Die Size Rule Broken


Rules Discussion

51 to 100 of 161 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

Shisumo wrote:

When discussing the difference between a weapon sized for a Medium creature and a weapon sized for a Large one, we're not talking about the difference between 3 lbs and 5 lbs. Anybody remember the square-cube law? It's the difference between 3 lbs and 24 lbs.

Go ahead. Look me in the eye and tell me you can do more damage with a 24 lb sword in a fight than with a 3 lb one.

I can think of ways the larger one would do more damage but the problem being your ability to wield something that heavy and unbalanced for your size its unlikely you would ever hit anything with it. For small weapons like daggers it kinda makes some sense because then its basically a short sword but for things like big two handed weapons they would be basically unusable.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

kaid wrote:
If that is happening and it looks to continue then somebody in your group should work on the appropriate crafting skills to supplement the expected equipment.

I agree. When I'm playing (sadly a rare thing), I almost always play a character who can craft, because I enjoy being able to make things. In a game like the ones I've mentioned, I'd double-down on it.

Silver Crusade

kaid wrote:


I can think of ways the larger one would do more damage but the problem being your ability to wield something that heavy and unbalanced for your size its unlikely you would ever hit anything with it. For small weapons like daggers it kinda makes some sense because then its basically a short sword but for things like big two handed weapons they would be basically unusable.

I take the simple approach. In the real world when people REALLY REALLY wanted the best weapon, the weapons they ended up with were swords, 1 1 1/2 and 2 handed. And even the 2 handed ones weren't actually all that heavy (4 to 7 lbs for a Zweihander)

If a heavier sword did more damage overall then people would have been using them. They didn't so it doesn't.


PossibleCabbage wrote:

I mean, from the perspective of someone who comes to Pathfinder without decades of experience with similar games, the rule "a long-sword does d8 damage whether you're a halfling, a human, or a hill giant" is a lot easier to remember and apply than "a medium longsword does d8, a small longsword does d6, a tiny longsword does d4, a large longsword does 2d6, and a huge longsword does 3d6".

No, just no. Sure it is simple, but the average Joe has been obsessed with the size of his weapon since the days of cave art. Bigger is better and does more damage. It's in so much fantasy art.

PossibleCabbage wrote:


One thing that's a good trend in Pathfinder 2nd edition is that abilities and items tend not to invoke lots of hidden rules you have to remember or look up, they instead refer specifically to what they do or refer to keywords in the glossary.

PF2 has tried and done better than most, but they have more work todo. Many of the rules are written in common english and don't have the right keywords. Many of the rules are spread across multiple places and you have to take it all in to make much sense of it.


pauljathome wrote:
kaid wrote:


I can think of ways the larger one would do more damage but the problem being your ability to wield something that heavy and unbalanced for your size its unlikely you would ever hit anything with it. For small weapons like daggers it kinda makes some sense because then its basically a short sword but for things like big two handed weapons they would be basically unusable.

I take the simple approach. In the real world when people REALLY REALLY wanted the best weapon, the weapons they ended up with were swords, 1 1 1/2 and 2 handed. And even the 2 handed ones weren't actually all that heavy (4 to 7 lbs for a Zweihander)

If a heavier sword did more damage overall then people would have been using them. They didn't so it doesn't.

I'd argue that the spear was a better weapon. Far and away the most common army weapon across all cultures over history. The spear has had a lot of different sizes.

The sword had a bit of status symbol attached to it. Its place was nore in one on one, and the Zweihander was for specific roles

But the effectiveness argument hasn't stopped people from being obsessed with big being better. Its a mistake they keep making again and again.

Its a fantasy game we should be indulging our fantasies....


Gortle wrote:
But the effectiveness argument hasn't stopped people from being obsessed with big being better. Its a mistake they keep making again and again.

For rifles, it's hard to not use the biggest calibre you can properly carry and control.

Melee weapon selection seems complicated. Single or squad? Armored or not? Battlefield or duel?

Silver Crusade

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Gortle wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:

I mean, from the perspective of someone who comes to Pathfinder without decades of experience with similar games, the rule "a long-sword does d8 damage whether you're a halfling, a human, or a hill giant" is a lot easier to remember and apply than "a medium longsword does d8, a small longsword does d6, a tiny longsword does d4, a large longsword does 2d6, and a huge longsword does 3d6".

No, just no. Sure it is simple, but the average Joe has been obsessed with the size of his weapon since the days of cave art. Bigger is better and does more damage. It's in so much fantasy art.

Thats an assumption you are having.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
Thats an assumption you are having.

I mean, I always saw "my sword is ENORMOUS" as pretty silly, so I'm glad to see "it's better to use a BIGGER WEAPON" go away as a thing that is appealing to everybody who uses a weapon.

