Die Size Rule Broken


Rules Discussion

1 to 50 of 161 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Wanted to share a conversation we just had in my game group regarding the broken die sizing rule.

I am halfway through my first campaign using Pathfinder 2e and am playing a Half-Orc Druid with Barbarian dedication. This gets me Titan Mauler, which allows me to use oversized weapons. We are at level 10.

The normal (medium) Greatsword damage is 1d12. With the Titan Mauler feat this weapon can be increased to size large. The feat says it grants extra damage when raging (instead of +2 to damage, it's +6). That's cool, but the weapon would also do extra damage when I am not raging, which exposes the broken aspect of the rule. The feat says the ability to wield oversized weapons applies in or out of rage, so where is the extra damage during normal use?

The 2e die sizing rule reads, "When an effect calls on you to increase the size of your weapon damage dice, instead of using its normal weapon damage dice, use the next larger die, as listed below (so if you were using a d4, you’d use a d6, and so on). If you are already using a d12, the size is already at its maximum. You can’t increase your weapon damage die size more than once.
1d4 ➞ 1d6 ➞ 1d8 ➞ 1d10 ➞ 1d12"

Their “rule” is conveniently simple, but inconsistent with basic physics which governs the world our game exists in.

Let’s tear this overly simplistic rule to shreds.

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!

The push toward "simplicity" has screwed up the accuracy of the mechanics of 2e. Unless my character can do SOMETHING that stacks, he's pretty useless. All the ACs of our enemies are so high it’s impossible to hit them. We have been unable to fight anything and win in the last half dozen sessions.

at level 10, first melee attack roll with bonuses against a 38AC is 50/50, and we’ve been up against foes with HIGHER AC. Even if I do hit, their one die damage rule is ridiculous once you're past 5th level. Who cares about 1d12+5? The enemies from our last battle would shred us with that.

And why would I burn a 5th level spell for Weapon Storm for 5d12? That’s only about 30 damage?!! In any fight, I would be dead before I could kill the enemy every single time when they’re doing 60-90 damage per round.

If this were a made up game, they could “make up” any rules they want. But this is a game based on actual physics with layers on top. You can’t simply throw out physics to make a rule simpler. That’s just lazy game producing.

Here is my suggestion (and how we are going too apply house rules to correct this error). Allow the weapon to increase damage dice incremental as it grows larger (like in 1e). So in regular melee at size huge the gargantuan striking greatsword would do 10d6 [3d6 for large, add striking rune to get 6d6, then stepped up from large to huge (4d6x2=8d6) and huge to gargantuan (5d6x2=10d6)] … but still need to hit. With Weapon Storm, it would do 5x the regular damage of a regular (not striking) gargantuan great sword or 5d6x5=25d6 with Reflex save for half. That is more in line with what I would expect to achieve at that size with that spell.

Thanks for reading!

Liberty's Edge

25 people marked this as a favorite.

You're confused fundamentally about this.

Weapon Size does NOT increase Weapon Damage Dice. The only benefit ANYONE can get from using any weapon that's larger are those that which themselves define the ability to use said weapons in the first place.

A Large Weapon, a Medium Weapon, and a Small Weapon all have the same Damage Dice stats, there isn't any linkage for PC rules and Character/equipment size.

Giant Instinct bonus is the additional damage they get to their Rage Bonus, the Weapon Die it uses is not altered or improved. The same thing applies to creatures that are Enlarged etc. You're bringing assumptions into the equation, likely because how INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT Actual and Effective Weapon Size Damage Dice were in 1st Edition but make no mistake, these rules all were left on the cutting room floor and for good reason.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Themetricsystem wrote:

You're confused fundamentally about this.

Weapon Size does NOT increase Weapon Damage Dice. The only benefit ANYONE can get from using any weapon that's larger are those that which themselves define the ability to use said weapons in the first place.

A Large Weapon, a Medium Weapon, and a Small Weapon all have the same Damage Dice stats, there isn't any linkage for PC rules and Character/equipment size.

Giant Instincts bonus is the additional damage they get to their Rage Bonus, the Weapon Die it uses is not altered or improved.

Yep, this: a Hill Giant* [large] uses a greatclub [large] that deals 1d10 base damage. This is the exact same base damage as a small and medium one**.

