So... Large weapons...


Rules Discussion

1 to 50 of 93 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Looking into playing a Living Monolith, and with Enlarge, I will be wielding a Large Weapon (and have reach and Clumbsy 1)

I can't find anything about the damage change for larger weapons, just bulk conversions. Is there a damage upgrade for a larger weapon (going from Medium size to Large)?


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

There is no damage change for larger weapons, except for the increase to Rage damage that Giant Instinct barbarians receive.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Not unless you're a giant instinct barbarian.

Edit: Ninja'd


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Also, by default, Large weapons don't give you Reach, apparently.

You can gain Reach from feats such as Giant's Stature, Giant's Lunge and Titan's Stature instead.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Wielding a large weapon if you're small/medium can usually be done, but it gives the user clumsy 1 and no extra damage. Small/medium creatures can't normally use large armor.

Source: page 295 of the CRB (can't find that rule on AoN).

Enlarge explicitly grants extra damage, no?


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

Enlarge does include a status bonus to melee damage.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

As others have said, wielding larger weapons doesn't provide any inherent benefit. Certain abilities provide benefit while wielding larger weapons.

The spell Enlarge encapsulates all the benefits within itself.


Does anyone else's CRB PDF say "Englare" instead of "Enlarge" in the Spell Descriptions Contents?


thaX wrote:

Looking into playing a Living Monolith, and with Enlarge, I will be wielding a Large Weapon (and have reach and Clumbsy 1)

I can't find anything about the damage change for larger weapons, just bulk conversions. Is there a damage upgrade for a larger weapon (going from Medium size to Large)?

The size of a weapon has zero impact in of itself. There is no change to any statistics whatsoever.


Aratorin wrote:
Does anyone else's CRB PDF say "Englare" instead of "Enlarge" in the Spell Descriptions Contents?

Mine does.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Zapp wrote:
thaX wrote:

Looking into playing a Living Monolith, and with Enlarge, I will be wielding a Large Weapon (and have reach and Clumbsy 1)

I can't find anything about the damage change for larger weapons, just bulk conversions. Is there a damage upgrade for a larger weapon (going from Medium size to Large)?

The size of a weapon has zero impact in of itself. There is no change to any statistics whatsoever.

They make the character Clumsy 1.


thaX wrote:

Looking into playing a Living Monolith, and with Enlarge, I will be wielding a Large Weapon (and have reach and Clumbsy 1)

I can't find anything about the damage change for larger weapons, just bulk conversions. Is there a damage upgrade for a larger weapon (going from Medium size to Large)?

That because there is nothing in the rules on larger weapons. It is explicit that a medium creature wielding a large weapon gets no extra damage because it is harder to wield. But there is nothing about a large creature picking up a large weapon.

So it falls to the GM to make a decision. Many go there is nothing in the rules therefore you get nothing. Others go - it has always been that way in the D&D genre - of course a bigger weapon deals more damage and they add 2 points or increase the weapon die size.

If you do this then the GM has to make a house rule. Even if that rule is no.

BTW there are clear rules for Enlarge.


thaX wrote:
Is there a damage upgrade for a larger weapon (going from Medium size to Large)?

"it gains a +2 status bonus to melee damage". A small, medium, large and huge dagger ALL do 1d4 base damage: the large/huge size gets you a damage bonus, reach and some free clumsy 1.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Gisher wrote:
Aratorin wrote:
Does anyone else's CRB PDF say "Englare" instead of "Enlarge" in the Spell Descriptions Contents?
Mine does.

It's really a glaring error.

*runs from the thread giggling maniacally*


I looked up the bestiary to find low-level large creature with weapons, like the ogre warrior, the minotaur and the cyclops, and they use the exact same damage dice as small and medium creatures with their weapons. Do you thing this is enough to clear the confusion about the damage of large weapons?


3 people marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
thaX wrote:
Is there a damage upgrade for a larger weapon (going from Medium size to Large)?
"it gains a +2 status bonus to melee damage". A small, medium, large and huge dagger ALL do 1d4 base damage: the large/huge size gets you a damage bonus, reach and some free clumsy 1.