People who want specifically to indulge in the "my sword is nine feet long" fantasy, can choose to play the specific things that enable that fantasy. But there shouldn't be any inherent benefit to "my sword is taller than me."


PossibleCabbage wrote:
I mean, I always saw "my sword is ENORMOUS" as pretty silly, so I'm glad to see "it's better to use a BIGGER WEAPON" go away as a thing that is appealing to everybody who uses a weapon.

Well, it's true to a point: A Greatsword or Greataxe is better than a shortsword of hand axe for damage for instance so I can see why someone would think bigger is better from a damage standpoint. And it's not something new: look at the Norimitsu Odachi, a 32 pound, 12' long sword commissioned in 1447 because someone thought it looked cool no matter how impractical it really was...

PossibleCabbage wrote:
People who want specifically to indulge in the "my sword is nine feet long" fantasy, can choose to play the specific things that enable that fantasy.

The 'normal' character can have a sword "nearly as tall as its wielder"* so it's not too out of place. This, IMO, is especially in a game with giant bladed yoyo's, bladed hula hoops and a crossbow you can plug an explosive bottle: an oversized weapon doesn't exactly feel out of place.

*Greatsword


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Anything that makes you large also gives you bonus damage. Bam, your large weapon does extra damage. Why is this thread happening *again*?


Grankless wrote:
Anything that makes you large also gives you bonus damage. Bam, your large weapon does extra damage. Why is this thread happening *again*?

That statement is not completely true in all circumstances.

Because again someone else thought that bigger weapons should do more damage and was surprised by the decisions Paizo has taken.

Hmmm someone else who thinks this comes up a fair bit ......

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Weapons do the damage they list.

All the ways for you to be bigger and/or the ways to get bigger weapons list the ways the damage increases. Outside of playing a Giant Instinct Barbarian you can’t wield weapons that aren’t sized for Small and Medium creatures.

So yeah bigger weapons do indeed do more damage, but that damage is baked into the character and creature using it.


Rysky wrote:
Outside of playing a Giant Instinct Barbarian you can’t wield weapons that aren’t sized for Small and Medium creatures.

This just isn't true.

core, pg#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."


Grankless wrote:
Anything that makes you large also gives you bonus damage. Bam, your large weapon does extra damage. Why is this thread happening *again*?

actually you are completely wrong and this is my biggest problem with giant instinct atm.

Giant's Stature
You grow to incredible size. You become Large, increasing your reach by 5 feet and gaining the clumsy 1 condition until you stop raging. Your equipment grows with you.

no bonus damage

Titan's Stature
You grow to even greater size. When using Giant’s Stature, you can instead become Huge (increasing your reach by 10 feet if you were Medium or smaller) while you are raging. You have the clumsy 1 condition as long as you are Huge.

no bonus damage

if these both gave u the +2 damage like enlarge person i would feel better about my large weapon having no bonus damage from size


1 person marked this as a favorite.
vhok wrote:
Grankless wrote:
Anything that makes you large also gives you bonus damage. Bam, your large weapon does extra damage. Why is this thread happening *again*?

actually you are completely wrong and this is my biggest problem with giant instinct atm.

Giant's Stature
You grow to incredible size. You become Large, increasing your reach by 5 feet and gaining the clumsy 1 condition until you stop raging. Your equipment grows with you.

no bonus damage

Titan's Stature
You grow to even greater size. When using Giant’s Stature, you can instead become Huge (increasing your reach by 10 feet if you were Medium or smaller) while you are raging. You have the clumsy 1 condition as long as you are Huge.

no bonus damage

if these both gave u the +2 damage like enlarge person i would feel better about my large weapon having no bonus damage from size

Simple rebuttal: The bonus damage granted by Giant Instinct is covered by having the highest Rage damage bonus by a reasonable margin. (edit: and not the feats that make you larger.)

Also, most of the real benefit of growth is the size itself. "Wider" reach and the ability to block off whole sections of the battlefield is nothing to scoff at. being able to trip or shove or grapple larger characters is also a neat benefit. Being able to carry far greater loads than non-enbiggened characters is also an oft unspoken of benefit.

But everyone just wants to focus on the +#'s instead of all the actually interesting benefits.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Outside of playing a Giant Instinct Barbarian you can’t wield weapons that aren’t sized for Small and Medium creatures.

This just isn't true.

core, pg#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."

Ah thank you for bringing that up, I’m okay with being mostly wrong there since this is more sufficient and ties in to earlier when I said the rules are laid out. You can wield bigger weapons, but the unwieldy nature of them cancels out any possible benefit you may have been fishing for.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
vhok wrote:
Grankless wrote:
Anything that makes you large also gives you bonus damage. Bam, your large weapon does extra damage. Why is this thread happening *again*?

actually you are completely wrong and this is my biggest problem with giant instinct atm.