*Bestiary pg. 170
**Core Rulebook pg. 280

Larger creatures get a additional damage bonus instead of higher dice.

Sczarni

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Was going to use the iconic Ogre Hook as my example, but it looks like everyone already beat me to it.

curtnorthrup wrote:
at level 10, first melee attack roll with bonuses against a 38AC is 50/50, and we’ve been up against foes with HIGHER AC. Even if I do hit, their one die damage rule is ridiculous once you're past 5th level. Who cares about 1d12+5? The enemies from our last battle would shred us with that.

If you're level 10, you'll probably find a Greater Striking Rune in your loot soon. 3d12 is some really nice damage.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Echoing Themetricsystem- an ability that lets you use a wrong-sized weapon gives only the benefits that the ability specifies. There are no inherent bonuses to becoming large or wielding a large weapon.

Horizon Hunters

5 people marked this as a favorite.
curtnorthrup wrote:


If this were a made up game, they could “make up” any rules they want. But this is a game based on actual physics with layers on top. You can’t simply throw out physics to make a rule simpler. That’s just lazy game producing.

Thats a pretty wild statement. I think anytime we have Magic Raging Barbarian Druids we are pretty far into the realm of "made up". Almost everything about the setting is made up or fictional. This game has more rules to make game play more in depth but that's far from saying the game and the world of Golarion isn't fantasy and requiring some suspension of disbelief.

Also to address your issues with hitting I am wondering what kind of equipment/runes (striking runes should be available around level 4) and stat builds you are running? Combat strategies? Team synergy?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

There is no confusion. As I laid out over and over again, the rule doesn't work. A larger weapon does more damage and that's not being accommodated with adding damage bonuses. I see it in game play and it is grossly underpowered. I have been c reading and producing games for over two decades and I understand you can't make something complex simple just for convenience. No one needs to explain to me the rules. I understand them, but they aren't providing a balanced experience during combat.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Okay, so that was a whole lot, so let me see if I can walk you through the question that is the main chunk of your issue here.

Using larger weapons does not innately assume that you are going to do more damage with that weapon. For a variety of reasons, but the primary one is that weapons are designed with a certain size and weight in mind in order to maximize their efficiency.

Look at real life Greatswords compared to real life Longswords and you'll find that they aren't just bigger and smaller versions of each other. The Greatsword is shaped and weighted differently in order to make use of the added mass and reach and be usable by humans.

Paizo has not made a mistake in not letting larger weapons do more damage. This question has been asked before and it was stated that they kept the damage the same between oversized weapons and regular weapons because oversized weapons are unweildy and difficult to make work, but they compensate by having more mass in the swing. So it balances out to the same.

I disagree with this statement. As someone who does practice cutting with swords, oversized weapons should do LESS damage, because it is so difficult to get momentum in the swing of bludgeoning weapons or the edge alignment correct on slashing weapons, and those elements are were most of the damage in weapons come from. However that would feel weird and bad and so I accept the decision made.

The point of the Giant Instinct Barbarian is not that they are so proficient with oversized weapons that they don't have to deal with these shortcomings, but that through training they can use these weapons well enough while they aren't raging to not be gimped by them. Then when they DO rage, the weapons are now properly sized for them and their own mass can overcome the inertia of the oversized weapons and do a s$%+-ton more damage.

Enlarge works the same way, by the way. It gives you a status bonus to damage because you, yourself are larger, and thus can handle the weapon size increase.

Smaller weapons ALSO don't do extra damage when they get bigger. A Large dagger doesn't become a Smallsword and suddenly do 1d6 damage. If you become large via either Giant Instinct or Enlarge, then you'll do more damage, but that is accounted for with the Enlarge's +2 damage or the Giant Instinct's increased Raging damage. Not with an increase in die size. Titan Mauler does not increase the damage of the weapon that you use. It just lets you use an oversized weapon and be able to lift and swing it at all.

As for your problems with dealing with enemies, without more ideas as to what exactly you're doing and going up against, I can't give you any real help with that. As a Level 10 Giant Instinct Barbarian, your To hit bonus should be +14 from Proficienty, +2 from Potency runes, +5 from Str, which is +21. If you're going up against an enemy with AC 29-30, which is average for a level 10 creature, then you'll hit 55-60% of the time.

