I have a question on how do I determine damage for large weapons that are not covered in the rules.
Situation:
Skippy the level 12 Barbarian has the Titan's Stature feat so he is size Huge. A Cloud Giant throws a rock at Skippy and it lands nearby. Skippy picks it up and throws it back. How much damage will it do if it hits?
For a Cloud Giant (with +7 STR) the rock does
Ranged [one-action] rock +24 (brutal, range increment 120 feet), Damage
2d10+13 bludgeoning
There is no rule about this I'm aware of. Most GMs will probably say 2d10 plus whatever damage bonus Skippy has. Because its the simplest and fastest answer. Skippy is happy because this is an awesome rock - he may even collect it later and use it again.
If Skippy picks up the Cloud Giants +1 striking ranseur which is
Melee [one-action] ranseur +25 (disarm, magical, reach 20 feet), Damage
2d10+13 piercing
Most GMs will probalby say 2d10 and move on. Skippy will be upset because thats no better than the size medium +1 striking ransuer that he already has even though this one is much much larger.
Later on Skippy fights a Giant Cyclops and takes his greatclub.
Melee [one-action] greatclub +25 (backswing, reach 15 feet, shove),
Damage 3d10+13 bludgeoning
The GM is in a bit of a corner here, and reluctant agrees that the club does 3d10 damage. Skippy is very happy keeps this weapon and later on tries to get some runes put on it.
A smarter GM anticipates this issue and says the club does 1d10 like its normal size club. Skippy's player throws a tantrum. With justification there is no rule to say it does any less damage in Skippys hands.
These are all examplesfrom printed material and point to a situation that is just not covered in the rules.
A reminder of the rules:
Page 296 of the CORE Rulebook Items and Sizes
In most cases, Small or Medium creatures can wield a Large weapon, though it’s unwieldy, giving them the clumsy 1 condition, and the larger size is canceled by the difficulty of swinging the weapon, so it grants no special benefit.
Nice but it doesn't apply as the weapon is the right size for the wielder. Skippy is the same size as the Giant Cyclops
Page 280 of the CORE Rulebook Increasing Die Size
When an effect calls on you to increase the size of your
weapon damage dice, instead of using its normal weapon
damage dice, use the next larger die, as listed below (so if
you were using a d4, you’d use a d6, and so on). If you are
already using a d12, the size is already at its maximum.
You can’t increase your weapon damage die size more
than once.
1d4 ➞ 1d6 ➞ 1d8 ➞ 1d10 ➞ 1d12
Nothing has asked us to increase the weapon damage die, just size
Page 274 of the CORE Rulebook Size and reach
Larger creatures get reach and take up more space.Not especially relevant
Page 87 of the CORE Rulebook Giant Instinct Titan Mauler
There is a rage bonus for wielding a weapon larger than you, again not the case.
Nothing. The GM has to make it up.
Fine so what guidance do we have? Examples from the rules. Various polymorph magics like Enlarge, Animal Form, Dinosaur Form; giants such as Ogres/Mintaours/Cyclops/Ettins/Giants in the bestiary; animal companions.
So what do we learn?
- The stone giant, the fire giant, the storm giant, the minotaur, the greater cyclops and the rune giant are wielding their two handed weapons in one hand. Cool, hope the players don't see that. Maybe I might use that as a GM.
- The lower level giants use normal size weapon damage dice, but just add a static bonus to damage. As does Enlarge
- The higher level giants are all given magic weapons with striking runes, plus larger static bonuses. Whole races with magic weapons!?
- Some get extra dice like the Giant Cyclops, most of them do with rocks and fists
- Dinosaur Form, Animal Forms happily hand out multiple dice on natural weapons. In the heightened versions of these forms, the static damage bonus goes up, and often they double the number of dice for damage.
- Animal companions add extra dice as they get larger, and more experienced
The intent of the designers is clear here. Even though larger weapons do more damage, they seem to have gone through hoops to keep larger size weapons out of the way of players. For balance reasons you could agrue that the Giant Instinct barbarian has enough bonuses and does not need a super weapon.
But its such a classic gaming trope - how do I keep my players happy??? The barbarian and the rest of them.
Finally the wording of Titan's Mauler. It was updated in the errata, but it needs to explicilty mention that the weapon gets no damage increase from being larger - other than the rage bonus increase. Or it needs to say to increase the weapon damage size. People keep reading it different ways for a reason. It's not tight.
|
If the size increase, just add +2 flat damage.