Giant's Stature
You grow to incredible size. You become Large, increasing your reach by 5 feet and gaining the clumsy 1 condition until you stop raging. Your equipment grows with you.

no bonus damage

Titan's Stature
You grow to even greater size. When using Giant’s Stature, you can instead become Huge (increasing your reach by 10 feet if you were Medium or smaller) while you are raging. You have the clumsy 1 condition as long as you are Huge.

no bonus damage

if these both gave u the +2 damage like enlarge person i would feel better about my large weapon having no bonus damage from size

Read the whole thing.

Giant Instinct wrote:

Titan Mauler (Instinct Ability)

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.

Specialization Ability

Increase the damage from Rage when using a larger weapon from 6 to 10; if you have greater weapon specialization, increase it from 10 to 18.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
vhok wrote:
Grankless wrote:
Anything that makes you large also gives you bonus damage. Bam, your large weapon does extra damage. Why is this thread happening *again*?

actually you are completely wrong and this is my biggest problem with giant instinct atm.

Giant's Stature
You grow to incredible size. You become Large, increasing your reach by 5 feet and gaining the clumsy 1 condition until you stop raging. Your equipment grows with you.

no bonus damage

Titan's Stature
You grow to even greater size. When using Giant’s Stature, you can instead become Huge (increasing your reach by 10 feet if you were Medium or smaller) while you are raging. You have the clumsy 1 condition as long as you are Huge.

no bonus damage

if these both gave u the +2 damage like enlarge person i would feel better about my large weapon having no bonus damage from size

Read the whole thing.

Giant Instinct wrote:

Titan Mauler (Instinct Ability)

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.

Specialization Ability

Increase the damage from Rage when using a larger weapon from 6 to 10; if you have greater weapon specialization, increase it from 10 to 18.

and???????????? everything you just quoted works when i am NOT large also, so going big gives ZERO damage increase. oh great my giant barbarian can now NOT do his "highest damage in the game" to grapple instead. thanks thats definitly why i went giant barbarian, to not do damage.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

If growing big with the giant Barbarian gave increased damage then it would be a "must have" feat, instead of only a cool feat that have to compete with other feats.


Kyrone wrote:

If growing big with the giant Barbarian gave increased damage then it would be a "must have" feat, instead of only a cool feat that have to compete with other feats.

i disagree that +2 damage is a "must have", it fits with being large size (same as enlarge person). i don't think enlarge person is a must have spell for every melee person.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
vhok wrote:
Kyrone wrote:

If growing big with the giant Barbarian gave increased damage then it would be a "must have" feat, instead of only a cool feat that have to compete with other feats.

i disagree that +2 damage is a "must have", it fits with being large size (same as enlarge person). i don't think enlarge person is a must have spell for every melee person.

Enlarge person spell is not a must have spell because someone have to spend 2 actions and a spell slot to give those benefits when they could do something else with the resources.

Barbarians would just Rage and because of Mighty Rage gain the damage, without any extra action.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
vhok wrote:
Kyrone wrote:

If growing big with the giant Barbarian gave increased damage then it would be a "must have" feat, instead of only a cool feat that have to compete with other feats.

i disagree that +2 damage is a "must have", it fits with being large size (same as enlarge person). i don't think enlarge person is a must have spell for every melee person.

To each their own. I feel like the system is well enough balanced as is, even for Giant Instinct barbarians. Damage is more regulated than in past editions, with fewer chances to really start ramping up your power to the point that your GM simply can't deal with it.

And I like this. A lot. Giant Instinct Barbarians don't get a massive damage bonus simply for growing. I don't feel they need it. You are looking at the glass half empty without seeing what it is half full with.

Instead of making the various enlarge feats a must have addition to Giant Instinct, they are instead an interesting option that provide their own distinct benefits. If however the growth feats did what you propose, they will simply by existing, make competing feats straight up worse options.

Then broaden this context to the other instincts. Giant Instinct innately gets the highest Rage damage bonus, but pays for it by taking the Clumsy penalty. If however they also gained additional damage from growth, what would be the point of Fury Instinct? Would you want to go Animal Instinct? How about Spirit? Dragon even?

By restricting the benefits of these feats to non-damage ones, Paizo has made them competitive with other feats, without simply standing out as superior. Or do you think that anyone would ever go for Brutal Bully instead of Giant's Stature? Cleave? Attack of Opportunity? How about Furious Grab over Titan's Stature?

Or are you arguing that you've played a Giant Instinct Barbarian, and found that you simply weren't doing enough damage to keep up with your allies?