Then you flank your enemies, inflict status effects on them like fear or whatever else your Spellcaster or Rogue can throw at them, and boom, you're hitting 80% of the time on your first hit.

And as for Weapon Storm, I agree that it feels a little under-tuned. For a level 4 spell to do the same amount of damage as Lightning Bolt (a level 3 spell) with a small emanation or cone is kinda sad.

But your version doing 25d6 damage is absolutely nuts! That is more damage than level 9 spells! More damage than freaking Meteor Swarm!?

Yes, Weapon Storm only does an average of 26 damage at level 4, and about 32.5 if you upcast it to level 5, assuming the use of a d12 weapon. That's not a lot on a single enemy, but one assumes you're using it when you have the potential to hit 3 enemies with one go, or at least 2. AND as a save, it does half damage on a successful save which still might make it better at level 10 than swinging your sword a few times with the multi-attack penalty. There are better attacking spells out there, but it isn't bad as is.

I have no idea what monsters at level 10 you're going up against that are doing 90 damage per round, except maybe a Young Red Dragon on it's breath weapon turn that manages to get a couple of people in a line. But Dragons hit outside of their class range anywho. Even then, that's totally workable. Difficult, sure, but workable. And even then that should be a miniboss fight. Most fights should be against enemies a couple levels beneath you.


Themetricsystem wrote:

You're confused fundamentally about this.

Weapon Size does NOT increase Weapon Damage Dice. The only benefit ANYONE can get from using any weapon that's larger are those that which themselves define the ability to use said weapons in the first place.

A Large Weapon, a Medium Weapon, and a Small Weapon all have the same Damage Dice stats, there isn't any linkage for PC rules and Character/equipment size.

Giant Instinct bonus is the additional damage they get to their Rage Bonus, the Weapon Die it uses is not altered or improved. The same thing applies to creatures that are Enlarged etc. You're bringing assumptions into the equation, likely because how INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT Actual and Effective Weapon Size Damage Dice were in 1st Edition but make no mistake, these rules all were left on the cutting room floor and for good reason.

I noticed you replied almost immediately, but you did not actually respond to the spirit of what I posted, which is the rule is not working properly. The die size rule is not accommodating the increase in size of the weapon and the damage bonuses are not providing enough to create a balanced effect during melee. Any character above level 5 using melee weapons are grossly underpowered with a single die of damage even with max bonuses. Thank goodness druids can cast because the spells are better balanced than melee. If you want to compensate with damage bonuses, then they need increasing. There has to be a way to manage and balance damage better.

Liberty's Edge

5 people marked this as a favorite.
curtnorthrup wrote:
There is no confusion. As I laid out over and over again, the rule doesn't work. A larger weapon does more damage and that's not being accommodated with adding damage bonuses. I see it in game play and it is grossly underpowered. I have been c reading and producing games for over two decades and I understand you can't make something complex simple just for convenience. No one needs to explain to me the rules. I understand them, but they aren't providing a balanced experience during combat.

If you're finding you arent near the 50% mark with at level challenges then I think you're probably missing something in you to-hit calculations such as including the Prof Training bonus or maybe even Character level.

I fundamentally disagree and quite honestly I spit in the grave of Creature/Weapon Size affecting its damage, good riddance, it only ever was one of the "mandatory" considerations that Martial Characters took in 1st Edition and 3.X.

The benefits you gain from abilities that let you use non-standard size weapons are more than enough, the Giant Instinct Barbarian has the best form of Rage as it stands already. Scaling or changing a Weapon Damage Die has SIGNIFICANTLY more impact on the damage a PC can or will do over the length of its adventures due to how Striking Runes work.

Regarding Level 5 Creatures - Any Martial Character should have their favored item being a +1 Striking Weapon at this point since Weapon Potency +1 is obtainable easily at Level 2 and Striking is accessible at Level 4.

So, at level 5 a Titan Mauler Barbarian should be dealing about 2d12 + Str (4) + Rage (6) for an average of 24 damage per strike.


Vali Nepjarson wrote:

Okay, so that was a whole lot, so let me see if I can walk you through the question that is the main chunk of your issue here.

Using larger weapons does not innately assume that you are going to do more damage with that weapon. For a variety of reasons, but the primary one is that weapons are designed with a certain size and weight in mind in order to maximize their efficiency.

