So... Large weapons...


Rules Discussion

51 to 93 of 93 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Gortle wrote:
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.

If you use a normal greatclub and someone casts Enlarge on you, your greatclub still deals 1d10 damage. When a hill giant swings a large greatclub, it also deals 1d10 damage. I really can't fathom why anyone would think your Enlarged PC picking up the hill giant's club would do more damage.

The spell Enlarge already tells you how it changed your damage, regardless of what weapon they use. Giant Stature doesn't, which means it doesn't change your damage. We can argue about whether this makes sense from a simulation perspective, but given the giant instinct barbarian already hits the hardest out of any player character,they don't really need it, and heaping further damage on giant's stature would make it a mandatory feat. So granting extra damage would have been a bad call from a balance perspective. Also complexity, given the barbarian already needs to know their damage raging, not raging, and raging with an oversized weapon.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Gortle wrote:
Neither address what happens when the character drops his weapon and picks up the size large weapon of another creature.

Nothing different happens: he changed from a large weapon to a large weapon, so it's a sum zero interaction: a side grade. It's a large sword either way for all purposes. Why would you think that they are different? What rule makes that ambiguous? I can't see any DM needing to sort out anything here.


Yeah, the only thing I can see is figuring out what happens in the very rare circumstance that a large creature tries to use a medium weapon. The improvised weapon penalty seems like a fine solution. You could also treat a great sword as a shortsword for a giant, I suppose, and a giant shortsword would probably be a great sword to a medium creature. But that's really not worth the page space to map out in the rulebook. That's definitely GM fiat territory.

But the important thing is you don't get bonus damage from it.


It feels clear that the thing to do when people are using "wrong sized" weapons is:
1) Keep the damage the same.
2) Add clumsy.

Generally, using a weapon that's not properly sized for you is a bad idea. This is a departure from previous editions where "if you find a way to negate the penalties, it's awesome" but is also true to life (weapons are not supposed to be appreciably heavy- they are more effective when you can use them properly.)


PossibleCabbage wrote:
2) Add clumsy.

I don't think clumsy makes a lot of sense for the large creatures with a smaller weapon: A "status penalty equal to the condition value to Dexterity-based checks and DCs" seems fine when you're unbalance with a giant weapon but would a smaller than normal weapon affect your saves and sneak checks? Doesn't feel right to me. Stabbing someone with a letter opener shouldn't make it harder to dodge a fireball.


I would add clumsy for too-small weapons in case they're too small to hold properly. Like a the grip on a tiny shortsword would be too small for a medium creature to grasp in their hands, you'd have to hold it with like two fingers.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
I would add clumsy for too-small weapons in case they're too small to hold properly. Like a the grip on a tiny shortsword would be too small for a medium creature to grasp in their hands, you'd have to hold it with like two fingers.

The -2 improvised weapon penalty still seems more appropriate IMO.


PossibleCabbage wrote:
I would add clumsy for too-small weapons in case they're too small to hold properly. Like a the grip on a tiny shortsword would be too small for a medium creature to grasp in their hands, you'd have to hold it with like two fingers.

How does that affect my ability to balance, sneak or dodge? clumsy affects everything dex, not just things in your hands: as such, I just can't see clumsy as a good fit. Holding a weapon in 2 fingers just doesn't affect those kind of things: a pixie sword in 2 fingers shouldn't affect my other hand, feet and other things related to dex.


Or they just get no penalty at all, because there is no rule that says they do. Even the Shrink spell doesn't impart the Clumsy condition, or change damage.

Andre the Giant would have no physical issues stabbing someone with a butter knife.


It is odd that the rules only really deal with smaller creatures attempting to wield large weapons. There is nothing stating that a large creature would have any sort of penalty for using say, a medium sword.

I like Captain Morgan's stance of using the improvised weapon penalties as a stand in. And in some cases you could also rule that the larger creatures simply can't wield the weapon at all. Say they attempt to pick up a dagger made for a small creature. Such a weapon would be smaller in their hands than even a letter opener, meaning the amount of damage they could do with it will be less than what they can realistically do with their fist.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think it would probably vary from weapon to weapon too. Like I can't see a giant using a medium punching dagger pretty much ever, but I could see a greatsword being used as a longsword or short sword. But that also illustrates why making a general rule would be a bad idea, especially considering how infrequently this sort of thing will come up.