If the answer is no, and you do keep up or slightly surpass your allies, then congratulations: You are in line with where you should be.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Kyrone wrote:
vhok wrote:
Kyrone wrote:

If growing big with the giant Barbarian gave increased damage then it would be a "must have" feat, instead of only a cool feat that have to compete with other feats.

i disagree that +2 damage is a "must have", it fits with being large size (same as enlarge person). i don't think enlarge person is a must have spell for every melee person.

Enlarge person spell is not a must have spell because someone have to spend 2 actions and a spell slot to give those benefits when they could do something else with the resources.

Barbarians would just Rage and because of Mighty Rage gain the damage, without any extra action.

Also, Enlarge makes the target clumsy 1. The giant instinct barbarian is already clumsy 1 so this isn't a downside for them.

I'll also note that in addition to balance concerns the additional complexity probably isn't worth it. A giant instinct barbarian already needs to know their normal damage, their raging damage, and their giant weapon raging damage for any given melee weapon. Adding a 4th tier of damage on the highest damage character in the game seems unnecessary.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
vhok wrote:
Grankless wrote:
Anything that makes you large also gives you bonus damage. Bam, your large weapon does extra damage. Why is this thread happening *again*?

actually you are completely wrong and this is my biggest problem with giant instinct atm.

Giant's Stature
You grow to incredible size. You become Large, increasing your reach by 5 feet and gaining the clumsy 1 condition until you stop raging. Your equipment grows with you.

no bonus damage

Titan's Stature
You grow to even greater size. When using Giant’s Stature, you can instead become Huge (increasing your reach by 10 feet if you were Medium or smaller) while you are raging. You have the clumsy 1 condition as long as you are Huge.

no bonus damage

if these both gave u the +2 damage like enlarge person i would feel better about my large weapon having no bonus damage from size

You're misunderstanding the purpose of the Large weapon. It's not a benefit. It's a penalty, ensuring that you are always Clumsy 1, to offset the fact that you have the highest base damage in the game while Raging, and longer Reach than any other PC.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Vhok wrote:
and???????????? everything you just quoted works when i am NOT large also, so going big gives ZERO damage increase. oh great my giant barbarian can now NOT do his "highest damage in the game" to grapple instead. thanks thats definitly why i went giant barbarian, to not do damage.

You quoted feats from Giant Instinct without quoting the basics of the Giant Instinct, the basics of the damage boosts for wielding larger weapons are baked into the instinct.


Rysky wrote:
Vhok wrote:
and???????????? everything you just quoted works when i am NOT large also, so going big gives ZERO damage increase. oh great my giant barbarian can now NOT do his "highest damage in the game" to grapple instead. thanks thats definitly why i went giant barbarian, to not do damage.
You quoted feats from Giant Instinct without quoting the basics of the Giant Instinct, the basics of the damage boosts for wielding larger weapons are baked into the instinct.

so what? going large size should have a damage increase, period. this has nothing to do with giant instinct, just going large=bonus damage. that's the basics of the game (until now)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
vhok wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Vhok wrote:
and???????????? everything you just quoted works when i am NOT large also, so going big gives ZERO damage increase. oh great my giant barbarian can now NOT do his "highest damage in the game" to grapple instead. thanks thats definitly why i went giant barbarian, to not do damage.
You quoted feats from Giant Instinct without quoting the basics of the Giant Instinct, the basics of the damage boosts for wielding larger weapons are baked into the instinct.
so what? going large size should have a damage increase, period. this has nothing to do with giant instinct, just going large=bonus damage. that's the basics of the game (until now)

And I and others have stated over and over again that you are gaining that damage, just not from growth.

Unless you would rather reduce the Giant Instincts rage bonus, then add what you took from there to those feats. If you did though, you would simply introduce "auto include" feats to the barbarian line for anyone that took Giant Instinct. As is, you could play a perfectly viable Giant Instinct barbarian without ever growing.

Doing things your way would require those characters to grab giant's and titan's stature to "regain" the damage bonuses that they lost.

Well what if you were playing in a dungeon crawl game where you simply don't usually have the option of growth? What if the player just didn't want to grab those feats? Why pigeonhole them into feeling required to grab them?


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

No no, I get why Vhok is frustrated. The Giant Barbarian already has the highest Rage Damage bonus in the game. It has this even if you chose not to grow when you rage, and the fact that you get from 6 to 18 rage damage while being Medium AND 6 to 18 rage damage while they are Huge, feels strange and makes the "WOW" factor of growing huge feel like it lands a little flat.

Like, the same exact person at 6 feet grows to 20+ feet but his hits don't hit any harder in that form? Weird.

It doesn't bother me. The way I understand it working is that the Giant Instinct Barbarian is ALWAYS hitting with the strength of a Giant. His rage allows him to channel that strength into his blows, and so the 6, 10, or 18 extra damage IS from having the strength of that size. So when you grow using Giant's Stature or Titan's Stature, all that is happening is that your body is growing so that it matches that extra strength. You have the power of the Giant always. You're just taking the actual mechanical advantages of the size of a Giant now (reach and the ability to have the grip to grapple things that are bigger and whatnot).