Look at real life Greatswords compared to real life Longswords and you'll find that they aren't just bigger and smaller versions of each other. The Greatsword is shaped and weighted differently in order to make use of the added mass and reach and be usable by humans.

Paizo has not made a mistake in not letting larger weapons do more damage. This question has been asked before and it was stated that they kept the damage the same between oversized weapons and regular weapons because oversized weapons are unweildy and difficult to make work, but they compensate by having more mass in the swing. So it balances out to the same.

I disagree with this statement. As someone who does practice cutting with swords, oversized weapons should do LESS damage, because it is so difficult to get momentum in the swing of bludgeoning weapons or the edge alignment correct on slashing weapons, and those elements are were most of the damage in weapons come from. However that would feel weird and bad and so I accept the decision made.

The point of the Giant Instinct Barbarian is not that they are so proficient with oversized weapons that they don't have to deal with these shortcomings, but that through training they can use these weapons well enough while they aren't raging to not be gimped by them. Then when they DO rage, the weapons are now properly sized for them and their own mass can overcome the inertia of the oversized weapons and do a s%$$-ton more damage.

Enlarge works the same way, by the way. It gives you a status bonus to damage because you, yourself are larger, and thus can handle the weapon size increase.

Smaller weapons ALSO...

Thanks Vali, but I have to disagree with you about damage proportional to size argument. An enlarged dagger does actually become a short sword eventually, and as an experienced martial artist, I can do waaaay more damage with a larger sword. Yes, there is a momentum issue, but if you swing a 3lb sword and a 5lb sword with the same force, the 5lb sword will have more inertia and cut deeper...every time. And only getting +2 to damage for enlarging is way underpowered if that's all you get. Don't forget you have to take clumsy 1 and your AC goes down when you get big, so unless the weapon gets bigger and there is a way to stack that, it's not worth blowing the spell as the benefits are minimal.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
curtnorthrup wrote:
Themetricsystem wrote:

You're confused fundamentally about this.

Weapon Size does NOT increase Weapon Damage Dice. The only benefit ANYONE can get from using any weapon that's larger are those that which themselves define the ability to use said weapons in the first place.

A Large Weapon, a Medium Weapon, and a Small Weapon all have the same Damage Dice stats, there isn't any linkage for PC rules and Character/equipment size.

Giant Instinct bonus is the additional damage they get to their Rage Bonus, the Weapon Die it uses is not altered or improved. The same thing applies to creatures that are Enlarged etc. You're bringing assumptions into the equation, likely because how INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT Actual and Effective Weapon Size Damage Dice were in 1st Edition but make no mistake, these rules all were left on the cutting room floor and for good reason.

I noticed you replied almost immediately, but you did not actually respond to the spirit of what I posted, which is the rule is not working properly. The die size rule is not accommodating the increase in size of the weapon and the damage bonuses are not providing enough to create a balanced effect during melee. Any character above level 5 using melee weapons are grossly underpowered with a single die of damage even with max bonuses. Thank goodness druids can cast because the spells are better balanced than melee. If you want to compensate with damage bonuses, then they need increasing. There has to be a way to manage and balance damage better.

Maybe it would help to lay out your mathematical assumptions. You say that damage bonuses are not creating "a balanced effect during melee". What percentage of an even level enemy's health do you consider to be a balanced amount of damage? Additionally, what percentage increase in damage output over a melee character usin a normal sized weapon do you think a giant instinct barbarian should have, in order to be considered balanced to the drawback if their clumsy condition?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

You still haven't explained why you're only doing one die of damage. At level 10 you should definitely have greater striking runes, and some property runes.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Themetricsystem wrote:

ROFL - Ok I'm done here. Apparently this guy is a game designer, author, physicist and also a martial artist trained with deadly weapons... good luck here folks, it's not worth my time trying.

You give up too easy metric system! And you can try and marginalize me if you like, but I am actually a published author, game creator, studied physics in college and have taken many years of martial arts. Google me if you want. But I didn't realize this was a resume competition. I am simply stating that either the die system needs adjustment or the bonus system does. At higher levels, there aren't enough options to increase damage to melee weapons. Somewhere between 5 and 10 there is a plateau-ing effect and the bad guys are doing way more damage than we are.


