Fanged Runes to help Large PCs bypass tight spaces.

[The Ronyon]

With large PCs being more available for play, could the Fanged Rune help them overcome the drawbacks of their size?
On handwraps of mighty blows, with a bite attack, it seems like a very cheap work around.
With other unarmed attacks, it gets goofy looking(Antlers wielded in ones mouth?)
Making the mouth unusable for anything else seems like the balance point, though I suppose the visual give away of an animal with a weapon in its mouth counts for something as well.

What do yall think?

[moosher12]

The Ronyon wrote:

With large PCs being more available for play, could the Fanged Rune help them overcome the drawbacks of their size?

On handwraps of mighty blows, with a bite attack, it seems like a very cheap work around.
With other unarmed attacks, it gets goofy looking(Antlers wielded in ones mouth?)
Making the mouth unusable for anything else seems like the balance point, though I suppose the visual give away of an animal with a weapon in its mouth counts for something as well.

What do yall think?

Seems like it'd work. There are a few caveats to keep in mind:

1. Large PCs are Remaster, and the Fanged rune is Legacy. So there are some tables where the fanged rune would not be allowed.

2. Can't talk in animal form. And even if you by some metric could? Can't talk around a weapon in your mouth

3. With the stipulation that if you drop the weapon the transformation is dismissed, while in town, it'd be difficult to use the transformation without guards getting mad at you.

Ultimately, it seems doable, but there are various complications.

[Finoan]

moosher12 wrote:

1. Large PCs are Remaster, and the Fanged rune is Legacy. So there are some tables where the fanged rune would not be allowed.

There are probably some tables that do that.

That isn't RAW though. The Fanged rune is from Grand Bazaar. That 'legacy' content hasn't been removed from the game by the developers.

There is an argument that content from the Core Rulebook, Gamemastery Guide, and Advanced Player's Guide that don't show up in Player Core, Player Core 2, or GM Core have been dropped from active developer support. But dropping all content from all of the rest of the books is not very logically supported. And dropping only some of the content from the rest of the books seems unfair.

[moosher12]

Finoan wrote:

There are probably some tables that do that.

That isn't RAW though. The Fanged rune is from Grand Bazaar. That 'legacy' content hasn't been removed from the game by the developers.

There is an argument that content from the Core Rulebook, Gamemastery Guide, and Advanced Player's Guide that don't show up in Player Core, Player Core 2, or GM Core have been dropped from active developer support. But dropping all content from all of the rest of the books is not very logically supported. And dropping only some of the content from the rest of the books seems unfair.

I am well aware, regardless of our stances on it (I mix both legacy and remaster in my games, for example), those tables exist, so it's worth advising due caution to check with their GM given the current state of things.

[Finoan]

moosher12 wrote:

I am well aware, regardless of our stances on it (I mix both legacy and remaster in my games, for example), those tables exist, so it's worth advising due caution to check with their GM given the current state of things.

I have just seen way too many times where someone thought that legacy content was actually incompatible with the Remaster due to misinformation being spread online. So I take a more active approach and try to clear up the misinformation whenever I find it here on these forums.

[The Ronyon]

moosher12 wrote:

Seems like it'd work. There are a few caveats to keep in mind:

1. Large PCs are Remaster, and the Fanged rune is Legacy. So there are some tables where the fanged rune would not be allowed.

2. Can't talk in animal form. And even if you by some metric could? Can't talk around a weapon in your mouth

3. With the stipulation that if you drop the weapon the transformation is dismissed, while in town, it'd be difficult to use the transformation without guards getting mad at you.

Ultimately, it seems doable, but there are various complications.

Yeah one one of the two Large PCs or the Fanged Rune, not allowed , so be it, it just won't work.

As for talking or placating guards, I was thinking of this in Exploration or Combat modes.

Squeezing a Large humanoid PC into a place sized for Medium creatures is a roleplaying goldmine.
Getting left out of a conflict because you are too damn big to get to the place where it's happening is a freaking nightmare.
If you need to get through a corridor, through a doorway or up a ladder, going from horse size to miniature pony size with an Interact(?) Action seems invaluable.
If you specialize in unarmed attacks, you can stay at the ready with, little or no(?)change in effectiveness.

I'm thinking of a bared teeth grimace as the social equivalent of weilding a weapon in the mouth, and not talking.
Allowing physically forced dropping of the "weapon" is a little weird, but I think a Disarm flavored as "knocking that snarl off yer face" should cover it.