But since this isn't exactly spelled out in the Instinct in clear words, it just sort of comes across as...I doubled in height, but didn't get any stronger for it...


1 person marked this as a favorite.

My first PF2 character was a giant barbarian, but I did it for lots and lots of reach not for big damage.

I was more put out by how "AoO" and "Get Big" come out at the same level, rather than bigness itself does not make you hit harder.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Vali Nepjarson wrote:
I doubled in height, but didn't get any stronger for it...

Sure you did: your bulk limits changed making it possible to carry much more than you could. What it didn't do is make you do more damage... It also allows you to trip, grapple, shove and disarm larger foes along with your greater reach. Growing larger has a lot of "WOW" factor but some people ignore it because it doesn't come with damage bump.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
graystone wrote:
Vali Nepjarson wrote:
I doubled in height, but didn't get any stronger for it...
Sure you did: your bulk limits changed making it possible to carry much more than you could. What it didn't do is make you do more damage... It also allows you to trip, grapple, shove and disarm larger foes along with your greater reach. Growing larger has a lot of "WOW" factor but some people ignore it because it doesn't come with damage bump.

Pedantics. Yes, of course it makes you stronger in several other ways. But you know what I meant by "stronger".

Again, I agree with you and I really like Giant Barbarian. It can really do a TON of damage in the right scenarios and controls a much greater field than any other martial.

I'm just saying that I understand why a person would look at their character when they are 6 foot and 250lbs doing 2d12 + 15 damage and then look at that same character at 18 feet and 2250lbs still doing 2d12 + 15 damage and feeling like this is a little bizarre.

I totally get why and agree with what you're saying. I'm just saying that it isn't an unreasonable thing to be baffled by.


Vali Nepjarson wrote:
But you know what I meant by "stronger".

Just as YOU knew that I was pointing out that it was a VERY narrow point of view to limit everything it does down to 'how much more damage does it give me'...

Vali Nepjarson wrote:
I'm just saying that I understand why a person would look at their character when they are 6 foot and 250lbs doing 2d12 + 15 damage and then look at that same character at 18 feet and 2250lbs still doing 2d12 + 15 damage and feeling like this is a little bizarre.

Where does it say your character or their equipment weighs any different? I don't recall where it said you gain 2000 pounds. Even if we go by default bulk, Large creatures are 12 bulk and Huge are 24 bulk. You multiply those by 5-10 pounds and it's not anywhere close to 2250.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
graystone wrote:
Vali Nepjarson wrote:
But you know what I meant by "stronger".
Just as YOU knew that I was pointing out that it was a VERY narrow point of view to limit everything it does down to 'how much more damage does it give me'...

Yes, I agree with you. I am on your side in this. But just because I agree with you doesn't mean that it is of no value to try and see where the arguments are coming from.

Yes, I see the point that you're trying to make. But that point doesn't really help someone who wants to know why being massively huger doesn't make your hits land harder when intuitively they should.

graystone wrote:
Vali Nepjarson wrote:
I'm just saying that I understand why a person would look at their character when they are 6 foot and 250lbs doing 2d12 + 15 damage and then look at that same character at 18 feet and 2250lbs still doing 2d12 + 15 damage and feeling like this is a little bizarre.
Where does it say your character or their equipment weighs any different? I don't recall where it said you gain 2000 pounds. Even if we go by default bulk, Large creatures are 12 bulk and Huge are 24 bulk. You multiply those by 5-10 pounds and it's not anywhere close to 2250.

Because that is what realistically happens when you grow. A 250lbs structure that is scaled up to 3x it's height will be 9x heavier or about 2250lbs assuming that two objects are of equal density and entirely to scale. That is what most people are going to assume happens.

Yes, there are a dozen or more different ways that you can explain via the magic of the world how your strikes don't become any stronger via the Giant Instinct feats that make you bigger. I gave what I think is a pretty good one earlier, how the magical power of the Giant Instinct makes it so that you always hit with the force of a Giant while raging and those feats don't increase that force, instead just making your outside body fit the internal power better.

But unless that is explained in some way, it is reasonable for people to wonder why striking with a sword of (length x (X^2) = mass) doesn't do more damage and trying to handwave that away by saying "well but you get other things so it's still really good" doesn't help people with that problem.

I get we aren't trying to simulate reality, and the rules are never going to be able to account for everything. But this isn't trying to calculate some obscure element of physics or handwaving something that shouldn't work because "fantasy". This is something that is so intuitive that it feels absurd if it is ignored AND it's accounted for in other areas where you grow in size, as in the Enlarge spell.