This is categorically false. Nothing in the rules indicates that oversized weapons do anything other than impart the clumsy 1 condition, except in specific cases like Giant Instinct.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Afaict, the only benefit to using a Large weapon is if you find one that is super badass, and you haven't found the Medium weapon of your dreams yet. Or you find a Large silver sword in a castle full of vampires or something.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
thaX wrote:
Is there a damage upgrade for a larger weapon (going from Medium size to Large)?
"it gains a +2 status bonus to melee damage". A small, medium, large and huge dagger ALL do 1d4 base damage: the large/huge size gets you a damage bonus, reach and some free clumsy 1.

This is wrong, large weapons do not increase in damage due to being large. The enlarge spell increases melee damage but that has nothing to do with the weapon.

Quote:
Bolstered by magical power, the target grows to size Large. Its equipment grows with it but returns to natural size if removed. The creature is clumsy 1. Its reach increases by 5 feet (or by 10 feet if it started out Tiny), and it gains a +2 status bonus to melee damage.

The enlarged person would do the extra damage with a small weapon, has nothing to do with weapon size.


The extra damage from using a large weapon, and the clumsy condition, comes from the Enlarge spell (or the Titan Mauler class feature) rather than the weapon itself.

Normally you can't use a too-large weapon. If something lets you use one, it tells you what happens when you do.


PossibleCabbage wrote:

The extra damage from using a large weapon, and the clumsy condition, comes from the Enlarge spell (or the Titan Mauler class feature) rather than the weapon itself.

Normally you can't use a too-large weapon. If something lets you use one, it tells you what happens when you do.

Actually, any character can pick up and use an oversized weapon, except you gain nothing more out of it than a weapon of appropriate size and gain the clumsy 1 condition while wielding it. The only class in the game right now having abilities related to oversized weapons is the giant instinct barbarian (who actually must wield an oversized weapon to fully benefit from their titan mauler ability).

In the case of being both enlarged and wielding an oversized weapon (pretty common for giant instinct barbarians with the Giant's Stature feat), the clumsy condition doesn't stack with itself, and again, no other benefit comes from the weapon being oversized.


Aratorin wrote:
This is categorically false. Nothing in the rules indicates that oversized weapons do anything other than impart the clumsy 1 condition, except in specific cases like Giant Instinct.
Vlorax wrote:
This is wrong, large weapons do not increase in damage due to being large.

"the large/huge size gets you a damage bonus, reach and some free clumsy 1" means the size of the person not the weapon: if that was unclear, my bad.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Gortle wrote:
So it falls to the GM to make a decision.

Not really.

Yes in the sense that a GM can always decide to add a houserule.

But there's no decisionmaking involved in running large weapons per the rules as written.

It's just that other game systems (like D&D or Pathfinder 1) makes people expect large weapons to deal more damage. That expectation is where you took a wrong turn.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Zapp wrote:
Gortle wrote:
So it falls to the GM to make a decision.

Not really.

Yes in the sense that a GM can always decide to add a houserule.

But there's no decisionmaking involved in running large weapons per the rules as written.

It's just that other game systems (like D&D or Pathfinder 1) makes people expect large weapons to deal more damage. That expectation is where you took a wrong turn.

I had this expectation too at first, and the rules about "damage die sizes" didn't clear the confusion. But as the dev team actually wants to move away from the insanity that 1E had fallen into with encounters cleared in a few rounds with massive damage flying everywhere, it makes sense that oversized weapons no longer give a damage bonus.


Zapp wrote:
Gortle wrote:
So it falls to the GM to make a decision.

Not really.

Yes in the sense that a GM can always decide to add a houserule.

But there's no decisionmaking involved in running large weapons per the rules as written.

It's just that other game systems (like D&D or Pathfinder 1) makes people expect large weapons to deal more damage. That expectation is where you took a wrong turn.

The negative case is not any more valid. Nor any less of a house rule. The RAW PF2 rules logically require a house rule.

The rules clearly say in situation A do this, in situation B do this. That there is situation C is very clear. The rules are silent.

They even go into detail about why Large weapons don't do extra damage for size Medium creatures, acknowledging the issue. Then they say nothing about Large weapons for Large creatures.

They create the expectation in these PF2 rules. I'm specifically referring to rule on item sizes where they discuss for a Medium creature the larger size is canceled by the difficulty of swinging the weapon, so it grants no special benefit So I think I'm on solid ground here with the expectation.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Gortle wrote:
The RAW PF2 rules logically require a house rule.