So
Medium 1d12
Large 1d12 +2
Huge 1d12 +4
That's why I said there should not be multiple versions of the same rules. If a feat lets you enlarge yourself, then just use the Enlarge Person (and Heightened Enlarge for Huge size). It has all the effects of the spell, including the reach bonus, Clumsy 1, and the damage bonus: +2 for Large, +4 for Huge.
Also, building on a suggestion from another poster on these forums, I changed the Giant Barbarian to being able to use a human-sized melee weapon that requires 2 hands in just 1 hand at the cost of the Clumsy 1 trait. And if it could be used in 1 hand but has the two-handed trait, they get the damage boost from the trait even when using it in 1 hand and don't suffer from Clumsy 1.
I think this is a much better version of the class... no figuring out how the monster math works for PCs, just use the regular normal-sized weapon stats and change the number of hands required and the effects. And you can then retain the full effects of Enlarge Person for the feats, since it's not a giant-sized weapon growing even larger, it's a normal-sized weapon.
|
|
1) more damage ( flat damage and not higher die, so way way too powerful than a 1d8 > 1d10 ).2) more maneuvers. While you have to trade stuff when using a weapon, especially 2h weapons, by giving a player 2x 2h weapons you will give them too much dmg, because of flat damage, and to many perks, because 2h weapons tend to have better stuff.
3) clumsy is meant to give barbarians with natural reach a slightly debuff to ac. While those who don't have reach will have +1 AC. Removing the clumsy status affects the balance.
The giant stature is currently the best barbarian build, and needs no more buffs. Its only malus is that you won't be able to use the titan stature in some places, but apart from that there is nothing.
I would never allow them to wield 2 two-handed weapons at once. I meant that they can wield 1 two-handed weapon, but only need to use 1 hand. If it is a full "requires 2 hands" weapon, they still have clumsy 1, but if they put their second hand on it (wield it normally), they loose the clumsy 1 effect. It is only on a 1 handed weapon with the "Two-handed" damage boosting trait that they can get the boost automatically and without clumsy 1. And like the case I stated above, if they are trying to wield 2 bastard swords at once, I'd say they lose the class benefits. It is meant to allow them to either have 1 free hand to pick up stuff or climb, grab a potion or enemy, etc, or to have a shield in 1 hand and a 2 handed weapon in the other.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The damage rolls for monsters work differently than the ones players use, and do not always line up with the rules for player weapon damage. In the example, the giant throws a rock for 2d10 damage. However, the player who picks up and throws the same rock will not get 2d10 damage, they will use normal improvised weapon rules. There is a deliberate asymmetry between player rules and NPC/monster rules this edition to make GMing easier.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Welcome to another weekly thread installment of "Why isn't Oversized Weapon Overpowered Anymore?" starring - Homebrew suggestions, misguided attempts to rebalance the entire Instinct, & special guest star bad math done loudly!
Stay tuned for exciting discussion, wild propositions to make it as broken as it was in 3.5, and harrowing debates regarding die size bumps.
All this, and more! Right here on your friendly Paizo Forums!
/s
For real though, this is in the wrong part of the forums, if you're trying to rebalance the instinct to do even more damage, this belongs in Homebrew.
Welcome to another weekly thread installment of "Why isn't Oversized Weapon Overpowered Anymore?" starring - Homebrew suggestions, misguided attempts to rebalance the entire Instinct, & special guest star bad math done loudly!
Stay tuned for exciting discussion, wild propositions to make it as broken as it was in 3.5, and harrowing debates regarding die size bumps.
All this, and more! Right here on your friendly Paizo Forums!
/s
For real though, this is in the wrong part of the forums, if you're trying to rebalance the instinct to do even more damage, this belongs in Homebrew.
100% agree it's the same bad argument every time. They're fine as is they don't need to be made stronger/overpowered.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have a question on how do I determine damage for large weapons that are not covered in the rules.
Situation:
Skippy the level 12 Barbarian has the Titan's Stature feat so he is size Huge. A Cloud Giant throws a rock at Skippy and it lands nearby. Skippy picks it up and throws it back. How much damage will it do if it hits?
For a Cloud Giant (with +7 STR) the rock does
Ranged [one-action] rock +24 (brutal, range increment 120 feet), Damage
2d10+13 bludgeoningThere is no rule about this I'm aware of. Most GMs will probably say 2d10 plus whatever damage bonus Skippy has. Because its the simplest and fastest answer. Skippy is happy because this is an awesome rock - he may even collect it later and use it again.