It seems to me that the lack of rules around this is intentional, specifically so that the situation never will come up. If you're a 6ft tall Lizardman and you kill a Goblin wearing +1 armor, you can just take the armor, put it on, and move on. It makes the game more playable.

The same thing with weapons.


Aratorin wrote:
It seems to me that the lack of rules around this is intentional, specifically so that the situation never will come up. If you're a 6ft tall Lizardman and you kill a Goblin wearing +1 armor, you can just take the armor, put it on, and move on. It makes the game more playable.

And the way to address this is not to say "this doesn't make sense" but with a good faith attempt to explain why this makes sense. Like "the goblin's armor had a lot of weird redundancy and you can just loosen the straps and make the plates cover more space".


Captain Morgan wrote:


If you use a normal greatclub and someone casts Enlarge on you, your greatclub still deals 1d10 damage. When a hill giant swings a large greatclub, it also deals 1d10 damage. I really can't fathom why anyone would think your Enlarged PC picking up the hill giant's club would do more damage.

Because the same size and strength hill giant was doing more with that weapon 1d10+14 instead of 1d10+6

Suppose the PC then picks up a non enlarged normal size great club - he is still doing the same damage. Totally nonsensical.
What if the hill giant picks up the non enlarged normal size great club?

Captain Morgan wrote:
The spell Enlarge already tells you how it changed your damage, regardless of what weapon they use. Giant Stature doesn't, which means it doesn't change your damage. We can argue about whether this makes sense from a simulation perspective, but given the giant instinct barbarian already hits the hardest out of any player character,they don't really need it, and heaping further damage on giant's stature would make it a mandatory feat. So granting extra damage would have been a bad call from a balance perspective. Also complexity, given the barbarian already needs to know their damage raging, not raging, and raging with an oversized weapon.

Now I am going to digress a bit from strictly a rules discussion.

Complaining about complexity in a Paizo game
:)
They have come a long long way in PF2 for which I am grateful, but still.

Paizo should have made no damage increase explicit in the Giant Stature feat. Yes it is worth stating because getting bigger to get stronger is a feature of a huge amount of fantasy stories and a feature of every previous edition of PF and D&D. It is this loss of flavour which is a brake on the growth of PF2 as a game. It is more important than balance. But really there was no need to lose the pizazz of large creatures, some simple size modifiers would have been easy to leave in the game.

What are you going to do when the huge barbarian asks to pick up a horse - he technically still has only his base strength - are you going to say no as a GM?

Yes I know that +8 STR from PF1 which would then get multipled was stupidly unbalanced - but really taking it all out?!? Then leaving in these edge cases!

Granting extra damage would have been a fair call from a balance perpective, The giant instinct barbarian is only 1 pip ahead of the draconic barbarian for which he pays with significant weapon limitations and a loss of even more AC. It's no better damage wise than a straight fighter with his +2 to hit. Its an inferior instinct as it stands. Personnally I'd have opted for +2 damage and clumsy 2 (as the existing clumsy 1 doesn't stack with the clumsy he already has) If you still think that is too strong take some damage off the base instinct.


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

So there isnt a hard and fast rule but the giants +2 damage does sort of come from its size. But the large pc currently has that already, as the spell enlarge gives you that damage. So done there, everyone is operating equivalent.

Picking up a horse is easy for the huge pc. They dont have more strength but they do have 4x the carrying capacity and treat 1B items as - and 2B items as L.

So PF2 doesn't give you a str bonus, but it does give you bonuses to what youd expect, damage and carrying. What this opens up in the future is allowing things like making a str dc based class that isnt immensely broken by size changes etc.

Edit: and expectations from other games dont matter. Pf2 doesn't have to point out everywhere it is different from pf1, it merely has to say what it is.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gortle wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:


If you use a normal greatclub and someone casts Enlarge on you, your greatclub still deals 1d10 damage. When a hill giant swings a large greatclub, it also deals 1d10 damage. I really can't fathom why anyone would think your Enlarged PC picking up the hill giant's club would do more damage.