No they don't. The rules tell you how much damage a weapon does.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

According to table 6-7 in the Pathfinder 2e core rulebook, a greatsword deals 1d12 damage. Nowhere does it specify that only certain kinds or sizes of greatswords deal 1d12 damage (excepting more specific special abilities, magic runes, etc).

The only part of the weapons chart that is called out as variable based on size is the Bulk column, which specifies that the relevant information is on page 295.

Page 295 gives us information on how larger or smaller items have different bulk and potentially a different price than small/medium items, but that is all.

No houserules needed, all relevant information is presented.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

As an additional resource, by checking the damage of greatsword wielding creatures in the bestiary we find 5 creatures.

ghaele azata(level 13, 2d12, medium), fire giant (Level 10, 2d12, Large), storm giant (Level 13, 2d12, Huge), Rune Giant (Level 16, 3d12 Gargantuan), Grave knight (Level 10, 2d12, Medium)

So all creatures level 10-13, sizes medium to huge have 2d12 greatswords. Our outlier is the level 16 gargantuan rune giant.

Since creatures of the same level but different sizes share number of damage die, I'm willing to bet that the reason the rune giant has a larger number of damage die is because of it's higher level, not it's greater size.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

The RAW is clear- a medium humanoid picking up a large greatclub does no extra damage, just 1d10 from the weapon.

A large hill giant picking up a large (i.e. proper sized) greatclub does 1d10 damage from the weapon.

The monster creation rules from the GMG provide no modifiers for the size of the creature, just a suggested damage range for the level of the creature and what kind of challenge it's supposed to present, which it then tells you to modify to make it feel right. It even says-

Quote:
There aren’t any automatic statistical adjustments by size, except for an exception to Strength modifiers for Large and bigger creatures, which you’ll find below."


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lost In Limbo wrote:

As an additional resource, by checking the damage of greatsword wielding creatures in the bestiary we find 5 creatures.

ghaele azata(level 13, 2d12, medium), fire giant (Level 10, 2d12, Large), storm giant (Level 13, 2d12, Huge), Rune Giant (Level 16, 3d12 Gargantuan), Grave knight (Level 10, 2d12, Medium)

So all creatures level 10-13, sizes medium to huge have 2d12 greatswords. Our outlier is the level 16 gargantuan rune giant.

Since creatures of the same level but different sizes share number of damage die, I'm willing to bet that the reason the rune giant has a larger number of damage die is because of it's higher level, not it's greater size.

Read those monster entries again - you will notice that those giants have striking and greater striking runes on their weapons. They are single 1d12 weapons. But they also have a fairly large static modifier added to their damage.

The outlier are things like the great cyclops which has a 3d10 weapon.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Remember the monster design rules are top down. The great cyclops deals 3d10+13 damage because the monster creation rules say a 12th level creature that is primarily a combat threat which does not use finesse uses the high damage option which means it should deal about an average of 30 damage on a strike, further pointing out about half of this should be from a flat modifier.

If you decide to calculate damage for a creature using manufactured weapons like a PC, you're instructed to give the creature (greater) weapon specialization (or sneak attack, or other relevant damage adding abilities) to make the numbers work out right.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gortle wrote:
The negative case is not any more valid. Nor any less of a house rule. The RAW PF2 rules logically require a house rule.

No they don't.

A tiny greataxe deals 1d12 damage. A gargantuan greataxe deals 1d12 damage.

There is no uncertainty.

It's all you, who bring expectations from other, unrelated, games.

The only thing illogical here is you conjuring up an uncertainty that isn't there. This fallacy is actually quite common among gamers reading rules, looking for things that aren't there. I see that all the time, and I have likely fallen into the same trap myself on occasion.

In short:

Assume any rules omissions are intentional, not accidental.

In other words: the rules can't be expected to say what ISN'T true.

What you need is the rules telling you that no, the rules does in fact not run like what you expect. I can certainly sympathize with that need.
But when you think about it, doing so would quickly inflate the rulebook to a million pages, since other gamers come to the rules with different, also-wrong, expectations.

tl;dr: your thinking is a fallacy, your logic isn't, and you need to reexamine your stance. Good luck with your gaming :)


PossibleCabbage wrote:

The RAW is clear- a medium humanoid picking up a large greatclub does no extra damage, just 1d10 from the weapon.