[moosher12]

The Ronyon wrote:

Yeah one one of the two Large PCs or the Fanged Rune, not allowed , so be it, it just won't work.

As for talking or placating guards, I was thinking of this in Exploration or Combat modes.

Squeezing a Large humanoid PC into a place sized for Medium creatures is a roleplaying goldmine.
Getting left out of a conflict because you are too damn big to get to the place where it's happening is a freaking nightmare.
If you need to get through a corridor, through a doorway or up a ladder, going from horse size to miniature pony size with an Interact(?) Action seems invaluable.
If you specialize in unarmed attacks, you can stay at the ready with, little or no(?)change in effectiveness.

I'm thinking of a bared teeth grimace as the social equivalent of weilding a weapon in the mouth, and not talking.
Allowing physically forced dropping of the "weapon" is a little weird, but I think a Disarm flavored as "knocking that snarl off yer face" should cover it.

I can see some GM's letting it work with your approach. Letting enemies "disarm" the natural attack to shed the guise, I think shouldn't really mess with the math much. Though it would raise some questions on whether damage types should be converted. But it'd be easiest to keep the bite as nonlethal bludgeoning to match fist damage (unless you otherwise obtain lethal unarmed attacks)

[The Raven Black]

Fanged rune on Handwraps of Mighty Blows?

The real restriction on the rune is that it is Uncommon.

[Ravingdork]

moosher12 wrote:

Large PCs are Remaster, and the Fanged rune is Legacy. So there are some tables where the fanged rune would not be allowed.

LOL. I don't honestly believe such tables exist. It would be idiotic. By that logic, champions and sorcerers are legacy too. Do they ban them as well?

Nah. They're only found in the dreams and discussions of the internet, and perhaps the occasional ignorant GM who has been mislead into believing that there are non-existent compatibility issues. Nobody chooses to limit their games in such a manner for absolutely no gain.

[shroudb]

I think there will be table variation due to the very first sentence of the rune:

Quote:

When etched with this rune, a weapon's hilt or haft becomes engraved with grooves that match the imprints of a wolf's teeth. By putting a fanged weapon in your mouth, you can transform into an animal.

while some tables will say this is just flavor, other will say that there is the implicit requirement of the weapon engraved actually having a hilt or a haft, which natural attacks don't.

the other thing that i see issues with is that for fanged to work, you need to physically put the "weapon" (in this case the handwraps themselves) in the mouth. So you'd basically not be "grinning" but you'd literally have to put your hand in your mouth and bite it for it to activate.

[nicholas storm]

You wouldn't want to put the rune on your main weapon. Just carry a weapon with the rune for the shapechanging effect. +1 fanged rune for 65 GP. At higher levels, that amount of gold is pretty negligible.

Of course if you have trick magic item or a caster dedication or a primal/arcane caster in the group, you could always cast or have pest form cast on you from a scroll

[Thrawn82]

Ravingdork wrote:

moosher12 wrote:

Large PCs are Remaster, and the Fanged rune is Legacy. So there are some tables where the fanged rune would not be allowed.

LOL. I don't honestly believe such tables exist. It would be idiotic. By that logic, champions and sorcerers are legacy too. Do they ban them as well?

Nah. They're only found in the dreams and discussions of the internet, and perhaps the occasional ignorant GM who has been mislead into believing that there are non-existent compatibility issues. Nobody chooses to limit their games in such a manner for absolutely no gain.

"I don't believe those tables exist! except where they do, but those GMS are stupid!" *flat look*

I don;t run a table like that, but all sorts of tables exist that limit things for all sorts of reasons from setting a particular tone to reducing the bloat to avoid confusion. if the GM and the players like it and buy into it, it's their game and they can have fun the way they want to.

[Thrawn82]

shroudb wrote:

I think there will be table variation due to the very first sentence of the rune:

Quote:

When etched with this rune, a weapon's hilt or haft becomes engraved with grooves that match the imprints of a wolf's teeth. By putting a fanged weapon in your mouth, you can transform into an animal.

while some tables will say this is just flavor, other will say that there is the implicit requirement of the weapon engraved actually having a hilt or a haft, which natural attacks don't.

the other thing that i see issues with is that for fanged to work, you need to physically put the "weapon" (in this case the handwraps themselves) in the mouth. So you'd basically not be "grinning" but you'd literally have to put your hand in your mouth and bite it for it to activate.

I can imagine taking the handwraps and tying them over your mouth like a gag, which i think would fit just fine into the "draw a weapon" action.