Because the same size and strength hill giant was doing more with that weapon 1d10+14 instead of 1d10+6

Suppose the PC then picks up a non enlarged normal size great club - he is still doing the same damage. Totally nonsensical.
What if the hill giant picks up the non enlarged normal size great club?

A 7th level Fighter using a Great Club deals more damage than a 7th level Wizard using a Great Club, even with the same Strength. The Hill Giant just has it's own form of Weapon Specialization. You are trying very hard to create a problem where none exists.

If Aaron Judge hits you upside the head with a baseball bat, whether the bat is 34" or 29", you're equally dead. The type of weapon, and skills of the user, matter far more than the size of the weapon.

Gortle wrote:
What are you going to do when the huge barbarian asks to pick up a horse - he technically still has only his base strength - are you going to say no as a GM?

As Malk_Content pointed out, this is an issue that doesn't exist, as the Bulk rules cover this just fine.

Gortle wrote:
Granting extra damage would have been a fair call from a balance perpective, The giant instinct barbarian is only 1 pip ahead of the draconic barbarian for which he pays with significant weapon limitations and a loss of even more AC. It's no better damage wise than a straight fighter with his +2 to hit. Its an inferior instinct as it stands. Personnally I'd have opted for +2 damage and clumsy 2 (as the existing clumsy 1 doesn't stack with the clumsy he already has) If you still think that is too strong take some damage off the base instinct.

The primary benefit of Giant and Titan stature is the increased reach. The Giant Instinct Barbarian already has superior damage to thematically account for it's size. Combined with it's enormous reach, this makes it easily the highest damage dealing class.


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


If you use a normal greatclub and someone casts Enlarge on you, your greatclub still deals 1d10 damage. When a hill giant swings a large greatclub, it also deals 1d10 damage. I really can't fathom why anyone would think your Enlarged PC picking up the hill giant's club would do more damage.
Because the same size and strength hill giant was doing more with that weapon 1d10+14 instead of 1d10+6

So? As Aratorin points out, different player characters hit for different amounts. A caster with +4 strength would do 1d10+4. A fighter would deal 1d10+7. A fury barbarian would do 1d10+12. A giant barbarian, with an oversized weapon, deals 1d10+16.

But more importantly, monsters don't follow PC build rules. They just don't. Any attempt to argue how PCs should work based on monster statblocks is irrelevant.

Quote:

Suppose the PC then picks up a non enlarged normal size great club - he is still doing the same damage. Totally nonsensical.

What if the hill giant picks up the non enlarged normal size great club?

Gee, if only myself and 4 other posters had just discussed this possibility at length, despite how rare and contrived a situation it is. Maybe we could have already seen this coming.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Does this guy REALLY not get that this was a 100% intentional design choice yet?

It was totally intentional that Weapon Size doesn't change the Damage Die, that wasn't a mistake and it wasn't an omission or error, it was a conscious decision that was made to help avoid the nonsense Damage Die scaling muckups of the previous 20 years of our favorite hobby. Weapon Damage Die scaling for Creature Size was hands down one of the WORST offenders for imbalance in 1st Edition.

At this point, this thread is utterly pointless and doesn't even belong in this sub-forum if it's going to continue because what you're pushing for is Homebrew.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It's pretty clear that RAI is "there is no benefit from using wrong-sized weapons, unless you have chosen something that lets you benefit from using wrong sized weapons, and that thing will tell you what benefit you get."


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Themetricsystem wrote:

Does this guy REALLY not get that this was a 100% intentional design choice yet?

It was totally intentional that Weapon Size doesn't change the Damage Die, that wasn't a mistake and it wasn't an omission or error, it was a conscious decision that was made to help avoid the nonsense Damage Die scaling muckups of the previous 20 years of our favorite hobby. Weapon Damage Die scaling for Creature Size was hands down one of the WORST offenders for imbalance in 1st Edition.