If Skippy picks up the Cloud Giants +1 striking ranseur which is
Melee [one-action] ranseur +25 (disarm, magical, reach 20 feet), Damage
2d10+13 piercing
Most GMs will probalby say 2d10 and move on. Skippy will be upset because thats no better than the size medium +1 striking ransuer that he already has even though this one is much much larger.Later on Skippy fights a Giant Cyclops and takes his greatclub.
Melee [one-action] greatclub +25 (backswing, reach 15 feet, shove),
Damage 3d10+13 bludgeoning
The GM is in a bit of a corner here, and reluctant agrees that the club does 3d10 damage. Skippy is very happy keeps this weapon and later on tries to get some runes put on it.
A smarter GM anticipates this issue and says the club does 1d10 like its normal size club. Skippy's player throws a tantrum. With justification there is no rule to say it does any less damage in Skippys hands.These are all examplesfrom printed material and point to a situation that is just not covered in the rules.
A reminder of the rules:
Page 296 of the CORE Rulebook Items and Sizes
In most cases, Small or Medium creatures can wield a Large weapon, though it’s unwieldy, giving them the clumsy 1 condition, and the larger size is...
You don't get any damage bumps the rules don't explicitly say they give you. You do the same damage if you're medium and wielding a large weapon or huge wielding a huge weapon.
Also, monsters don't follow the same rules as PCs. It doesn't matter how many dice a cyclops rolls on its +1 striking club. It is just a +1 striking club when a PC picks it up. You DEFINITELY shouldn't let them use the giant's stats for thrown boulders, as that is a specific racial ability of Giants, not just a thing you can do from being big. If they try to throw it back and don't have a belt of giant strength or something, you'd treat it as improvised thrown weapon, and no rage bonus damage unless they have Raging Thrower.
Welcome to another weekly thread installment of "Why isn't Oversized Weapon Overpowered Anymore?" starring - Homebrew suggestions, misguided attempts to rebalance the entire Instinct, & special guest star bad math done loudly!
Stay tuned for exciting discussion, wild propositions to make it as broken as it was in 3.5, and harrowing debates regarding die size bumps.
All this, and more! Right here on your friendly Paizo Forums!
/s
For real though, this is in the wrong part of the forums, if you're trying to rebalance the instinct to do even more damage, this belongs in Homebrew.
I take your points. However this is not something that is covered in the rules. This is clearly a gap. The rules say nothing and give no guidance on what to do with large weapons. They do not say anywhere that large weapons do the same damage as normal size weapons. In fact the rules imply that the damage is different.
The also give no guidance on what to do when the PCs use a weapon that is being used by a monster- in the case where the weapon is appropriately sized. I can tell that handling out more damage to barbarians is not good. I don't want to do it, but give me a rule.Can someone show me a rule?
If not.
Paizo - just make a clear ruling.
Welcome to another weekly thread installment of "Why isn't Oversized Weapon Overpowered Anymore?" starring - Homebrew suggestions, misguided attempts to rebalance the entire Instinct, & special guest star bad math done loudly!
Stay tuned for exciting discussion, wild propositions to make it as broken as it was in 3.5, and harrowing debates regarding die size bumps.
All this, and more! Right here on your friendly Paizo Forums!
/s
For real though, this is in the wrong part of the forums, if you're trying to rebalance the instinct to do even more damage, this belongs in Homebrew.
I take your points. However this is not something that is covered in the rules. This is clearly a gap. The rules say nothing and give no guidance on what to do with large weapons. They do not say anywhere that large weapons do the same damage as normal size weapons. In fact the rules imply that the damage is different.
The also give no guidance on what to do when the PCs use a weapon that is being used by a monster- in the case where the weapon is appropriately sized. I can tell that handling out more damage to barbarians is not good. I don't want to do it, but give me a rule.Can someone show me a rule?
If not.
Paizo - just make a clear ruling.
CRB PG 295
The rules for items of different sizes tend to come into play when the characters defeat a big creature that has gear, since in most cases, the only creatures of other sizes are creatures under the GM’s control. In most cases, Small or Medium creatures can wield a Large weapon, though it’s unwieldy, giving them the clumsy 1 condition, and the larger size is canceled by the difficulty of swinging the weapon, so it grants no special benefit. Large armor is simply too large for Small and Medium creatures.
Welcome to another weekly thread installment of "Why isn't Oversized Weapon Overpowered Anymore?" starring - Homebrew suggestions, misguided attempts to rebalance the entire Instinct, & special guest star bad math done loudly!