[moosher12]

Thrawn82 wrote:

I can imagine taking the handwraps and tying them over your mouth like a gag, which i think would fit just fine into the "draw a weapon" action.

Oh that's a brilliant idea, especially since you can do fun thematic stuff like putting tooth symbols or other stylizations on the handwraps.

[The Ronyon]

I like the gag idea but it runs into the same literism problem as before.
"As you invest these embroidered strips of cloth, you must meditate and slowly wrap them around your hands."

No hands, it doesn't work.

I think the secondary weapon idea has more potential than my original notion.
Do any melee weapons have superior action economy and a hilt/haft?

[Finoan]

Thrawn82 wrote:

all sorts of tables exist that limit things for all sorts of reasons from setting a particular tone to reducing the bloat to avoid confusion. if the GM and the players like it and buy into it, it's their game and they can have fun the way they want to.

I could absolutely see a table that restricts Guns and Gears because:

* it is too much content for the GM to go through.
* the theme of the classes and items doesn't match the tone of the game they are running.
* Gunslinger and/or Inventor is considered overtuned (For some reason. Not saying I agree, but I could understand it being banned for a reason like that hypothetically).

What I don't see is the logic of is restricting Guns and Gears solely because of its publication date - the fact that it came out before Player Core and GM Core did. I don't see anyone actually defending that logic successfully. The closest we ever get is this logic you have presented of 'people can ban things for any reason'.

Which, while technically and vacuously true, isn't very satisfying. And people should absolutely push back against it. I have never seen anyone present any valid rational, logical reason why the entire collection of 'legacy' content should be forbidden in a Remastered game solely because of its 'legacy' designation.

[moosher12]

Finoan wrote:

I have never seen anyone present any valid rational, logical reason why the entire collection of 'legacy' content should be forbidden in a Remastered game solely because of its 'legacy' designation.

Newer GMs do have a valid reason to consider it.

While we are relatively skilled with the system, we do have to acknowledge that the conversion between Legacy and Remaster, while mostly compatible, is not entirely seamless. All sorts of conversion lessons have to be catered to newer players, I know from experience as I deal with a steady stream of new players, yet run both legacy and remaster still (I have been considering doing Remaster exclusive games for learners games that occur after Player Core 2, and re-introducing legacy once players better know what they are doing). There are a lot of unwritten-by-Paizo conversion rules that have to be addressed, especially since the Player Core is a standalone document, but does not necessarily include a section to explain what exactly was replaced. As a very simple example, the Player Core is not gonna tell how to deal with a material component spell you find on AoN. Either the community told you that, because they had to compare the Core Rulebook to the Player Core, and see for themselves what changed, or you found out the exact same way.

And the conversions actually on rare occasion change the expected math of legacy content. For example, before the Guns and Gears update, the Inventor was in a weird place. Their unstable trait's failure chance was balanced around the way Legacy Focus spells worked. Once Focus spells became more freely available, the unstable trait having such a high failure chance made less sense in comparison.

The removal of alignment made various complications for the Champion, that while the errata helped, felt more like a bandage to hold it together until Player Core 2.

There are also various other spells like those that deal with alignment that a newer GM might either not have the confidence to reflavor into something that works effectively, or might not even be made aware that those spells are otherwise defunct unless they are redefined to work another way.

TLDR: For veteran GM's, we can run it fine. As I said, I run it, but even I have to deal with various complications. For newer GM's, it's not a trivial endeavor. Running a Legacy exclusive game is easy. And to include legacy content, if you are a new GM, you'll have to go through a learning curve to properly convert things. If you are an old GM, you still have to make sure your players go through the learning curve to convert. Put yourself in the shoes of a new GM that started with the Player Core, and is simply trying to get started. Assume you didn't have the privilege of intimately knowing Pathfinder's Legacy state going in, but are about to very quickly learn that it exists when a player brings up an entry they found that does things not covered in your Player or GM Core book. Don't forget the fact that as the years go on, more content will be added to the Remaster, and the Legacy content that is unconverted will become increasingly archaic, and the conversion rules will become less important as it will apply to an increasingly smaller percentage of the game.

Side note: I wonder if similar conversations were made when Pathfinder 1E was made in relation to D&D3.5E. Those are supposed to be mostly compatible, with some minor conversions strategies, but math ultimately being similar enough. I didn't start PF1E until the late 2010s, but I've never personally been in a table that used 3.5E content.