At this point, this thread is utterly pointless and doesn't even belong in this sub-forum if it's going to continue because what you're pushing for is Homebrew.

To add to this, what it really means is that any bonuses you *do* get are intended to be hard coded into the features that let you use them, rather than covered by a general rule, so that the power can be properly budgeted, and unintended interactions be eliminated.


Themetricsystem wrote:
Does this guy REALLY not get that ...

I'm sorry but I really must object to being belittled in this way.

:)
:)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Gortle wrote:
Themetricsystem wrote:
Does this guy REALLY not get that ...

I'm sorry but I really must object to being belittled in this way.

:)
:)

Something that embiggens is more cromulent...


PossibleCabbage wrote:
It's pretty clear that RAI is "there is no benefit from using wrong-sized weapons, unless you have chosen something that lets you benefit from using wrong sized weapons, and that thing will tell you what benefit you get."

I agree. I just object to this intention at the same time.

There are clear rules problems, and expectation problems in this area. Paizo had made a simplification to the game which I feel is unnecessary, diminishes the game, disappoints the genre, and doesn't actually simplify anything.

The expection problem is not going away so these questions are going to be continued to be raised.

I'm not the only one with opinion, just the only one making the point on this thread.

But as I said before, we were talking about RAW. We are at the limit of what is rules discussion and we are now into opinion.

Does anyone have anything new to add?

Horizon Hunters

Gortle wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
It's pretty clear that RAI is "there is no benefit from using wrong-sized weapons, unless you have chosen something that lets you benefit from using wrong sized weapons, and that thing will tell you what benefit you get."

I agree. I just object to this intention at the same time.

There are clear rules problems, and expectation problems in this area. Paizo had made a simplification to the game which I feel is unnecessary, diminishes the game, disappoints the genre, and doesn't actually simplify anything.

The expection problem is not going away so these questions are going to be continued to be raised.

I'm not the only one with opinion, just the only one making the point on this thread.

But as I said before, we were talking about RAW. We are at the limit of what is rules discussion and we are now into opinion.

Does anyone have anything new to add?

Only that a problem of "expectation" being the cornerstone for believing there is a flaw does not seem very sound. I think that coming in with very few expectations (since I did not play the original Pathfinder) has given me some advantages in some areas (disadvantages in a few other but I think it has mostly been a benefit). I wholeheartedly disagree with your analysis and while nothing is perfect, in general I really enjoy the way things work now. It has brought me into Pathfinder where before I was content with 5e and my main group in which I am PC is excited for me to GM a P2 campaign with them whenever the current story comes to it's end (we like to do a rotating GM type thing, lots of fun and you get to experience a lot of game types and styles! And no one gets stuck with the "Forever DM" syndrome.)

If managing a player's expectation does not jive with the current state of the rules and the philosophy that 2e is geared towards then simply house rule something or homebrew your own rule set. Houserule and Homebrew are not dirty words and can enhance most games if you want to go with rule of cool.

If you want everything to be by the book purely (whether you want to practice for or emulate the Pathfinder Society play) that is fine but your group should know what they are in for during a session 0. On the other hand if you are the GM for a home group this is a non-issue as the rulebook encourages and empowers the GM to do things to enhance the fun of the game for the players through adding your own systems and sub-systems if they want and I am sure the DMG when it comes out will have more guidelines.

Ultimately though to me it seems pretty clear how an officially sanctioned game would handle a larger weapon and it would not be through a damage increase unless they had a specific feat or ability that worked to specifically grant such a bonus.


Themetricsystem wrote:

Does this guy REALLY not get that this was a 100% intentional design choice yet?

It was totally intentional that Weapon Size doesn't change the Damage Die, that wasn't a mistake and it wasn't an omission or error, it was a conscious decision that was made to help avoid the nonsense Damage Die scaling muckups of the previous 20 years of our favorite hobby. Weapon Damage Die scaling for Creature Size was hands down one of the WORST offenders for imbalance in 1st Edition.

At this point, this thread is utterly pointless and doesn't even belong in this sub-forum if it's going to continue because what you're pushing for is Homebrew.