Aratorin wrote:
You still haven't explained why you're only doing one die of damage. At level 10 you should definitely have greater striking runes, and some property runes.

The campaign is in a remote area and have only found one striking rune weapon so far. Only in the last session we are amongst creatures who could transfer the rune to my primary weapon. Obviously this is our first 2e campaign and we aren't doing crafting, so perhaps our DM needs to add more magical melee items? As we discover the feats and abilities aren't delivering are we meant to compensate with magical bonuses?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
curtnorthrup wrote:
Aratorin wrote:
You still haven't explained why you're only doing one die of damage. At level 10 you should definitely have greater striking runes, and some property runes.
The campaign is in a remote area and have only found one striking rune weapon so far. Only in the last session we are amongst creatures who could transfer the rune to my primary weapon. Obviously this is our first 2e campaign and we aren't doing crafting, so perhaps our DM needs to add more magical melee items? As we discover the feats and abilities aren't delivering are we meant to compensate with magical bonuses?

Yes, striking runes are pretty much assumed. All of the APs give them plentifully at the appropriate levels.

My level 5 Ranger has 2 +1 Striking Weapons, and a +1 Striking Shifting Cold Iron weapon.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.

The game was designed to make magical weapons matter significantly. This was one of the things which Paizo's developers specifically requested feedback on during the playtest, and a majority wanted them to matter.

So yes, not having greater striking on your weapon is making you far, far weaker than expected at that level. As a bit of perspective, according to the Gamemastery Guide monster creations, a level 8 creature can have a +1 striking weapon without issue.

Gamemastery Guide wrote:

A creature can have a single permanent item of the listed level without issue. For example, if a 6th-level creature has a +1 weapon, that item’s not worth so much that the PCs would be massively rich if they encountered many creatures of that type and sold

everything they found.

Even if you use the Automatic Bonus Progression from the same book, you should have 2 dice from your weapons at level 4, the same level as the striking weapon rune. If you're 10th level, by the guidelines in the core rules you should be getting level 10-11 permanent items, which easily can get you (level 10) +2 striking weapons.


8 people marked this as a favorite.
Cydeth wrote:
As a bit of perspective, according to the Gamemastery Guide monster creations, a level 8 creature can have a +1 striking weapon without issue.

Not only can they, but if you look at the Bestiary, virtually all of them do.

Basically, the only way you can get to 10th level without obtaining one from a slain foe is if your DM actively doesn't want you to have them.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Aratorin wrote:

Not only can they, but if you look at the Bestiary, virtually all of them do.

Basically, the only way you can get to 10th level without obtaining one from a slain foe is if your DM actively doesn't want you to have them.

I would quibble about that, slightly... if you don't run into any humanoids, it can happen. I've played in a few games like that, but in them the GM also gave us the chance to stock up on the necessary equipment.

It should be a pretty rare thing, though.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cydeth wrote:
Aratorin wrote:

Not only can they, but if you look at the Bestiary, virtually all of them do.

Basically, the only way you can get to 10th level without obtaining one from a slain foe is if your DM actively doesn't want you to have them.

I would quibble about that, slightly... if you don't run into any humanoids, it can happen. I've played in a few games like that, but in them the GM also gave us the chance to stock up on the necessary equipment.

It should be a pretty rare thing, though.

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.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Aratorin wrote:
Cydeth wrote:
As a bit of perspective, according to the Gamemastery Guide monster creations, a level 8 creature can have a +1 striking weapon without issue.

Not only can they, but if you look at the Bestiary, virtually all of them do.

Basically, the only way you can get to 10th level without obtaining one from a slain foe is if your DM actively doesn't want you to have them.

If you don't want to worry about buying magic gear, the Automatic Bonus Progression variant in the GMG pretty much has you covered. At 10th level you should have Attack Potency +2 and a two-die attack from ABP.

But honestly, if we're not using ABP and we're not going to use magic items why should "use a really big weapon" be elevated to the one way to deal appropriate damage? Since that sort of thing fundamentally isn't available to finesse martials, archers, monks of all kinds, etc. "Big weapons do more damage" privileges certain builds at the expense of all other concepts, which is a bad thing from a design perspective.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
curtnorthrup wrote:
...

