Die Size Rule Broken


Rules Discussion

101 to 150 of 161 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

HI all I started a new thread to discuss something in this same spirit and weapon storm. I realised that the wording of "weapon damage die" and "weapon storm" itself is not as straight forward as most people assume, so I started a new thread to lay out the information from the rule book to make my case. Would appreciate your thoughts.

Basically Im thinking in the same vein as the OP, 4d12 at level 4 is waaaay too underwhelming. The language which describes "weapon die damage" seems to have become a technical term, and if we apply this technicality to the description of the spell "weapon storm", then CLEARLY it would deal 8d12 on level 4 if the caster were wielding a striking great sword.


Weapon Storm, cast as a 4th level spell, if you're holding a d12 weapon deals 4d12 damage. The weapon damage die is a function of the weapon itself, not of the runes you've inscribed on it.

What makes this worthwhile is "30' cone or 10' emanation."

8d12 damage for an 8th level character is too much.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
PossibleCabbage wrote:
What makes this worthwhile is "30' cone or 10' emanation."

That's not a great damage pattern, imo. It means you have to be pretty close to the action compared to fireball... while doing less damage... while having to deal with wielding a greatsword to pull it off.

Spell's not great, though the solution proposed by the above poster is obviously way above the curve too.


I mean sure, you don't want to be in that situation as a Wizard, but if you find yourself in that situation you can hit a whole lot of people at once with Weapon Storm.

Not every spell in the toolbox should be "the best option for hurting a lot of people at once."

It's not a great spell on every wizard, but I'd prepare it on my "true striking with a greatpick via hand of the apprentice" wizard.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Not every spell in the toolbox should be "the best option for hurting a lot of people at once."

We're not talking about "every" spell though. We're talking about a specific spell that does nothing but "hurt a lot of people at once" but does so with more limitations and restrictions than other, comparable spells while also doing less damage than them.


Squiggit wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
What makes this worthwhile is "30' cone or 10' emanation."

That's not a great damage pattern, imo. It means you have to be pretty close to the action compared to fireball... while doing less damage... while having to deal with wielding a greatsword to pull it off.

Spell's not great, though the solution proposed by the above poster is obviously way above the curve too.

It's one die behind lightning bolt with an AOE thats easier to catch multiple targets with, and it uses an arguably superior damage type (physical, with options based on weapon).

Its definitely intended for a certain kind of caster, that wants to be up front and in the fray.

I'd say thats absolutely a viable spell.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Not only does weapon storm have an area that is likely to be grabbing more targets than a lightning bolt in many situations, but it also has less of a chance that your going to have to include some friendly targets in the area than a fireball in many cases.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

And before we get into the fact it costs you a pittance to target many different weaknesses (you cant just turn fireball into acid ball but you can turn weapon storm from bludgeoning to slashing with an action) it also has a critical fail bonus effect that you can tailor too. Fireball cant knock enemies away from you, knock the enemy prone or flat foot them.


Phntm888 wrote:
LA_Viking wrote:
Thank you all for the feedback as it sounds like we need to throttle the magic bonuses to melee weapons across the board. That should help. We are not getting them mostly because we are all (including our DM) new to the system. I enjoy using the rules for optimization, so not used to leaning on magical bonuses from items for balance. I will forward this thread to my group.
I will say that one thing I have noticed is that optimization via class, feats, and other things used in PF1 to make a highly-optimized character are no longer the way you make the ultimate optimized character. Optimization revolves more around the tactics your group uses, and less about raw numbers.

The reason we're here is because there is no "correct" just discussion. If you agree that anyone with an opinion should be bullied out of a forum, then it would seem this is the place for you.


Megistone wrote:
krobrina wrote:
LA_Viking wrote:
While it may be in the Core Rulebook, the switch to magical enhancement being necessary and mandatory to balance game play has not been messaged strongly or frequently enough considering how important it is - at least I didn't see or hear that anywhere.

What? Pathfinder has been like that since 1st edition some 10 years ago and the 3.5 D&D it came from was as well. Look in google for something called "the big six" which were standard magic items around which game balance was designed for D&D version 3.5 games.