This guy DEMANDS that Paizo fill the rulebook with explicit guidance for his personal hangups.

"No, weapon damage is not affected by item size" they must tell him.

The book not talking about it anywhere isn't enough. Since it is a thing in his mind, it magically becomes RAW until Paizo issues a special bulletin that says otherwise.

So yeah. Your post is a good summary in every single aspect.


Gortle wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
It's pretty clear that RAI is "there is no benefit from using wrong-sized weapons, unless you have chosen something that lets you benefit from using wrong sized weapons, and that thing will tell you what benefit you get."

I agree. I just object to this intention at the same time.

There are clear rules problems, and expectation problems in this area. Paizo had made a simplification to the game which I feel is unnecessary, diminishes the game, disappoints the genre, and doesn't actually simplify anything.

The expection problem is not going away so these questions are going to be continued to be raised.

I'm not the only one with opinion, just the only one making the point on this thread.

But as I said before, we were talking about RAW. We are at the limit of what is rules discussion and we are now into opinion.

Does anyone have anything new to add?

If you (finally) are ready to acknowledge that the rules are quite clear in this regard, then, no there's nothing to add.

Except you keep adding things yourself. You're the one "into opinion".

So the question is: why do YOU keep posting in a Rules thread, when all you're saying is "I just object", "[I feel] There are clear rules problems", "which I feel is unnecessary", "these questions are going to be continued to be raised [by me, in this thread]", etc etc.

Don't you see it is time for you to take your discussion to the Homebrew or maybe Advice subforums?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

It feels like the "big weapons no longer do more damage" quibble in the transition from PF1 to PF2 is sort of like the "Dwarves are allowed to use arcane magic now" transition from AD&D to 3e.

Sometimes the tradition of other games is rejected because it improves the game. The "my weapon counts as huge so I can roll a lot of dice" thing from PF1 is a thing I'm glad to put away. People who want to indulge in the fantasy of "using an oversized sword" for reasons other than "it deals the most damage" can just play giant barbarians (or other things that will show up later.)


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
PossibleCabbage wrote:

It feels like the "big weapons no longer do more damage" quibble in the transition from PF1 to PF2 is sort of like the "Dwarves are allowed to use arcane magic now" transition from AD&D to 3e.

Sometimes the tradition of other games is rejected because it improves the game. The "my weapon counts as huge so I can roll a lot of dice" thing from PF1 is a thing I'm glad to put away. People who want to indulge in the fantasy of "using an oversized sword" for reasons other than "it deals the most damage" can just play giant barbarians (or other things that will show up later.)

Especially since those same options absolutely are ways to do lots and lots of damage- Giant barbarian gets the biggest instinct bonus by quite a margin.


Zapp wrote:


Don't you see it is time for you to take your discussion to the Homebrew or maybe Advice subforums?

The rules problems remain. That is the point of the thread.

There is no explicit rule on what a large PC does with a large weapon. They explicitly rule out the small medium problems. They explicitly say what a medium creature does with a large weapon.They explicitly handle a weapon enlarged by the enlarge spell. They give the GM guidance for Monster creation to fudge the numbers to balance things. All of these do not address the main issue.

What I noted as opinion was to show why the rule gap needs to be explicitly addressed.

Your comments are out of line.


Rules for how much damage a weapon does are on pages 280-282 of the CRB, Gortle.


Gortle wrote:
There is no explicit rule on what a large PC does with a large weapon.

There are no rules for a large PC period. All player characters must select an ancestry which is medium or small, because those are all of the ancestries that there are to date. If you are medium and you become large through some option (say, via the giant instinct or the enlarge spell) that thing will tell you what sort of damage you do with your weapon, which has grown with you.


Squiggit wrote:
Rules for how much damage a weapon does are on pages 280-282 of the CRB, Gortle.

That is not sufficient because of the core rule books own comment on why size medium creature don't get more damage from larger weapons. It explicitly creates the need to address this issue.

Then there is the history of the game and genre.

Horizon Hunters

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gortle wrote:
Squiggit wrote:
Rules for how much damage a weapon does are on pages 280-282 of the CRB, Gortle.