Vali Nepjarson wrote:

But unless that is explained in some way, it is reasonable for people to wonder why striking with a sword of (length x (X^2) = mass) doesn't do more damage and trying to handwave that away by saying "well but you get other things so it's still really good" doesn't help people with that problem.

I get we aren't trying to simulate reality, and the rules are never going to be able to account for everything. But this isn't trying to calculate some obscure element of physics or handwaving something that shouldn't work because "fantasy". This is something that is so intuitive that it feels absurd if it is ignored AND it's accounted for in other areas where you grow in size, as in the Enlarge spell.

That is a fair enough point I suppose. I could argue that the description of the instinct provides a sort of answer though.

CRB PG. 87 "Giant Instinct" wrote:

Your rage gives you the raw power and size of a giant. This

doesn’t necessarily mean you revere giants—you might
scoff at them or even aspire to slay them! You could instead
seem like a giant to other people due to your exceptional
strength or larger-than-life emotions and ego.

Depending on the way you read that first sentence, power and size are two separate things that your rage grants you. Take away one, and you retain the other.

If I had given you my keyboard and mouse, then took away the mouse after the fact, you would still have my keyboard. Taking away the size, doesn't necessarily take away the power. And that is what is being argued about here.

My argument is that tying the two together makes for much worse overall experience playing a Giant Instinct Barbarian, as you would naturally have to not just increase your size, but also your hitting power. This pigeonholes the instinct in a way that none of the others are. Sure, they can gain neat options with their feats, but they aren't inherently weaker for not picking up their instinct feats as they go.

This is why I prefer the option that Paizo took here. It allows Giant Instinct Barbs to forgo growth in favor of other options without innately making them worse.

Edit: I suppose that was a long winded way of restating what you already say you agreed to. In lieu of deleting it and retyping a bunch, I will say this: TTRPG games are Power Fantasy games. You want to be a Giant bashing their way across the battlefield? Pathfinder allows that. You want to be a normal sized person with the Power of a giant swinging a Giant sword that you should never be able to lift? Pathfinder allows that.

Why should only one perspective be allowed, and not both?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Vali Nepjarson wrote:
Because that is what realistically happens when you grow.

D&D/pathfinder and reality parted ways long ago. Dragons fly without magic, gargantuan insects can walk around without being crushed under their own weight, magic... We literally can't look at the world and pull out a calculator to math it out.

Vali Nepjarson wrote:
A 250lbs structure that is scaled up to 3x it's height will be 9x heavier or about 2250lbs assuming that two objects are of equal density and entirely to scale.

ALL you have to do is look at the bulk numbers for creatures to see that this doesn't pan out. A human is bulk 6, an orge is bulk 12 and an cloud gaint is bulk 24: this shows that in d&d a linear straight line vs what would happen in reality. A normal one horse cart can carry 100 Bulk, which means it can carry 8 orge in it: by your estimation it can hold 18,000 pounds where a modern car trailer maxes out around 10,000... Clearly, pathfinder isn't using your math.

Or to put it another way, the rules say that a 14 str halfling can toss a 2250 pound ogre over their shoulder and and walk away only suffering encumbered [clumsy 1 and -10 speed]... "what realistically happens" lives in another zip code.


graystone wrote:
Vali Nepjarson wrote:
A 250lbs structure that is scaled up to 3x it's height will be 9x heavier or about 2250lbs assuming that two objects are of equal density and entirely to scale.
ALL you have to do is look at the bulk numbers for creatures to see that this doesn't pan out. A human is bulk 6, an orge is bulk 12 and an cloud gaint is bulk 24: this shows that in d&d a linear straight line vs what would happen in reality. A normal one horse cart can carry 100 Bulk, which means it can carry 8 orge in it: by your estimation it can hold 18,000 pounds where a modern car trailer maxes out around 10,000... Clearly, pathfinder isn't using your math.

I agree with what you are saying - one doesn't simply use arithmetic to discuss scaling in Pathfinder - but the example picked is a poor one. Car trailer weight is limited for legal reasons (primarily collisions and road damage). We can obviously build one that can carry much more than a few tons.


krobrina wrote:
Car trailer weight is limited for legal reasons (primarily collisions and road damage).

I picked a limit specifically for safety based on structural integrity*: past that weight, axle breakage goes up dramatically for you're basic trailer which seems as close an equivalent to a cart as I can come up with.

krobrina wrote:
We can obviously build one that can carry much more than a few tons.

Clearly you can haul more than that weight with the correct item, but then we've gone WAY past simple carts and car trailers haven't we?

* A utility trailer's weight capacity is limited by its axle rating. Axles are rated at various capacities from 1,000 to 10,000 pounds. Exceeding the maximum load capacity of your trailer creates a dangerous situation in which the axles could break while you are on the road.

