Does a huge creature with all of the shikigami style feats deal damage as if three sizes larger, or is the damage capped at two sizes larger because there is no size bigger than colossal in pathfinder rules?*
*I assume theres nothing bigger than colossal in pathfinder anyway?
I'm trying to find something official on this or as close to it because I'm stumped.
Size Changes, Effective Size Changes, and Damage Dice Progression FAQ** spoiler omitted **...
Isn't that just about how the die size changes numerically? It doesnt address the possibility of an actual or theoretical size above colossal at all. It doesnt even feature the word colossal in the entire FAQ. I dont think this helps me answer my question.
Im well aware of how the die would increase IF its possible to have a weapon treated as a size category that doesnt exist, but im trying to determine if theoretical sizes above colossal actually exist in the rules or if the damage is capped when it reaches maximum pathfinder size (colossal).
The best i can find is that the size categories have predetermined measurement ranges associated with them, except colossal which is simply "64ft+" which means there is no size above colossal in practicality or theory. So that would probably mean the damage should cap as being treated as colossal, but is there something to overrule that?
The bestiary has examples of colossal creatures with improved natural attack. So either the feat is doing nothing for them, or you continue to scale like normal (which is the logical conclusion imo).
Really? Can you link me some examples?
The Mourning One Is the only one I can find quickly. There are plenty that have apparent size boosts to their weapon damage that are unaccounted for.
The Mourning One Is the only one I can find quickly. There are plenty that have apparent size boosts to their weapon damage that are unaccounted for.
Yeah, i found that one too but i cant find any others so i'd like to confirm that isn't an isolated error. (As bestiaries are well known for having many small mistakes)
Im aware that there are "plenty" others which deviate from the average damage dice, but that's normal for monsters and is no way indicative of being treated as a size category bigger than exists in the game.
If anyone could provide another example of a colossal creature having the improved natural attack feat or an ability that specifically references a colossal creature as being x size categories bigger I'd be content.
I found under a dragon's bite attack:
A dragon's bite attack has reach as if the creature were one size category larger (+10 feet for Colossal dragons).
But im not sure if bolded is clarification because the size category larger than colossal isn't listed, or extra rules because a size category larger than colossal isn't possible.
I also found this though:
If the base creature didn’t have any natural weapons, it gains a slam attack that deals damage as if it were one size category larger than its actual size.
Given that exoskeletons can be applied to colossal creatures and it doesnt have extra rules, that's an example of another thing like INA that could indicate that you would continue increasing past colossal.
This exoskeleton text is similar to that found in Echohusk, Sunbaked Zombie, Waxwork and Zombie templates too. So its certainly not an isolated occurrence.
Conclusion: After finding those monster templates i've accepted that there is enough evidence to suggest effective size increases can surpass colossal size.
(And yes before its brought up i know multiple effective size increases from different sources wont stack)
Size Changes, Effective Size Changes, and Damage Dice Progression FAQ** spoiler omitted **...
beyond 2d6, Xd6 does not progress to d8, it stays d6 and same for d8 staying d8. But the equation is actually way simpler, the next step past 3d6/3d8 is double the previous number of die.
2d6, 3d6, 4d6, 6d6, 8d6, 12d6, 16d6, 24d6, 32d6, 48d6, 64d6... (and same for d8's) but I doubt you can get higher.
na, he meant what he said - read it ALL:
"..double the previous number.."
so to go, say above 8d6, you look at the number before it (6d6) and double it = 12d6
+50% of 6d6 would be 9d6 which is also of course not 8d6, hence why I worded it the way I did.
Every two size increases you double damage dice. That's the equation I use.
For the series posted, I believe you mean two steps back rather than one(previous) as you are not counting the current new index (which may confuse some people).
in the series 2,3,4,6,8,12,16,... if 2 is the first number(n{sub 1}), then 8 is the fifth number(n{sub 5}). Thus n{sub i+2}=2*n{sub i} where i>0.
Yes, you double every two, but if you're looking to see what you go to next, ie "what is +1", you have to look to one behind you to get that difference of two and then double that.