The guidelines aren't that clear, but the core rule book does have "expected wealth" for characters at each level, which will give a guideline of what they should be carrying.

The new Gamemastery Guide (out now!) has an alternative balance system that removes the need for magic items, if you choose to go that way. You may enjoy it.

I will add that it goes even further back. In BECMI D&D a lot of high level monsters (and several low level ones) required magic weapons with a certain + bonus to even be hurt.

High AC and damage resistance are nothing compared.

Because most people who play the game will not read the books back to back and if information that is key to the experience is not obvious, it will be missed. Switching between D&D 5e, PF1, and PF2, this element is new/alien and needs to be positioned so everyone who migrates to the new platform understands its a key piece and not obvious.

Silver Crusade

LA_Viking wrote:
Megistone wrote:
krobrina wrote:
LA_Viking wrote:
While it may be in the Core Rulebook, the switch to magical enhancement being necessary and mandatory to balance game play has not been messaged strongly or frequently enough considering how important it is - at least I didn't see or hear that anywhere.

What? Pathfinder has been like that since 1st edition some 10 years ago and the 3.5 D&D it came from was as well. Look in google for something called "the big six" which were standard magic items around which game balance was designed for D&D version 3.5 games.

The guidelines aren't that clear, but the core rule book does have "expected wealth" for characters at each level, which will give a guideline of what they should be carrying.

The new Gamemastery Guide (out now!) has an alternative balance system that removes the need for magic items, if you choose to go that way. You may enjoy it.

I will add that it goes even further back. In BECMI D&D a lot of high level monsters (and several low level ones) required magic weapons with a certain + bonus to even be hurt.

High AC and damage resistance are nothing compared.
Because most people who play the game will not read the books back to back and if information that is key to the experience is not obvious, it will be missed. Switching between D&D 5e, PF1, and PF2, this element is new/alien and needs to be positioned so everyone who migrates to the new platform understands its a key piece and not obvious.

I need better equipment/higher numbers to keep up at higher levels is rather obvious thing in most games.

Sczarni

2 people marked this as a favorite.

^ that.

The first several replies in this thread (mine was #3) addressed the mechanics of the original post, offered suggestions, and avoided commenting on the subjective grievances and misunderstandings.

If that is treating someone horribly, then I am a horrible human being ^_^

EDIT: whoops, LA_Viking ninja'd me by 56 seconds.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Some people take insults to their ideas as insults to themselves.

It doesn't seem an idea... I suggest everybody to hold on for a second all of this.

Instead, let's take a look at his first post.

LA_Viking wrote:

1. First off, the rule contradicts itself. When an effect calls on you to increase the damage, you use a larger die…but not if it’s a d12?!! That doesn’t make any sense. So big weapons can’t get bigger or do more damage, only little ones?

2. Fact: If someone hits you the same way with a medium sized weapon, and one that is large, the large one would do more damage, every time. Duh. So a large sword absolutely does more damage than a medium one. They acknowledge in their rules larger weapons do more damage (hence the various die sizes for different sized weapons). You can’t decide to throw out physics whenever you want to make your rules simpler.

3. The “Titan Mauler” trait/feat they created is solely designed to use a larger weapon. But if you take this die size rule at face value, your can’t get more damage for a larger greataxe or greatsword?!!! Doesn’t make any sense.

4. When my character is Enlarged (4th) to “huge” this weapon becomes gargantuan sized…and it still only does 1d12?!!! Nonsense.

5. Weapon Storm creates a storm of weapons - my weapon - which when enlarged to huge is a gargantuan sized greatsword. Imagine a storm of them, like torrential rain, that’s badass and should do waaay more damage than 4d12. It doesn’t say "weapon shower” or" weapon smattering," its WEAPON STORM, like a hurricane!

To me, and here I say it's my personal opinion, his is just a failed tentative to build up a munchkin build, which fortunately was somehow taken into account by developers during the developing of the system ( I mean how giant barbarian works ).

Little ot now

Even I sometimes like to try to min max and find strategies, but if these are somehow forbidden I tend not to blame the system, but to accept it ( I also smile and think "Ah, they took about it in advance, good ).

