I am not able to find any rules for using large weapons
So yeah how does for example a long sword with 1d8 damage scales?
or a greatsword with 1d12 damage?
and if someone can reference where to find it in the book and on Archives of Nethys I would be very thankful
(I am looking this up for the Giant Instinct Barbarian if that matters)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Damage doesn't increase for large weapons.
Giant Instinct Barbarian tells you everything you need to run it.
So any Greatsword does the same damage, and the whole thing about large weapons is just flavor text?
https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=256
So any Greatsword does the same damage, and the whole thing about large weapons is just flavor text?
It gives you clumsy 1.
And giant barb gives you + damage.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So any Greatsword does the same damage, and the whole thing about large weapons is just flavor text?
The giant instinct barbarian does more damage while raging when using a large weapon.
I am not caring for Giant Instinct right now. That was just the reason I ask this question, so I want the answer to:
Are there large weapons in pf2, which deal more damage because they are large, or did they remove that rule and a weapon of any size does the same damage?
Are there large weapons in pf2, which deal more damage because they are large
No. You can look at large+ monsters that use weapons and see that they use the same dice for weapon damage: the difference is that they get a larger bonus damage not a larger die.
Are there large weapons in pf2, which deal more damage because they are large, or did they remove that rule and a weapon of any size does the same damage?
Those rules weren't removed, because this is a new edition and they never existed.
But you're correct in your observation that weapon damage dice are no longer tied to weapon size.
Because of how striking runes function it would be a problem if they did.
The rules are built with player characters in mind, which mostly don't have a way to be larger than medium and the options that do increase your size explicitly explain how they impact your damage.
Monsters deal more damage if they're larger sizes by adding to their static damage and not weapon damage dice. Monster rules are divorced form PC rules and don't attempt to match.
It is supposed to be a trade off. A permanent loss of Dex vs an occasional increase in damage.So any Greatsword does the same damage, and the whole thing about large weapons is just flavor text?It gives you clumsy 1.
And giant barb gives you + damage.
The damage increase is just as permanent as the clumsy penalty. You only take the penalty if you are wielding the large weapon. (Well, technically you could wield the large weapon while not raging to not gain the damage, but you'll never actually do that since there is no round limit on rage anymore.)
Giant Instinct do the most damage of any character in the game without increasing damage dice or whatever. They do take some drawbacks for that, but lack of damage is not one of them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
but you'll never actually do that since there is no round limit on rage anymore.
Just to quibble a bit, there is a 10 round limit on any single rage (with 10 rounds of cooldown in between uses).
Probably not an issue in most combats, but in longer/staggered/back to back fights a barbarian could get stuck.
You might also be attacking before starting to rage if you were strapped for actions when the fight started. There are plenty of cases where you might make an attack with no rage damage, but it's still a safe assumption that a barbarian will be raging when they strike a very large portion of the time.
And if you aren't raging you should really just switch to a non-giant back up weapon.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And if you aren't raging you should really just switch to a non-giant back up weapon.That can cost more actions and/or more encumbrance than a player is willing to spend just for the sake of situationally avoiding the clumsy inflicted by their go-to weapon.
Yeah, since it was changed from the original playtest version which negatively impacted your attack roll I find myself more likely to just take the penalty for 1 round or whatever than waste time with another weapon.
And if you aren't raging you should really just switch to a non-giant back up weapon.That can cost more actions and/or more encumbrance than a player is willing to spend just for the sake of situationally avoiding the clumsy inflicted by their go-to weapon.
Barbarians tend to have plenty of Str and do not wear heavy armors so bulk isn't much of an issue: I find it hard to believe a L or bulk can't be found in the average character.
Now spending a single action to gain +1 AC, Reflex saves, ranged attack rolls, and Dex skill checks doesn't sound like a bad thing, so IMO it'd boil down to unable/unwilling because you're continually using every action [which seems unlikely to me].
Now a character might feel the cost/benefit isn't worth it, but it's like a super-sized Parry trait without the continued action cost of an action every round that stacks with circumstance bonus to the same things.
For me, the best argument against would be the cost to keep a a viable second weapon once you start leveling up. That and how long they could expect combat to last vs how long it is to get rage back up.
Honestly sounds like you're kind of making a compelling argument to just not be a giant barb.
