon in the other hand you would still be wielding a large weapon for the purpose of the rage boost and clumsy. If you attacked with the medium weapon you would still be wielding the large weapon and still clumsy so why wouldn't the rage bonus apply ?

Basically the condition for the rage bonus isn't making an attack action with a large weapon its wielding one which the provided definition showed are different things (being ready to attack =/ attacking).


Don't try to read too far into the rules, this is exactly the sort of rabbit hole that things went down in PF1 and it caused problems.

The intended situation here is making an attack with a large sized weapon allows you to deal more damage.


If you look at the specialization ability right after titan mauler, it says "increase the damage from rage when using a larger weapon". That definitely shows the intention is for bonus damage to apply on the large weapon attacks only. It also makes absolutely 0 sense for you to be holding this large signature weapon and attacking with another regular weapon thematically, I doubt it was intentional to allow that through the wording. A dual wielding giant instinct barbarian will just have to find another large weapon elsewhere or deal with only +2 to damage on offhand attacks. Thrash also specifically calls out that you add the extra specialization damage, so you don't need this rules bending to justify that.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Abyssiensis wrote:

I wasn't trying to avoid clumsy, I was wanting to grab people and thrash them getting the damage bonus while still having an actually weapon to wield.

Or to multiclass range and use some of the 2 weapon feats while still getting the bonus on the other weapon attack with twin takedown.

Hadn't decided the build fully yet

i forget or maybe it was just the errata document but i thought the giant instinct gave you access to large sized weapons, not just a single one, but the ability to acquire more.


It's specifically one large sized weapon - the errata change only made it so that small characters also got a large weapon, since the original text said "one size larger than you" which made it non-functional for small characters since medium weapons don't need special access.


thenobledrake wrote:
It's specifically one large sized weapon - the errata change only made it so that small characters also got a large weapon, since the original text said "one size larger than you" which made it non-functional for small characters since medium weapons don't need special access.

True, but small characters wielding a medium weapon still got the bonus because the ability works by wielding something larger than what is normally sized for you.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

No, they didn't, because there is no difference in size for gear for medium and small characters in this version of the game.


Abyssiensis wrote:

So the giant Barbarian info says that you only get the bonus rage damage when you are wielding the large weapon, including the specialisation damage increases.

My question is if you are using a one handed large weapon, would the rage Bonus apply to whatever weapon you might use in your off hand?

RAW it works. It says wielding and not striking/attacking/"damage from your large weapon". Note the difference from Animal Instinct, which actually uses the other terminology. This means I have to assume it's intentional, as the same class states it two different ways in two places. Unless of course Paizo decides to change it.

So yes, if you're wielding a large Kukri and then punch the enemy in the face, you get the larger bonus to damage from Rage.


tivadar27 wrote:


RAW it works. It says wielding and not striking/attacking/"damage from your large weapon". Note the difference from Animal Instinct, which actually uses the other terminology. This means I have to assume it's intentional, as the same class states it two different ways in two places. Unless of course Paizo decides to change it.

So yes, if you're wielding a large Kukri and then punch the enemy in the face, you get the larger bonus to damage from Rage.

I agree it's RAW. I do not agree you "have to assume it's intentional" at all, mistakes are made sometimes.


BellyBeard wrote:
tivadar27 wrote:


RAW it works. It says wielding and not striking/attacking/"damage from your large weapon". Note the difference from Animal Instinct, which actually uses the other terminology. This means I have to assume it's intentional, as the same class states it two different ways in two places. Unless of course Paizo decides to change it.

So yes, if you're wielding a large Kukri and then punch the enemy in the face, you get the larger bonus to damage from Rage.

I agree it's RAW. I do not agree you "have to assume it's intentional" at all, mistakes are made sometimes.

Fair, maybe "I assume it's intentional". I just find it odd that they got it right in Animal Instinct and messed it up in Giant Instinct, but... you're right... who knows. Also, going back, I said "I have to assume it's intentional" :). Others are free to come to whatever conclusion they want on that :-P.


I think this is a case where language that basically means the same thing in linguistic terms is being treated as being intended to be distinctly different despite that because people are used to the idea that game rules are written so deliberately and accurately than using synonymous phrases isn't supposed to happen.

Which I think is a weird thing for people to expect given that it is actually pretty rare that a game is written that way.

This could be that the two bits of rules in question were just written by different people, or both bits written without cross-referencing the exact language used elsewhere, so the same meaning is conveyed with differing words.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

They have gotten better at being precise with language and tags not 4e precise but a lot better.


@thenobledrake: Yeah, it could be. The problem is that both of these terms are well defined. If "wielding" wasn't spelled out so deliberately, then I would probably agree with you. There are lots of other phrases they could have used there "using", "attacking with", "striking with"...

You're right though, many people will treat "wielding" to mean using it actively in combat, which, definitionally, it's not. PF2 was seeking for a more well-defined system, which is evidenced by tagging and providing distinct names for actions. Perhaps this is one area where they fell on their face a bit.

EDIT: Also, proof-reading matters... This should have gone past a minimum of 2 sets of eyes. I assume intention rather than mistake if at least two people have looked at it and said "that's fine".


Because the definition of wielding includes the phrasing "When wielding an item, you’re not just carrying it around—you’re ready to use it." that makes it not so deliberately spelled out as one might think.

Because to one person that phrase could mean having a one-handed weapon in one hand is all it takes - but to another that phrase could mean having a one-handed weapon in one hand and being actually about to use it.

"Ready to use it" doesn't have a specific singular meaning.

As a result, while there could be an intended distinct technical-language difference between 'wielding a weapon' and 'using a weapon', there isn't actually a distinct linguistic difference between the two.


tivadar27 wrote:
EDIT: Also, proof-reading matters... This should have gone past a minimum of 2 sets of eyes. I assume intention rather than mistake if at least two people have looked at it and said "that's fine".