I can get more involved in lore based stuff ( or what I consider to be more lore friendly. Some of you would probably remember that I am against giving a more efficient shieldblock to druids, and I am pointing this out just to mark the difference between the 2 topics ), or eventually something about balance ( since it's my first time with a system with plenty of stuff which is not clear, and I am surprised that after months we still don't have answers to stuff like shields, battle medicine and so on, but this is not meant to be a complaint ).

End of the ot

Where was I?
Oh yeah.

To consider the system wrong ( by reading him, in his first post he declared that everything was developed not in the proper way ) and offer a suggestion which "has to be accepted"? I don't know, in this thread there was not such a great discussion, but more a tentative to defend the idea that the sistem is wrong and has to be changed.

I mean, I understand what he wants, but I can definitely see balance between barbarian stances, which also includes the giant one. And because of that I expect the system won't be changed the way he pretends.

To conclude, even if there could have been some misunderstanding, or even harassment, focusing on it only divert the attention on something else ( the topic mostly ). And I am not saying this to justify a bad behavior.

Grand Lodge

Oh yeah, I absolutely think he's in the wrong, but I don't see any use in piling more onto him and further alienating him from the community.


I go with the simple rule it doesn't change. It keeps things simple. There's enough of a difference between weapon types or bonuses to show some differences in weapons.

We don't need to get overly realistic or we would start incorporating things like blades chipping from hitting hard things or going on metal on metal against armor. Bowstrings breaking. Wood handles breaking. Spikes on morningstars going dull. And the like. Real weapons don't last that long, have far more problems than portrayed in games, and you won't hit with them as accurately or effectively as portrayed in these games against many types of enemies.

If you have a problem with how a game handles something like weapon size, make a suitable house rule that is easy for you and your group to use. Get them to roll with it. Problem solved.


HumbleGamer wrote:


Instead, let's take a look at his first post.

LA_Viking wrote:

1. First off, the rule contradicts itself. When an effect calls on you to increase the damage, you use a larger die…but not if it’s a d12?!! That doesn’t make any sense. So big weapons can’t get bigger or do more damage, only little ones?

2. Fact: If someone hits you the same way with a medium sized weapon, and one that is large, the large one would do more damage, every time. Duh. So a large sword absolutely does more damage than a medium one. They acknowledge in their rules larger weapons do more damage (hence the various die sizes for different sized weapons). You can’t decide to throw out physics whenever you want to make your rules simpler.

3. The “Titan Mauler” trait/feat they created is solely designed to use a larger weapon. But if you take this die size rule at face value, your can’t get more damage for a larger greataxe or greatsword?!!! Doesn’t make any sense.

4. When my character is Enlarged (4th) to “huge” this weapon becomes gargantuan sized…and it still only does 1d12?!!! Nonsense.

5. Weapon Storm creates a storm of weapons - my weapon - which when enlarged to huge is a gargantuan sized greatsword. Imagine a storm of them, like torrential rain, that’s badass and should do waaay more damage than 4d12. It doesn’t say "weapon shower” or" weapon smattering," its WEAPON STORM, like a hurricane!

To me, and here I say it's my personal opinion, his is just a failed tentative to build up a munchkin build, which fortunately was somehow taken into account by developers during the developing of the system ( I mean how giant barbarian works ).

Munchkins is an condescending term - so you are not off to a good start. I'd normally go with optimiser or min/maxer. There are a lot of them around, especially with PF1 gamers. Its a spectrum. I play with several.

Yes the orginal poster could have been more diplomatic, especially towards the game developers. Ultimately he is complaining about a design decision made by them.

Quite frankly I agree with his complaint. For sure the designer need to change things. I just don't like it when the designers ignore the conventions of the genre and the history of the game. Even the pseudo logic of fantasy. I also don't agree that there weren't better solutions out there. This is a further unnatural abstraction that we don't need. A little bit of rebalancing the numbers would have been better. The problem was PF1 had size modifiers from +2 STR to +8 STR and it clearly was a balance problem. I just don't like sacrificing all the flavour of the game for balance. Flavour is more important.

It is the designers game. I'll probably resort to a house rule here.

101 to 150 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.