Barbarians tend to have plenty of Str and do not wear heavy armors so bulk isn't much of an issueWhen you've got a main-weapon that takes up your whole strength modifier worth of bulk at character creation, which is typical of the giant instinct barbarian types we were talking about, and 2 bulk for your armor, you actually have less bulk left over to play with than most characters
4 for a weapon and 2 for armor out of 11 bulk [assuming a backpack]. so 5 bulk and 8 L to work with. I'm REALLY, REALLY not seeing how they don't have room for another weapon.
less bulk left over to play with than most characters
I've seen PLENTY of people with less spare room after weapons and armor: the barbarian isn't even touching their non-str base bulk allowance. A wizard that starts with an 8-10 str has less or as much allowed and they have no weapon or armor.
4 for a weapon and 2 for armor out of 11 bulk [assuming a backpack]. so 5 bulk and 8 L to work with. I'm REALLY, REALLY not seeing how they don't have room for another weapon.If you put your weapon in your backpack you've got to spend extra actions on taking the backpack off to move stuff around - so it's 6 of 9 bulk.
Dropping your weapon is a free action: you're swapping weapons because you aren't going to be using what you have. Most times it doesn't matter if it's on the ground until the fight is over. On bulk, it stays the same no matter if you're holding it or carrying it so I'm not sure what you're on about there.
PS: if you mean the bulk of the weapon isn't dropped, that's it 100% meaningless if you're carrying 2+ bulk of other items like extra consumables, extra ammo, food, water, adventuring gear, ect.
Then let's say we want to have a ranged weapon, and be sure we've got space to fill bandolier/belt pouch space with consumables we might like to use in combat
Sure, lets.
Shortbow + 100 arrows or 20 javelin= 2 bulk
20 alchemical elixirs/bombs= 2 bulk
1 bulk and 8 L left, SO...
Bastard Sword=1 bulk
8 L left for generic adventuring stuff: need more room, cut down an javelins/arrows for more L or take less consumables. [and 2 Bulk of items in backpack for reduction]
So it's definitely doable, but also not an easy choice to commit to carrying another weapon rather than leave space to handle whatever treasure you might come across.
Not really: sacks are a thing. Fits 8 bulk of stuff meaning you can take 5 more stuff with you: free action to drop so people with free hands normally can do this without issue. Also mounts/pack animals/ ect can carry stuff too.
You seem to be missing that I was saying a character only has so much bulk available to keep things at only 1 action to draw, since anything they put in their back pack (thus picking up the extra 2 bulk effective capacity) requires an action to take the pack off, then get the item out.
I didn't miss it, it, IMO, does not matter!: you put 2 bulk of equipment in the backpack you don't need RIGHT NOW. If you insist on wearing EVERY SINGLE item instead of putting it in a backpack, then I think you're intentionally overburdening yourself for NO GOOD REASON.
Note none of that required me to not understand your point: I just didn't agree with the point.
And while "I'll just leave a weapon on the ground for a bit" is often a reasonable choice, "I'll just leave this entire bag full of stuff on the ground a bit" is a larger risk being taken so it isn't as reasonable a choice
Is it though? You where talking about keeping lots of room for loot: it's about EXTRA stuff you found. You put the most valuable items in the backpack and you pick the sack back up when you go to loot the new foes. It isn't a replacement for your normal backpack but an extra space to accommodate your overflow. This is a response to you saying: "leave space to handle whatever treasure you might come across"
...and again you're talking about something that would take a typical barbarian an extra action to make function, since instead of exploring with their 2-handed weapon in hand ready to use (or their shield and weapon, or both their weapons) they are dropping a sack and spending an action to get their weapon ready for use.
This time it's MY turn to say "You seem to be missing that I was saying". The sack works wonderfully for those that DO NOT keep both hands full. Archers, one handed rogues, those with quickdraw, casters using material components, ect. THEY can easily carry it instead of the barbarian. Who cares who is carrying? The giant barbarian clearly isn't any more capable of keeping extra bulk so why saddle him with it? Let the people that DO NOT spend an extra action carry the extra loot.
Now if nobody in the entire party keeps a free hand in combat, then sure that's a point but I can't recall the last time I've seen that.
And say you find some treasure, let's call it a giant's weapon with some runes on it... now you have to toss some of your gear just to bring it along. Which maybe works out easy for a player, but maybe doesn't - and that's why I was saying not all players are going to feel like they've got enough room in their GI barbarian carrying capacity to bring a non-giant backup melee weapon.
Why would you have to toss ANYTHING. You do know you can carry more than your normal bulk right? Up to 10 plus their Strength modifier plus 2 for the backpack. Even the 8 strength wizard can carry the giant sword in a sack as long as they where under their normal bulk totals to start with.