That is not sufficient because of the core rule books own comment on why size medium creature don't get more damage from larger weapons. It explicitly creates the need to address this issue.

Then there is the history of the game and genre.

I'm going to approach this a few different ways because I really don't like to see personal attacks on this forum. We all like the discussion and are passionate about the game so sometimes things get a bit heated. You've been civil when defending yourself and making real arguments which is commendable. The negative comments don't really help nor do the calls to take this to another forum (not that this is the right place for every thread but do we really want to be driving people away from interacting?).

From my reading to the two entries we are quoting most there is no indication or expectation that I can see that the damage increase is coming from the weapon being bigger.

When you are Enlarged you become clumsy (presumably because you are not used to being that size) and your damage is increased but that damage does not appear to be connected in anyway to your weapon size.

Giant Instinct also states you get the raw size and power of a giant but more importantly the damage die only increases when you rage. If things worked how you propose wouldn't the damage bonus be constant? The clumsiness that comes from the weapon being unwieldy is constant. Your weapon isn't shifting size. It is the strength of a giant that you are generating combined with a suitable sized weapon to tap into that strength that is granting the power beyond what your size would normally dictate. You can write in your own rationalizations here but they just don't hold water with this rule set. (Let me know if there was a specific comment you are referring to that "creates the need to address this issue" that is stronger evidence than what I am outlining).

If we are talking about the history of the Genre and RPG games very rarely if ever do designers recommend applying the same logic to Player Character design that they do to Monster design. But I don't think we should really be looking at that at all. This is the whole point of a new edition. Things will change and that's not a bad thing and Paizo is certainly not stopping support of original Pathfinder if that's more your speed.

More importantly the company heavily encourages you to play your own way but when you dig in your heels on a need for something to be addressed when the question is pretty clear for the majority (and is kind of a non-issue because Large Character races don't exist, we already know what happens when a player is Enlarged, and what happens when they try to use a weapon that is so large as to be unwieldly). It mostly seems the need exists within you and not something that is plaguing the majority of Paizo's audience.

Changing things that bothers you doesn't make you a bad GM. Neither does creating house rules. If we are here to discuss the rules of P2 lets discuss them how they are and not with the weight of expectation from other games and other editions ruining our fun.

(By the way If confronted with my characters wanting to use a giant weapon on the fly, I think it would be fun to have them use it as part of a hazard/trap they set up. Dropping it from a great height or some other shenanigans. Maybe attempt to use it in a pinch with penalties until they find something manageable. There are 1,000 fun and interesting ways to play with the concept but I think most of us are in agreement that the size of the weapon alone does not grant any inherent bonuses in the current P2 rule set for any of the characters possible to play)


Goldryno wrote:
Let me know if there was a specific comment you are referring to that "creates the need to address this issue" that is stronger evidence than

It is not the Enlarge spell or Giant feats, that directly require a response.

The quote from the core rule book I'm refering to is

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.

which directly implies that there would be a special benefit for a Large creature to wield a Large weapon.

Hence I can't just accept that the RAW is complete and go with the null case that its says nothing therefore there is no benefit. There is a RAW problem that should be errated to remove confusion, or errated to add in extra damage/clumsy whatever.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

There's no RAW problem since as it stands there is currently no Large Ancestries.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Gortle wrote:
Goldryno wrote:
Let me know if there was a specific comment you are referring to that "creates the need to address this issue" that is stronger evidence than

It is not the Enlarge spell or Giant feats, that directly require a response.

The quote from the core rule book I'm refering to is

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.

which directly implies that there would be a special benefit for a Large creature to wield a Large weapon.

Hence I can't just accept that the RAW is complete and go with the null case that its says nothing therefore there is no benefit. There is a RAW problem that should be errated to remove confusion, or errated to add in extra damage/clumsy whatever.

There is no implication. That sentence is telling you the lore reasoning behind it. That is all. Literally no one else has any confusion. The rules do exactly what they state they do and there is currently 0 ways for a PC to have problems operating mechanically in the world vis a vis weapons of larger size. If they introduce Large ancestries (which I doubt they will in 2e) then they would have to address it, but currently it is only an "issue" if you are homebrewing content no enabled by the rules, which of course always creates the need to adjust rules.