I've done martial arts for most of my life too, and I understand what you are saying. You're not wrong in theory, but in practice, that you can only generate that sort of force in a swing if you are able to have proper control of the weapon in question. If you aren't able to overcome the inertia of the object in order to swing at maximum efficiency, then you won't be able to do a lot of damage.

Yes, a Longsword will ALWAYS be capable of doing more damage than a dagger. But a dagger that is just fattened up to longsword size won't do the same. It'll be fatter, MUCH more tip heavy to the point where you're basically trying to swing a 2x4, and your swings will be slow and lethargic. And it will be very difficult to get the edge aligned with your cut.

As for the rest, at level 10 as a Giant Instinct Barbarian, you should be expected to have a +2 Potency rune, a striking rune (close to a Greater Striking rune) and at least 1 property rune (I'll use flaming as an example just to make the point).

While raging, and assuming a Greatsword, your damage should be 2d12 + 5 for Strength + 2 from Weapon Specialization + 6 from Giant Instinct Rage + 1d6 from the Flaming Rune, for a total average of 29.5

Now if you're playing in a campaign with restricted resources, that is totally fair that you don't have these things. You should still of course make the effort to get as much as you can, but that is going to be an innately more difficult game. At that point a level 10 creature like a Young Red Dragon is going to be a Boss enemy that you should prepare for and bring everything you've got for, since you're going to be underpowered. Or you're playing in super-hard mode which can be fun to if that's what you're going for.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I was suspecting that lack of level appropriate loot was the issue, glad to see that confirmed by the OP.

If the GM is going for a low-loot campaign, that's fine, but the GM then needs to compensate by reducing the power of the enemies.

I can totally agree with the OP that it can be frustrating when you're behind the power curve and you're getting your butts handed to you all the time. That is certainly frustrating, and I understand why the players are talking about it and complaining.

This seems to be the sort of thing that requires a conversation with the GM. I advise you to suggest your GM take a look at Core Rulebook page 509. There is a chart which shows what level items to be giving the party at each level. Pages 536-542 which shows treasure by level.

So, check out the level 4 permanent item list, you'll see "+1 Striking Weapon." Then go back to page 509 and you'll see that by level 3, those items should start to become available to the party. Your barbarian ought to get a +1 to attack and a second damage die by 3rd or 4th level, give or take.

A +2 striking weapon is a 10th level item, it ought to be available by level 9 or so.

These benchmarks are important. The monsters in the bestiary hit the benchmarks, and if the party doesn't... well, what you're experiencing happens.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

The treasure chapter of the CRB lays out equipment expectations pretty clearly, IMO.


10 people marked this as a favorite.
curtnorthrup wrote:
And you can try and marginalize me if you like, but I am actually a published author, game creator, studied physics in college and have taken many years of martial arts. Google me if you want.

According to Google, you've produced Kitchen Nightmares and are LA's premier real estate agent.

(This is weird. Don't do this. This is so weird.)


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Ruzza wrote:
curtnorthrup wrote:
And you can try and marginalize me if you like, but I am actually a published author, game creator, studied physics in college and have taken many years of martial arts. Google me if you want.

According to Google, you've produced Kitchen Nightmares and are LA's premier real estate agent.

(This is weird. Don't do this. This is so weird.)

I found a poker player and a HTH Operator...

Horizon Hunters

6 people marked this as a favorite.

Strangest viral marketing campaign ever...


4 people marked this as a favorite.
curtnorthrup wrote:
There is no confusion. As I laid out over and over again, the rule doesn't work. A larger weapon does more damage and that's not being accommodated with adding damage bonuses. I see it in game play and it is grossly underpowered. I have been c reading and producing games for over two decades and I understand you can't make something complex simple just for convenience. No one needs to explain to me the rules. I understand them, but they aren't providing a balanced experience during combat.

Just because you don't like and doesn't mesh with your expected amount of simulation in the game doesn't mean the rules don't work.

In fact they work just fine, and do provide for a balanced combat experience in comparison to other martial classes.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.

If even with giant instinct barbarian you were struggling to do enough damage, imagine how bad it must be for the other undergeared classes...


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't understand how a large dagger doing 1d6 damage for increased size is enough, while 1d4+2 is not.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
curtnorthrup wrote:
There is no confusion. (...) No one needs to explain to me the rules. (...)
curtnorthrup wrote:
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.