[The Ronyon]

Looking at the weapons available,the Knuckle Duster seems like it might be the best choice.
It has a hilt, plus it's simple, common, and free-hand.
From hand to mouth, with no action cost for drawing the weapon seems about as good as we can get, and it's not bad at all.
You can reverse the transfer when you are ready to get big again, or you could just drop the weapon if you can't spare an action.

As for the legacy/remaster issue that has been sidetracking this thread, why the debate?
It's an angels on the head of a pin argument, good for nothing but amusement of the participants.
If your GM says no,this isn't a tool to use at that table.
That's if they say no to this particular thing or to Legacy as whole or whatever.
Beyond noting the possibility that somebody might object on the basis legacy status, nothing more need be said.
It will happen or it will not.

[FreneticKineticAscetic]

I think that the idea of fanged rune on hand wraps or a secondary weapon is workable and would get you medium size, but can you elaborate on why you want to? The only thing I saw you mention was entering 5ft corridors, which large PCs (arguably) can already do. From the Squeeze acrobatics trained action:

“You contort yourself to squeeze through a space so small you can barely fit through. This action is for exceptionally small spaces; many tight spaces are difficult terrain that you can move through more quickly and without a check.”

Myself and most discussions I’ve seen online treat fitting through a 5 foot corridor or doorway as a tight but not exceptionally tight space, so a large pc can move through treating them as difficult terrain. Given the action cost of activating the fanged rune, I don’t think it’s going to help too often in combat, especially if the drawbacks of the animal form hit your build, and out of combat it doesn’t change much of anything.

If you want to do it, definitely do it, fanged rune is super fun. Although I also love the flavor of the 12 foot tall Minotaur barbarian pc shimmying down a hallway, knocking their head on doorways, and getting stuck Winnie the Pooh style when the corridor narrows and they fail a squeeze check.

[The Ronyon]

FreneticKineticAscetic, that scene with the minotaur is exactly what I'd want to avoid.
I've only experienced it playing a medium sized character in a kobold den,but that was enough.
Closing with the enemy at half speed sucks.
Running away at half speed sucks.
I belive a passageway sized for small creatures would only be accessible for a large via squeezing.
Separation from your party sucks.
None of that seems fun to me.

But you do have an excellent point.
Without prep time, you will not save actions over simply moving twice.
If you had to Squeeze into medium spaces, things would be different,but as difficult terrain,the usefulness/cost calculation doesnt pan out.
There maybe an affordable item that really eliminates the movement penalties of being Large, but this isn't it.

[moosher12]

Loosely related, and I'm not sure if you'd be willing to trade a heritage for this, but one option to potentially also consider would be to take the Beastkin versatile heritage. The Critter Shape ancestry feat lets you use a species-limited Pest Form once per hour if being a natural werecreature is an acceptable thing to impose on your character, but perfectly understandable if it's not.

It would not be very good for direct damage while in the form, but it would address the "I need to get across this narrow passageway to my friends fast" situations. And unless your chosen animal form is something particularly hated, it'd largely be socially acceptable in most cases.

[moosher12]

Also, you can try to convince your GM to invent a magic item that just reduces your size to Medium. Seems like something that can reasonably be done by Golarion's logic, and could make sense as a support item. For example the item might reduce you and your items to Medium size, but you get a Medium creatures's Bulk limits. basic magical support items tend to be 5 gp, but I can see 20-50 gp being a pretty fair price point if your GM feels 5 gp is too low.

[Tridus]

moosher12 wrote:

TLDR: For veteran GM's, we can run it fine. As I said, I run it, but even I have to deal with various complications. For newer GM's, it's not a trivial endeavor. Running a Legacy exclusive game is easy. And to include legacy content, if you are a new GM, you'll have to go through a learning curve to properly convert things. If you are an old GM, you still have to make sure your players go through the learning curve to convert. Put yourself in the shoes of a new GM that started with the Player Core, and is simply trying to get started. Assume you didn't have the privilege of intimately knowing Pathfinder's Legacy state going in, but are about to very quickly learn that it exists when a player brings up an entry they found that does things not covered in your Player or GM Core book. Don't forget the fact that as the years go on, more content will be added to the Remaster, and the Legacy content that is unconverted will become increasingly archaic, and the conversion rules will become less important as it will apply to an increasingly smaller percentage of the game.

Great perspective. As it's mostly experienced folks in this discussion, they tend to forget how this feels to someone whose first book is Player Core. That number is going to go up over time, and as the remaster encompasses more content, you'll see "remaster only" tables increase.