The only rules gap is for what wielding weapons of smaller size does, which for PCs currently would mean trying to use weapons made for tiny creatures.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
There's no RAW problem since as it stands there is currently no Large Ancestries.

Yup, if there is a rules problem it's in the difficulty of "building an antagonist like a PC" in cases where the given baddie is a frost giant or something. But the "build a creature like a creature" rules give you enough guidance that you can fake it pretty well.

Horizon Hunters

Gortle wrote:
Goldryno wrote:
Let me know if there was a specific comment you are referring to that "creates the need to address this issue" that is stronger evidence than

It is not the Enlarge spell or Giant feats, that directly require a response.

The quote from the core rule book I'm refering to is

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.

which directly implies that there would be a special benefit for a Large creature to wield a Large weapon.

Hence I can't just accept that the RAW is complete and go with the null case that its says nothing therefore there is no benefit. There is a RAW problem that should be errated to remove confusion, or errated to add in extra damage/clumsy whatever.

Yeah I'm not seeing the same implication you are. If we really think this out let's use a real example. It may get kinda silly but the point is clear.

I see my smallfooted friend trying to stomp on some bugs while wearing extra large boots. However due to how clumsy this makes him he is even less effective than normal. I tell him and prove to him that he is getting no extra benefit from using boots so large. This person gets normal sized boots and accomplishes his task. There would be no reason for that same person to assume that if he hit a growth spurt and his feet grew three sizes overnight that if he wore those same extra large boots that those boots would do anything other than just fit or be appropriate for his size.

Now my stompy friend may have a longer reach or more crushing power due to his growth spurt but those same boots aren't conveying any benefit except being appropriate for his new size. This same philosophy can be used for most examples and seems pretty solid from my point of view. If Large PCs are ever introduced then I imagine such benefits will be baked into their stats or ancestry feats.

The only source of confusion is a hold over from a rule set that didn't make a lot of sense in the first place.

I could potentially see creating a weapon who had the requirements "size large and not clumsy" which could grant some cool buffs but I doubt such a thing will be introduced. Mostly because there will probably never be a need.

Rather than implying that a large creature would get a benefit it really just seems to be cementing the "use weapons appropriate for your size" guidelines. It would have been really easy to include something about weapon damage scaling with size if that was your intention. There are multiple places they could have done this and it would be a bizarre circumstance to forget to do so in all of those places.

Last point. Because you cannot accept something does not necessarily mean that thing is flawed. At this point you're arguing an edge case that does not currently exist. Which given how much thought has been given to future proofing this game I doubt very much this is an oversight and just things being different than what original Pathfinder players are used to.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The lore does indicate that the larger creatures does more damage with comes inherently from their size. It comes in terms of giant creatures getting extra bonus damage. The same can be seen in the enlarge spell and the inherent extra damage. The only confusing thing is why the same mechanics does not apply to the giant instinct barbarian. This would reduce the confusion, as there is a simple expectation coming from real life experience - that bigger things hit harder. The simplest solution, imo, would be to reduce the instinct bonus and to reapply it to the enlarged version.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

Most likely because that complicates things more than necessary, and it would also turn those feats into must haves, which Paizo is trying to avoid.


Rysky wrote:
Most likely because that complicates things more than necessary, and it would also turn those feats into must haves, which Paizo is trying to avoid.

But the feats are buried in a class. Its a lot of effort to get them. They could make them inaccessible by putting them at higher level or with explcit prerequisites. How important are 2 points of damage and reach if it comes with extra clumsy? Especially if there are other game ways of getting similar benefits - which there should be.

It is very different to the Power Attack of PF1

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

It is absolutely no effort at all to get them, they’re certainly not “buried”.

Giant Instinct is already the heaviest hitter.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Also, I'd rather be able to do a cool narrative thing (grow to giant size) at level 6 then bury the feat at higher levels to give it a little extra damage. Nor would I want a third AC penalty to get a little extra damage on the hardest hitting build in the game.

51 to 93 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.