A large hill giant picking up a large (i.e. proper sized) greatclub does 1d10 damage from the weapon.

The monster creation rules from the GMG provide no modifiers for the size of the creature, just a suggested damage range for the level of the creature and what kind of challenge it's supposed to present, which it then tells you to modify to make it feel right. It even says-

Quote:
There aren’t any automatic statistical adjustments by size, except for an exception to Strength modifiers for Large and bigger creatures, which you’ll find below."

Thanks. A good point to discuss.

When you look at that hill giant you will find that he has a suitable large static damage modifier He does 1d10+14 not the 1d10+6 you would expect from his weapon and strength. A large PC will look at this and be dissapointed.

The monster creation rules tell you should make a modification to the damage based on level to make it fit based on being an appropriate challenge. That is nothing about character mechanics and all about balancing the encounter. That is totally fine but it is not what the GM should be doing with the PCs.

Have a think about the monster creation rules - you can't build player characters like that - just fudge them up so the numbers are about right for the level.

The players need predictable rules they can work with and build to. They aren't one off monsters which need to be fixed to a particular level.

The monster creation rules are not relevant here.

RAW tells the GM to adjudicate situations that the rules don't cover.
This is clearly a situation the rules don't cover.

Saying no because of balance is a reasonable decision for a GM.

But the negative argument of do nothing becasue there is no explict rule, just does not seem reasonable because there has been an expectaion set by the PF2 rules, and there are clear guidelines and paralllels. EG the enlarge spell.

Denying this is a situation the GM needs to rule on is not reasonable.


Zapp wrote:
Gortle wrote:
The negative case is not any more valid. Nor any less of a house rule. The RAW PF2 rules logically require a house rule.

No they don't.

A tiny greataxe deals 1d12 damage. A gargantuan greataxe deals 1d12 damage.

There is no uncertainty.

It's all you, who bring expectations from other, unrelated, games.

The only thing illogical here is you conjuring up an uncertainty that isn't there. This fallacy is actually quite common among gamers reading rules, looking for things that aren't there. I see that all the time, and I have likely fallen into the same trap myself on occasion.

In short:

Assume any rules omissions are intentional, not accidental.

In other words: the rules can't be expected to say what ISN'T true.

What you need is the rules telling you that no, the rules does in fact not run like what you expect. I can certainly sympathize with that need.
But when you think about it, doing so would quickly inflate the rulebook to a million pages, since other gamers come to the rules with different, also-wrong, expectations.

tl;dr: your thinking is a fallacy, your logic isn't, and you need to reexamine your stance. Good luck with your gaming :)

I've answered this above. But PF2 is very clear is its wording and leaves a very big gap.

While your point is on ommisions is true, there are stacks of things the rules omit and leave to the GM to do.

The rules should absolutely say what isn't true - especially where it is a change from all the previous editions of D&D and PF. This is not an orthogonal or obscure reading of the rule. They could have very explicitly ruled it out, but no they did not. They have left a significant gap.


PossibleCabbage wrote:

Remember the monster design rules are top down. The great cyclops deals 3d10+13 damage because the monster creation rules say a 12th level creature that is primarily a combat threat which does not use finesse uses the high damage option which means it should deal about an average of 30 damage on a strike, further pointing out about half of this should be from a flat modifier.

If you decide to calculate damage for a creature using manufactured weapons like a PC, you're instructed to give the creature (greater) weapon specialization (or sneak attack, or other relevant damage adding abilities) to make the numbers work out right.

So what do you do when the huge barbarian picks up the greater cyclops weapon, and starts wielding it? Then puts a striking rune on it.

I'm sure a GM can cope. But telling the player it does 1d10 is going to create a very pissed off player.

Good luck.

The bottom line is these are issues a GM will have to address. Players are creative, and that how you want them to be.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

You tell the player it does d10 damage and gives them clumsy. When asked why you say a) it's the rules and b) because you dont have the correct body proportions to weild it with appropriate leverage and c) why would you expect more damage when even a giant wielding it didnt get more damage?