...fundamental magic weapon runes and them being expected at certain higher levels is part of the rules.

I would say if you are new to a game system, some rules explanation can always help.


18 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

As a piece of general advice for communication, if you're still learning a rule set, maybe don't come in claiming you 100% see a problem in the rules and don't need anything explained to you. (And for the record, the system has been out less than a year, we are all still learning it.) Ask questions to see if your understanding is correct before you type up a huge manifesto on why the rules are bad.

Exo-Guardians

9 people marked this as a favorite.
Captain Morgan wrote:
Ask questions to see if your understanding is correct before you type up a huge manifesto on why the rules are bad.

If people followed this advice it would cut the number of posts here in half at least, and eliminate a ton of pointless, circular arguments.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Captain Morgan wrote:
As a piece of general advice for communication, if you're still learning a rule set, maybe don't come in claiming you 100% see a problem in the rules and don't need anything explained to you. (And for the record, the system has been out less than a year, we are all still learning it.) Ask questions to see if your understanding is correct before you type up a huge manifesto on why the rules are bad.

I understand how it may be frustrating to have repetitive threads and confused players, but this is a brand new game and and this is a gamemaker forum to discuss our experiences with it, so can't see that changing. And I still am not 100% down with this system yet.

It is by no means intuitive to balance inequities in ability to hit and damage with magical enhancements. Logic is more likely to dictate you would gain these abilities through training, experience and increased strength, which is usually granted through feats, skill paths and built in bonuses as you level up.

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. And now that I am reviewing those elements and their impact on the game it feels more like a work around than a logical choice. Sure, it works, but one of the issues our group is having with this version is that there are so many baked in automatic bonuses that all the characters seem good at a wide range of things versus being great at a shorter range of skills. Glass cannon specializations have always made the various versions of the game interesting (especially because of the weaknesses that go along with those specializations) and we are finding when everybody is "good," no one is truly great in any given category. It's very evident at lower levels, and somewhat mitigated as we are leveling up as well as class dependent. But if everyone gets magic runes/weapons, then they aren't quite as special and unique.

Debating our experiences with a game can only make the game better and either inspire necessary fixes or solidify existing rules. This system of single damage die with mandatory magical enhancement works okay, but it does feel a little forced. I am also not convinced this formula provides enough individual creativity within game play. I would rather see a system that allowed individual player and character choices to achieve similar results that could be more unique to each player. My group would rather have the choice to choose enhancements, but at a cost to some other skill or ability.

Considering we are only half way through our leveling, we continue to experience the new rules and options as we level up and may feel differently later on. There are some good parts to the new system and some that are not so good. It certainly has not completed it's evolution yet.


12 people marked this as a favorite.
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.


12 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
LA_Viking wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:
As a piece of general advice for communication, if you're still learning a rule set, maybe don't come in claiming you 100% see a problem in the rules and don't need anything explained to you. (And for the record, the system has been out less than a year, we are all still learning it.) Ask questions to see if your understanding is correct before you type up a huge manifesto on why the rules are bad.

I understand how it may be frustrating to have repetitive threads and confused players, but this is a brand new game and and this is a gamemaker forum to discuss our experiences with it, so can't see that changing. And I still am not 100% down with this system yet.

It is by no means intuitive to balance inequities in ability to hit and damage with magical enhancements. Logic is more likely to dictate you would gain these abilities through training, experience and increased strength, which is usually granted through feats, skill paths and built in bonuses as you level up.

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. And now that I am reviewing those elements and their impact on the game it feels more like a work around than a logical choice. Sure, it works, but one of the issues our group is having with this version is that there are so many baked in automatic bonuses that all the characters seem good at a wide range of things versus being great at a shorter range of skills. Glass cannon specializations have always made the various versions of the game interesting (especially because of the weaknesses that go along with those specializations) and we are finding when everybody is "good," no one is truly great in any given category. It's very evident at lower levels, and somewhat mitigated as we are leveling up as well as class dependent. But if everyone gets magic...

I'm not saying don't come and debate the merits of a system. But if you're coming you better come correct. When you come in with a big attitude and also come in wrong it is hard to recover from and have people take you seriously.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
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.