Stay tuned for exciting discussion, wild propositions to make it as broken as it was in 3.5, and harrowing debates regarding die size bumps.
All this, and more! Right here on your friendly Paizo Forums!
/s
For real though, this is in the wrong part of the forums, if you're trying to rebalance the instinct to do even more damage, this belongs in Homebrew.
I take your points. However this is not something that is covered in the rules. This is clearly a gap. The rules say nothing and give no guidance on what to do with large weapons. They do not say anywhere that large weapons do the same damage as normal size weapons. In fact the rules imply that the damage is different.
The also give no guidance on what to do when the PCs use a weapon that is being used by a monster- in the case where the weapon is appropriately sized. I can tell that handling out more damage to barbarians is not good. I don't want to do it, but give me a rule.Can someone show me a rule?
If not.
Paizo - just make a clear ruling.
CRB PG 295
The rules for items of different sizes tend to come into play when the characters defeat a big creature that has gear, since in most cases, the only creatures of other sizes are creatures under the GM’s control. In most cases, Small or Medium creatures can wield a Large weapon, though it’s unwieldy, giving them the clumsy 1 condition, and the larger size is canceled by the difficulty of swinging the weapon, so it grants no special benefit. Large armor is simply too large for Small and Medium creatures.
I quoted that rule in my opening post.
Do you agree that the rules say nothing about Large Giant Instinct Barbarians wielding Large weapons? That is really all I'm asking.
I quoted that rule in my opening post.
Do you agree that the rules say nothing about Large Giant Instinct Barbarians wielding Large weapons? That is really all I'm asking.
You seem to be intent on proving a negative here. You don't need to provide your players with a rule that says they don't get more damage. Your players need to provide you a rule that says they do.
If an already Large Barbarian picks up another creatures large sized weapon, they probably lose their instinct's bonus damage.
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 this larger weapon, 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.
Reading the two bold bits as referring to the same thing, you only gain your bonus damage when wielding an over-sized weapon for your current size.
If your question is about how you treat weapons taken off of monsters more generally, the answer is simple: use whatever it is listed in the creature's equipment list. It doesn't matter if a Great Cyclops does 3d10 damage when swinging its great club. If it isn't listed as magic, it just does the standard 1d10 damage of a mundane great club for any PC big enough to wield it.
I think the problem is that you are assuming pf1 rules on PF2... You don't need to say something that does not happen when it does not happen.
There's no rule for why you do not gain 100 hp when you fall... Because you do not gain 100 hp when you fall. Now there's no rules for larger weapons dealing more damage because larger weapons do not do more damage.
Some monsters also do special damage with weapons. But that's because PF2 is completely assymetric with monsters.
Edit: The only question i can answer that pretty much is easy is the one with the 3d10 weapon with the player wanting runes. The only rune that would increase the damage in that weapon would be a major striking, since runes do not increase the number of dice they set the number of dice.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Frankly the whole Giant Instinct was poorly conceived and badly written. You should get extra damage because you're bigger and stronger than everyone else, not because you have a special large weapon. You only get one of those weapons, btw, so if it breaks or you lose it, you might be boned.
What an awful concept.
Frankly the whole Giant Instinct was poorly conceived and badly written. You should get extra damage because you're bigger and stronger than everyone else, not because you have a special large weapon. You only get one of those weapons, btw, so if it breaks or you lose it, you might be boned.
What an awful concept.
It is a classic for some subgenres.
There is no reason the barbarian can't pick up a weapon from one of the many large monsters they encounter. You can buy size small weapons, somewhere you will be able to buy size large.I'd say the bigger problem is having the space to wield such a weapon in a typical dungeon corridoor. Often GM's will provide a penalty or just say no. Fortunately for the barbarian, almost every corridor in the Age of Ashes campaign I'm GMing is 15" high.
I do agree it could do with better wording. Have a look at how the rage rules and the various barbarian instincts mangle the expression "additional damage". Also some of the instincts add damage from level 1 and some from level 7 when they get their weapon specialization. I'd be amazed if it doesn't confuse someone in your group on their first read of it.
|
I do agree it could do with better wording. Have a look at how the rage rules and the various barbarian instincts mangle the expression "additional damage". Also some of the instincts add damage from level 1 and some from level 7 when they get their weapon specialization. I'd be amazed if it doesn't confuse someone in your group on their first read of it.
? All Barbarians get additional damage at 1st from Rage and 7th from Specialization.