Also I would probably tell them this before they waste resources placing a striking rune on a weapon they never for some bogus theory persnickity point making reason tried to pick up before upgrading.

It isnt a gap in the rules, its rules you dont like. Which is something people conflate a lot around here.


On the plus side it means if you were every to want to play a giant it would be a lot more balanced then before. I think the magic runes are the main reason they did it the way they did. If a large greatsword did 2d12 thn a runed up one would do like 4 8 16 etc d12 Pretty crazy pretty quick. I do have a question I think I know the answer but wanted to confirm the +2 damage bonus from size increase effects like the barbarian rage thing doesn't get multiplied from runes right?


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

If, after the absolute hell we went through with the FAQ to end all FAQs, you think the designers didn’t account for size-changing and weapon damage in 2E, you should revise your understanding of the design process.


Gortle wrote:

They have left a significant gap.

No.

You said "nothing in the rules on larger weapons". We have told you this is because there's nothing in the rules about how size affects weapon damage, which in turn is because size does not affect weapon damage.

You are ignoring everything I said, so you're on your own. Sooner or later you will have to own up to your mistake.


Gortle wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:

Remember the monster design rules are top down. The great cyclops deals 3d10+13 damage because the monster creation rules say a 12th level creature that is primarily a combat threat which does not use finesse uses the high damage option which means it should deal about an average of 30 damage on a strike, further pointing out about half of this should be from a flat modifier.

If you decide to calculate damage for a creature using manufactured weapons like a PC, you're instructed to give the creature (greater) weapon specialization (or sneak attack, or other relevant damage adding abilities) to make the numbers work out right.

So what do you do when the huge barbarian picks up the greater cyclops weapon, and starts wielding it? Then puts a striking rune on it.

I'm sure a GM can cope. But telling the player it does 1d10 is going to create a very pissed off player.

Good luck.

The bottom line is these are issues a GM will have to address. Players are creative, and that how you want them to be.

It's a non issue because I game with adults and they know the rules already. There's nothing to address as the rules are clear.


I mean, given that a thief rogue can get dex to damage but no one else can, therefore "dex-to-damage" is an inherent part of being a thief rogue, it's not really a stretch to say "hitting extra-hard with a greatclub is an inherent part of being a great cyclops, others can't get that."

We accept that there's not anything a player can do to get a cyclops's "flash of brutality" ability, so it's a reasonable inference that there's also nothing a player can do to get the "one-action power attack" that the cyclops has.


Zapp wrote:
Gortle wrote:

They have left a significant gap.

No.

You said "nothing in the rules on larger weapons". We have told you this is because there's nothing in the rules about how size affects weapon damage, which in turn is because size does not affect weapon damage.

You are ignoring everything I said, so you're on your own. Sooner or later you will have to own up to your mistake.

The PF2 rules contain partial explanations of why in some scenarios you do get extra damage from large weapons, or in some circumstances why you do not. They are logically incomplete.

I have addressed the actual points that you and others have made. My position remains unchanged. I am quite content to admit and fix mistakes that I make when I have actual issues addressed and rules quoted. If you look back you will find a few on the forums. I am also quite content to have an outlier opinion on any particular issue, but I will acknowledge any such rule difference upfront. Agruments based purely on authority or majority have no special validity. The fact remains that Paizo have left a significant hole in the rules here.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

There is no gap in the rules though. The rules EXPLICITLY state that there is no extra benefit (of which damage would be one) from large weapons (except for the specific cases where it is called out as giving extra damage in which case specific beats general.)

Page 295 "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"

There we go. Once again you not liking a rule is not the same as it not existing. There is no logical gap at all. The game tells you exactly what happens.


Malk_Content wrote:
There is no gap in the rules though. The rules EXPLICITLY state that there is no extra benefit...from large weapons

They explicitly state that there is no benefit to a medium or small creature when wielding a large weapon, but what about when a large creature wields a large weapon? I think that is the gap to which Gortle is referring.

edit: I'm not sure I agree with that premise, I think it's safe to assume that in lieu of a rule specifying different damage for different sizes of weapons, they all do the same damage. Currently I don't think there is a way for a player to be permanently large, so a large player using a large weapon seems very edge casey to me.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Yeah, usually your equipment is going to change in size with you, so there isn't a big reason to test this out. I don't really see any reason to say there's a gap around large creatures using large weapons. It works exactly like medium creatures using medium weapons.