Typical Axle Diameters Based on Axle Capacity
- 1,000-lb - 2,000-lb Axles: 1-1/2 inch - 1-3/4 inch diameter
- 3,500-lb Axles: 2-3/8 inch diameter
- 6,000-lb - 7,200-lb Axles: 3 inch diameter
- 8,000-lb Axles: 3-1/2 inch diameter
- 9,000-lb Axles: 4 inch diameter
- 10,000-lb Or more axles: 5 inch diameter


graystone wrote:
Vali Nepjarson wrote:
Because that is what realistically happens when you grow.

D&D/pathfinder and reality parted ways long ago. Dragons fly without magic, gargantuan insects can walk around without being crushed under their own weight, magic... We literally can't look at the world and pull out a calculator to math it out.

Broader issues: that medium sized insects can breathe at all, that huge creatues don't run extreme risk of breaking bones from jumping or falling over.

Yep we know.

graystone wrote:


Vali Nepjarson wrote:


Or to put it another way, the rules say that a 14 str halfling can toss a 2250 pound ogre over their shoulder and and walk away only suffering encumbered [clumsy 1 and -10 speed]... "what realistically happens" lives in another zip code.

Yeah the rules are stretched a bit here.

But it is important that the game universe remain somewhat relatable and predictable so that the players and the GM can improvise. It is a key part of the fun of the game. Every part of it that gets lost like this, weakens the game.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gortle wrote:
Every part of it that gets lost like this, weakens the game.

I don't really agree: we can all go watch an action movie where people do triple-backflips while firing dual assault rifles and can get shot multiple times and keep going and have fun even though we know it's all unrealistic: heck, we might even like it MORE because it's not realistic but super-heroic. I think everyone coming to the d&d/pathfinder table knows they aren't going to be playing a reality simulator. All we're doing here is quibbling over which parts some seem to think go 'over the top'... After I saw that gnomes can benchpress hill giants all day I can't say I have any mental energy to think anything's wrong with Large weapon damage dice... You either buy into the fantasy, lack of physics and all, or you can have a bad time.


graystone wrote:
krobrina wrote:
Car trailer weight is limited for legal reasons (primarily collisions and road damage).
I picked a limit specifically for safety based on structural integrity*

What you gave is based on (presumably) US regulations.

What defines what a "car trailer" is? Engineering, or the legal license you need to use it?

A little bit of both, but the main thing is that if the trailer is too heavy compared to the car, you need non-standard towing gear, and special training to steer it properly. This is a combination of licensing, and the manufacturers only having to warranty their kit to work within the legal limits.

I'm sure we both believe you can get 10 tons on a car-sized trailer (because there are 10-ton vehicles that size already) and hook it up to a big 4x4, if only the police would let you. Edit: You'd break your 4x4 eventually, so double don't do that.


krobrina wrote:
I'm sure we both believe you can get 10 tons on a car-sized trailer

No, because you'd snap the axle... I gave the limits for single axle trailers. They are based off of safety studies looking at the percentages of axle breakage by weight and axle diameter. They are accurate no matter what country you're from as it doesn't change the math. These are physical limits not legal ones. You'll break an axle if you have a licence for it or not. You can do it, but you'll be turning your trailer into a sled then the wheels fall off.

krobrina wrote:
What defines what a "car trailer" is?

It's a simple trailer towed by a car: I thought the implication was clear when I was comparing it to a simple cart... From a definition standpoint, the (Automotive Engineering) one: "a road vehicle, usually two-wheeled, towed by a motor vehicle: used for transporting boats, etc". [Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged, 12th Edition 2014]


graystone wrote:
krobrina wrote:
I'm sure we both believe you can get 10 tons on a car-sized trailer
No, because you'd snap the axle... I gave the limits for single axle trailers.

I can show you trucks with 10 tons per axle. Why aren't there common car trailers with those parts? Because you need a special license for that much weight. They might actually even exist for off-road towing, where the trailer gets slammed around and needs extra strength, or special use with special permits.

graystone wrote:
krobrina wrote:
What defines what a "car trailer" is?
It's a simple trailer towed by a car: I thought the implication was clear when I was comparing it to a simple cart... From a definition standpoint, the (Automotive Engineering) one: "a road vehicle, usually two-wheeled, towed by a motor vehicle: used for transporting boats, etc". [Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged, 12th Edition 2014]

Good luck with the police on this one.

Relevant because remember this whole sub-thread was about how one can't assume the weight of a car trailer is because we can't build heavier ones. We just don't for political/legal reasons.


The real problem with that example is that bulk is stupid and inconcise. Much like how I showed when I compared an elephant IRL vs PF2.