There are 15 people credited as editors of the book...


thenobledrake wrote:

Because the definition of wielding includes the phrasing "When wielding an item, you’re not just carrying it around—you’re ready to use it." that makes it not so deliberately spelled out as one might think.

Because to one person that phrase could mean having a one-handed weapon in one hand is all it takes - but to another that phrase could mean having a one-handed weapon in one hand and being actually about to use it.

"Ready to use it" doesn't have a specific singular meaning.

As a result, while there could be an intended distinct technical-language difference between 'wielding a weapon' and 'using a weapon', there isn't actually a distinct linguistic difference between the two.

Please quote full texts and not just out-of-context pieces here... You're pulling quotes out of a full context where it's extremely clear the difference, and it makes your statement not accurate.

CRB Wielding Items wrote:

Some abilities require you to wield an item, typically a

weapon. You’re wielding an item any time you’re holding
it in the number of hands needed to use it effectively.
When wielding an item, you’re not just carrying it
around—you’re ready to use it. Other abilities might
require you to merely carry or have an item. These apply
as long as you have the item on your person; you don’t
have to wield it.

The first line here spells it out clearly. We don't need anything else to tell us what wielding means, though they go on to talk about the intention.


You really don't get to say that I can't address a specific piece of a rule because of context (which, by the way, I only quoted the part that provides the context I was addressing, so yes I can do exactly what I did, thanks) and then turn around and say that when you read the full passage you can effectively ignore text the author chose to include, presumably for a reason.

The sentence I originally quoted is as much a part of the rule as the sentence before it that you claim spells it out clearly.

And if the sentence I originally quoted doesn't have a bearing on what wielding means, why is it included?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thenobledrake wrote:

You really don't get to say that I can't address a specific piece of a rule because of context (which, by the way, I only quoted the part that provides the context I was addressing, so yes I can do exactly what I did, thanks) and then turn around and say that when you read the full passage you can effectively ignore text the author chose to include, presumably for a reason.

The sentence I originally quoted is as much a part of the rule as the sentence before it that you claim spells it out clearly.

And if the sentence I originally quoted doesn't have a bearing on what wielding means, why is it included?

So by ready to use I assume it means if you have an action or reaction available to to attack/block/maneuver with it you can immediately do so and a one handed large sword wielded in one hand would meet that criteria, as you could choose to strike and make attacks of opportunity with it without having to spend any actions to ready it.


thenobledrake wrote:
No, they didn't, because there is no difference in size for gear for medium and small characters in this version of the game.

A lack of different statistics doesn't mean that they aren't different sizes.

They got rid of size differences affecting weight and damage to simplify the game, and so people weren't trying size changing shenanigans for increasing their damage die.

Do you have anything in the rules that backs up the assertion that armor for a small sized creature also fits a medium sized creature? Because the way I see it they just cost the same, have the same bulk, and are otherwise mechanically the same in how the affect the wearer, but a medium creature can't wear the armor from a small creature.


Claxon wrote:
Do you have anything in the rules that backs up the assertion that armor for a small sized creature also fits a medium sized creature?

Do you have anything in the rules that backs up the assertion that small and medium sized creatures don't used the same size equipment?

I can't produce proof of a negative because the game rules aren't written in such a way that including a specific sentence stating what is not the case would be a normal thing.

What I can find is a complete lack of any item in the book being designated as "sized for small" or "sized for medium" rather than just saying things along the lines of "rules in this chapter are for Small and Medium creatures, as the items are made for creatures of those sizes."

As far as I have seen, there is no text in the PF2 rules that says a medium creature and a small creature can't both use the same suit of armor. Just like there's nothing that says an elf can't hand their longsword to a halfling and that be exactly the same thing as if the halfling had their own longsword.


thenobledrake wrote:
Claxon wrote:
Do you have anything in the rules that backs up the assertion that armor for a small sized creature also fits a medium sized creature?

Do you have anything in the rules that backs up the assertion that small and medium sized creatures don't used the same size equipment?

Not quite as a black and white as I would like but this link talks about sizes. The second table, though it's specifically about bulk conversions, mentions "Small or Medium" implying that they recognize those as separate things, but treat them mechanically as the same in almost all cases.

Under the rules for creature bulk here we clearly treat the characters as being different bulk.

Even if small and medium creatures treat items the same in terms of mechanical effects like bulk, it does appear to me that there exists at least an acknowledgment that different sizes exist for that equipment. There just doesn't appear to be a benefit or penalty to using them, unless explicitly stated.

Edit: As an aside I don't actually remember what point I was trying to make when I brought up armor sizes.

In general the point I actually wanted to make is that medium sized and small sized equipment seems to exists as separate things, but the rules treat them as having no penalty or benefit between them. And that you only start having penalties or benefits when you go up to large or down to tiny.


Claxon wrote:


Not quite as a black and white as I would like but this link talks about sizes. The second table, though it's specifically about bulk conversions, mentions "Small or Medium" implying that they recognize those as separate things, but treat them mechanically as the same in almost all cases...

The rules at that link specifically call out Large armor as being too big for small and medium characters, but does not call out medium armor as too big for small characters or small armor as too small for medium characters. Definitely think it would have been made explicit there if that were the case, since small and medium armor will be more common than large armor.


So I feel that it obvious that armor that fits the 7th Half Orc warrior also won't fit the 3.5ft Goblin warrior and visa versur, that's just simply a part of the narrative. But get a sufficiently demented smith to make the alterations or magic and then I am more flexible on the situation.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / Rules Discussion / Giant Barbarian Rage Damage Bonus All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.