If anything, the gap would be around large creatures using medium weapons?


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Well Gortle's example was about a PC being upset they got no extra damage when picking up an over sized weapon, so I assumed that was the gap they were thinking off.

Regardless I think Captain Morgan is correct. The game doesn't mention damage differences for items of any size and Gortle is asking us to provide specific text to say that is the case. We have reaps of evidence that its the case, but not a line saying "all weapons deal the same damage regardless of size." Without a rule saying anything specific, with rules insinuating the opposite (the bestiary rules on disarming a creature make no mention of its size when substituting a weapon for example.)

Sadly there isn't really an easy to state condition of penalty just to attacks but personally I would impose an attack penalty in the case of using a smaller than appropriate weapon. Thats a GM ruling though, so if Gortles point was that we don't know what happens when a player picks up a Pugwampi's tiny shortsword (which notable does the same damage as a medium shortsword) he would be right. But that point was never mentioned.


theservantsllcleanitup wrote:
They explicitly state that there is no benefit to a medium or small creature when wielding a large weapon, but what about when a large creature wields a large weapon?

Large creatures are generally given larger str totals and/or damage bonuses while the weapon does the same base damage no matter who uses it.

Malk_Content wrote:
Sadly there isn't really an easy to state condition of penalty just to attacks but personally I would impose an attack penalty in the case of using a smaller than appropriate weapon.

Treat it as an improvised weapon: that's a "–2 item penalty to attack rolls" and every other stat about the weapon can stay the same.

Sovereign Court

So what you call the item determines how much damage it does. If you weld a new larger hilt to your size tiny greatsword so you can use it one handed as if it were a dagger, it will still do 1d12 damage and be a martial weapon. Similarly if you weld a new hilt to a size huge dagger it will still do 1d4 damage and be agile and a finesse weapon despite having a blade that may be 3 feet long. All that matters is what the weapon is called, forget the logic of the setting. You just have to stop musing your brain and common sense, and certainly don't look at the Enlarge spell in the game for any ideas of how enlarging should work, because that's totally different and doesn't apply...

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Samurai wrote:
So what you call the item determines how much damage it does. If you weld a new larger hilt to your size tiny greatsword so you can use it one handed as if it were a dagger, it will still do 1d12 damage and be a martial weapon. Similarly if you weld a new hilt to a size huge dagger it will still do 1d4 damage and be agile and a finesse weapon despite having a blade that may be 3 feet long. All that matters is what the weapon is called, forget the logic of the setting. You just have to stop musing your brain and common sense, and certainly don't look at the Enlarge spell in the game for any ideas of how enlarging should work, because that's totally different and doesn't apply...

That's still less silly than "my weapon is Tiny but it's really Gargantuan thanks to feat X, ability Y and archetype Z, so I'm dual wielding 8d6 greatswords" cheese of PF1.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gortle wrote:
I have addressed the actual points that you and others have made.

No.

We have explained why the rule you're looking for isn't there and why it is not necessary for it to be there.

You're deluding yourself.


Captain Morgan wrote:

Yeah, usually your equipment is going to change in size with you, so there isn't a big reason to test this out. I don't really see any reason to say there's a gap around large creatures using large weapons. It works exactly like medium creatures using medium weapons.

If anything, the gap would be around large creatures using medium weapons?

Yes there is probably a gap around large creatures using medium weapons.

How do you do get a large PC to get a normally large weapon?
A couple of barbarians feats like Giants Stature
Most of the polymorphs have the clause which are the only attacks you can use so they have ruled that out.
But the basic Enlarge spell can cause this situation as well.

Enlarge has clear rules for any weapon that changes size with you
Giant Stature specifies nothing about the weapon that has changed size, you do get reach and clumsy.
Neither address what happens when the character drops his weapon and picks up the size large weapon of another creature. It would be a matter of significant encumberance to carry a large weapon around but its doable. Its the premise of Giant Instinct after all.

Its not a difficult situation for the GM to sort out. But he must sort it out. Because the rules are silent and any clarifying statment has been intentionally omitted.

1 to 50 of 93 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / Rules Discussion / So... Large weapons... All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.