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
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'm wondering how his entire group got to level 10 without anyone looking at the Magic Weapon (Core Rulebook pg. 599) entry and noticing the fairly low levels they have: Magic weapons are a 40+ year tradition in this game series and their apparent absence really should have been noticed...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

My AC is high which means it's low. Wut? That game!


LA_Viking wrote:


Their “rule” is conveniently simple, but inconsistent with basic physics which governs the world our game exists in.

Totally agree with your sentiment.

Paizo have done this as a design choice. I hate it. It breaks with tradition. Its not the way most players see the game. I've had lots and lots of complaints about it from the playing groups I've been involved with.

What they did with glossing over difference between small and medium weapon was probably an Ok thing to do just as a simplification argument. But the rest of it is just unnatural and constantly causes confusion even for new players.

They could have fixed it up without these issues. Their own statements and rules have gaps in them. But I'm going over old ground. Search back in the forums for Titans Statue or Giant Instinct and you will find much more on this.

Just to let you know that lots of people agree with you. This is an issue that regularly comes up and gets shouted down.

Giant Instinct is sort of balanced in the extra damage that is provided in the Rage bonus, rather than the size increase. But yes it is not enough for the penalties involved - I would not recommend it at all.


10 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I wouldn't say 'regularly'. I've seen like two or three people that are convinced it's a really significant problem, but most everyone else just shrugs and moves on.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Yeah almost everyone I've talked to about it feels the justification line of, it's not properly balanced for you and the extra size means you cant leverage it appropriately as bring totally fine and reasonable. A zweihander is not a dagger made really big, and a dagger made that big would be a very ineffective weapon.

Silver Crusade

9 people marked this as a favorite.

What we have here is a venn diagram in the barest sense of the term, in that we have two circles on opposite sides of the picture.

One is “the rule is broken” and the other is “I don’t like the rule”. This is 100% in the latter.

The rule isn’t broken, it does as it’s intended in the system that it was made for.


LA_Viking wrote:


It is by no means intuitive to balance inequities in ability to hit and damage with magical enhancements. Logic is more likely to dictate you would gain these abilities through training, experience and increased strength, which is usually granted through feats, skill paths and built in bonuses as you level up.

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

It is there. Its a huge book with lots of content

You often have to read 2 or 3 different rules sections to pull it together.
But you shouldn't playing pathfinder if simplicity is your priority.

It is mostly quite straight forward. But one of the problem is the tight bands of to hit numbers. Each plus 1 to hit is twice as important as it used to be. So if you miss out on magic weapons it's a big problem. Likewise striking rune is plus a whole weapon dice. Its a big scale up when you get your first one of those.

Its not really intuitive but it is like the scaling treasure/gold in the old system. It's just much more important that you get access to certain treasure at certain levels. Once you understand it its not hard. The question is can you look past it and enjoy the game?

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
LA_Viking wrote:


I noticed you replied almost immediately, but you did not actually respond to the spirit of what I posted, which is the rule is not working properly. The die size rule is not accommodating the increase in size of the weapon and the damage bonuses are not providing enough to create a balanced effect during melee. Any character above level 5 using melee weapons are grossly underpowered with a single die of damage even with max bonuses. Thank goodness druids can cast because the spells are better balanced than melee. If you want to compensate with damage bonuses, then they need increasing. There has to be a way to manage and balance damage better.

Agree that the die size does not make "real world" sense but it does not have to. The decision on the how die size works was made (i think) to make play easier and faster. 1e got so complicated on damage and attacks that it really bogged down play at mid and higher levels.

GMs are free to change up whatever they want withing the 2e framework. They can make their world more "real world" by implementing increases for larger sized weapons.

So to that end, I don't believe it is broken. I believe it is the system that is being used and it is balanced. Combat does not bog down as much as it did before.


10 people marked this as a favorite.

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".

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.

Liberty's Edge

7 people marked this as a favorite.

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.


Cydeth wrote:
Aratorin wrote:

Not only can they, but if you look at the Bestiary, virtually all of them do.

Basically, the only way you can get to 10th level without obtaining one from a slain foe is if your DM actively doesn't want you to have them.

I would quibble about that, slightly... if you don't run into any humanoids, it can happen. I've played in a few games like that, but in them the GM also gave us the chance to stock up on the necessary equipment.

It should be a pretty rare thing, though.

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.

1 to 50 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.