If you're expecting to have enough bulk to pick up every bit of loot only with everyone's normal bulk limits, I don't know what games you've been playing. You just need a few normal sized weapons to get you over any padding you leave so even if everybody leaves extra space, it quickly gets filled up when you start adding items measured in full bulk. It's cool to have a bit of space set aside, but an 18 str giant barbarian can easily keep a bulk or 2 open while still having a backup weapon doing a 1d12 and more if it's a L weapon.
EDIT: and of course items like a bag of holding make it a moot point too...
I thought we were talking about whether not a giant instinct barbarian player would feel like it was worth encumbrance or extra actions to use a non-large back up weapon to prevent being clumsy while not raging - not all these other character types and situations you are talking about.
We are... And part of that is how viable it is for others to carry bulk vs them when they have a harder time dropping items: ie, worth encumbrance. you brought up room for extras found and that is a party issue, not a giant barbarian situation. If the party can carry items and one character would have to use an action in combat to drop it and other wouldn't it seems like an important factor in an analysis of is it "worth encumbrance".
Yes, I know the rules, don't be a jerk.
It was a serious question: your responses made me wonder if you did.
"I could get into melee, or I could switched to a ranged weapon... eh, I don't want to use an action just to draw the ranged weapon and do less damage. I'll Stride into melee and Strike twice."
There is more to that in it: does one way have a better hit? Does it mean I'll be more likely to take damage? Will I be in a good or bad position? More damage is nice but, IMO, is just one factor.
And how a player might want to not have to spend actions at the start of combat un-encumbering their character
Sure, but WHY are they the ones carrying it when there is likely someone that doesn't have to spend an action?
risk some enemy that happens to have a goal other than "kill PCs or die trying" grabbing their bag of loot/gear they dropped to not be encumbered and running off with it
That is a GREAT affect, better than some incapacitation spells: you get to waste enemy actions FOR A FREE ACTION!!! Sounds like a win to me. :P
the mere fact that their loot/gear is unattended meaning it gets targeted by some effect that it wouldn't have if they were carrying it
How? You have to TARGET it and a closed sack doesn't allow LOS/LOE.
how a player might not want to stick any combat-relevant item in their back pack unless they absolutely have to in order to carry it.
And why can't they? The 18 str gaint barbarian can wear 2+ bulk of after a large weapon, 2 bulk armor and a spare ranged and melee weapon so IMO it's not a valid concern [unless you feel the need to have 20+ items in immediate reach.
I've actually had a couple of my players deliberately move their waterskin from their backpack into a belt
A SINGLE L on a belt... A non-issue.
"it's in my backpack" as being "basically takes an extra turn to actually use" and are making sure to avoid that wherever possible.
You only NEED to keep 2 bulk in the backpack!!! TWO BULK. Just TWO BULK. Out of 5 bulk and 9 L. You could COVER yourself by wearing in 29 waterskins if you wish or whatever consumables you want and STILL have 2 bulk in the backpack and not be encumbered.
To be CRYSTAL CLEAR, I'm not suggesting pulling items out of a backpack is ideal, just that it's a non-factor as you have plenty of bulk left to put items on you instead. Bedrolls, food, extra water, repair kits, tents, spare ammo/javelins, spare torches, rope, grappling hooks, ect are the kind of things easily put in the backpack that doesn't NEED to be on a belt.
...because the sack itself is immune to targeting despite being in LOS/LOE, and there's no such thing as an area effect that can affect unattended objects.
The sack can be targeted by spells that target objects: items IN the sack can't. Worst case, you need a new sack. Same with area attacks: if it's ruled they can affect objects, they still need LOS/LOE so again, maybe a ruined sack.
If this isn't what you're talking about, I don't understand your concern when you said "gets targeted by some effect that it wouldn't have if they were carrying it".
You're trying to have a different conversation than the one I was having, and I'm not interest in it.
Not really a different conversation, but you're insisting on a white room debate where the barbarian exist alone and I understand that they'll be in a group. That and you can put items in your backpack you aren't going to need in the next combat so you'll be getting 2 extra bulk...
*shrug* no matter how you cut it, I see nothing that prevents the barbarian from having an extra weapon to use and a +1 AC, Reflex saves, ranged attack rolls, and Dex skill checks for a single action to swtch to it IMO isn't very onerous. You don't have to agree with me, but nothing you've said has changed my mind either.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
For me a big part of the appeal of playing a Giant Barbarian was to be a 3'3" gnome carrying around a polearm sized for a hill giant.