Remember by bulk logic (ignoring volume) a human weights between 6 and 60 lbs. An ogre weights between 12 and 120 lbs. And a cloud giant is between 24 and 240 lbs.

Asumming we doubled the weight (density would decrease) and used the same range (1 to 10x times to number). An IRL human adult is ~80 to 800 lbs (when morbidly obese and cant move by themselves). An IRL Ogre would be 160 to 1,600 (if morbidly obese and cant move by itself). And an IRL cloud giant would be 320 to 3,200 (if morbidly obese and cant move).

A 100 bulk cart would therefore hold 100 to 1,000 lbs. Or 0.0625 to 6.25 Ogres depending on what values are being used for which thing.

*********************

I repeat bulk scaling is stupid and breaks so much stuff when extrapolated.


Temperans wrote:
The real problem with that example is that bulk is stupid and inconcise. Much like how I showed when I compared an elephant IRL vs PF2.

It works well enough for parcel companies :-)

However, it's an easy fix to use the weight-based system from Pathfinder 1 if you prefer. Copy the weights over and job done.


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

People are still trying to use bulk as something that converts directly into weight? We've known that using it that way doesn't work since 2017.

Don't use it that way.


(btw PF2 says huge creatures are 24 bulk. An elephant is 6,000 to 13,000 pounds and are huge creatures. By that metric the cart can carry 24,000 to 52,000 pounds without even looking at the 1-10 lbs per bulk analysis.)


8 people marked this as a favorite.

If you want to get super detailed, weight and bulk are equally bad.

If I'm loading stuff like bedrolls, ration biscuits and a bit of water into a pack, it'll fill up long before I can't lift it. For this, bulk is a more useful measurement of what fits.

If I'm shoving in lots of metal, I'll lose the ability to lift the pack long before it's full. For this, weight is a more useful measurement.

Either system is bad. The only solution is to pick any, and stop caring, or track both weight and volume. This second idea is not what I signed up for. This isn't Mathfinder. Since I have to choose either weight or bulk, I'll pick bulk as it's easier to count. Numbers are hard, and I just want to smash monsters.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
krobrina wrote:

If you want to get super detailed, weight and bulk are equally bad.

If I'm loading stuff like bedrolls, ration biscuits and a bit of water into a pack, it'll fill up long before I can't lift it. For this, bulk is a more useful measurement of what fits.

If I'm shoving in lots of metal, I'll lose the ability to lift the pack long before it's full. For this, weight is a more useful measurement.

Either system is bad. The only solution is to pick any, and stop caring, or track both weight and volume. This second idea is not what I signed up for. This isn't Mathfinder. Since I have to choose either weight or bulk, I'll pick bulk as it's easier to count. Numbers are hard, and I just want to smash monsters.

I agree with your sentiment, but to make it more precise: bulk is not the same as volume. It's an abstract measure of weight, volume and shape-awkwardness.

The weight of a ladder or the weight of a tightly packed IKEA build-your-own-ladder packet are the same. The volume is even pretty much the same. But the assembled ladder is a much more awkward shape.

You could make a crash test dummy out of material with the same density as a human body, and give it the same shape, but the dummy would probably me more rigid than an unconscious floppy human. The dummy would probably be easier to move around because of that.

That all goes into bulk. Bulk is an abstract measure of how difficult it is to carry something based on all kinds of factors. It summarizes weight, volume, shape and rigidity into the one number that's actually important: how much can you carry?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
krobrina wrote:

If you want to get super detailed, weight and bulk are equally bad.

If I'm loading stuff like bedrolls, ration biscuits and a bit of water into a pack, it'll fill up long before I can't lift it. For this, bulk is a more useful measurement of what fits.

If I'm shoving in lots of metal, I'll lose the ability to lift the pack long before it's full. For this, weight is a more useful measurement.

Either system is bad. The only solution is to pick any, and stop caring, or track both weight and volume. This second idea is not what I signed up for. This isn't Mathfinder. Since I have to choose either weight or bulk, I'll pick bulk as it's easier to count. Numbers are hard, and I just want to smash monsters.

THANK you. Can't upvote this enough... Been rolling my eyes so hard every time I see someone say that a 12 Bulk thing can't possibly weigh more than 120lbs...


Ascalaphus wrote:
You could make a crash test dummy out of material with the same density as a human body, and give it the same shape, but the dummy would probably me more rigid than an unconscious floppy human. The dummy would probably be easier to move around because of that.

You'd probably carry a casualty or jointed dummy over your shoulder like this photo, and there wouldn't be much difference. If the dummy isn't jointed, the human's a more compact shape for uneven ground and doorways.

I can't undestand what they get up to in training these days. Are they practicing the lift or is she carrying off a new toy?

51 to 100 of 161 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / Rules Discussion / Die Size Rule Broken All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.