Quote:

Side note: I wonder if similar conversations were made when Pathfinder 1E was made in relation to D&D3.5E. Those are supposed to be mostly compatible, with some minor conversions strategies, but math ultimately being similar enough. I didn't start PF1E until the late 2010s, but I've never personally been in a table that used 3.5E content.

Early on, compatibility with 3.5 was a huge selling feature of PF1. People called it "3.75". The target market was primarily 3.5 tables that didn't want 4e. I have no statistics, but it seems like it was pretty common that 3.5 stuff was included to one degree or another.

That changed over time as PF1 grew its own identity and the amount of content increased. Over time 3.5 stuff didn't fit quite as well and you started to see more people playing that didn't have years of experience with 3.5 before switching. At that point the amount of tables still using 3.5 stuff went down over time.

[Finoan]

moosher12 wrote:

TLDR: For veteran GM's, we can run it fine. As I said, I run it, but even I have to deal with various complications. For newer GM's, it's not a trivial endeavor.

To me that falls under the valid reason to restrict content of "it is too much content for the GM to go through." Saying, 'let's do Core rules only until I get a better handle on the system' is a perfectly reasonable thing to do. But that would also exclude things like Rage of Elements and Howl of the Wild. Not just Guns and Gears and Secrets of Magic. Especially considering the errata work that has already happened for those legacy books and the errata work that will be coming for them in the near future.

[moosher12]

Finoan wrote:

To me that falls under the valid reason to restrict content of "it is too much content for the GM to go through." Saying, 'let's do Core rules only until I get a better handle on the system' is a perfectly reasonable thing to do. But that would also exclude things like Rage of Elements and Howl of the Wild. Not just Guns and Gears and Secrets of Magic. Especially considering the errata work that has already happened for those legacy books and the errata work that will be coming for them in the near future.

1. Howl of the Wild and Rage of elements do not require knowledge of an errata page to make work. Even if you use an older printing of the book, there is no conversion needed, as the errata is just a balance patch, not a compatibility patch.

2. The errata is incomplete. Tell me. You received an entry that talks about the spells Spider Climb, True Strike, Water Breathing, Mirror Image, Shift Blame, Dimension Door, Resist Energy, Warding Aggression, Stoneskin, Darkvision, Wall of Wind, Freedom of Movement, Enlarge, Earthbind, Dimensional Anchor, Magic Mouth, Slow, and Blink.

8 of these spells have been renamed. 1 of these spells is not included in either your remaster books, or the legacy book you got the entry from.

Your errata page does not address this, or tell you which remastered spells to use instead.

3. A savvy person might say, "But sir, it's easy to do, we have archives of nethys. Just use that to convert it." True. But as is my older point,

moosher12 wrote:

Assume you didn't have the privilege of intimately knowing Pathfinder's Legacy state going in, but are about to very quickly learn that it exists when a player brings up an entry they found that does things not covered in your Player or GM Core book.

A GM getting started is not going to and should not be expected to know this to have a functional game. AoN is supposed to be an optimization tool, not a necessity. On top of that, if you need a 3rd document to link your Player Core and a Legacy book, not what I would define as a seamless conversion. Your Player and GM Cores and the expansion book should be all you need to run any expansion books you use. You should not be required to break out a computer to do this. So what would the GM rather allow, the book that requires them to study a tertiary document first, and potentially write up conversion home rule documents, or the book that is immediately 100% compatible right out the gate.

[FreneticKineticAscetic]

So I’m not a moderator and I’m certainly not someone who doesn’t enjoy a good tangent, but we’ve gotten pretty far off topic in the whole “analysis of which books people are expected to use.” Its a worthwhile topic of discussion, but maybe those who are interested could start a new thread? The OP is looking for advice on getting large PCs into tight quarters, and that’s getting a bit drowned out.

[moosher12]

FreneticKineticAscetic wrote:

So I’m not a moderator and I’m certainly not someone who doesn’t enjoy a good tangent, but we’ve gotten pretty far off topic in the whole “analysis of which books people are expected to use.” Its a worthwhile topic of discussion, but maybe those who are interested could start a new thread? The OP is looking for advice on getting large PCs into tight quarters, and that’s getting a bit drowned out.

Fairdo

[FreneticKineticAscetic]

The Ronyon wrote:

FreneticKineticAscetic, that scene with the minotaur is exactly what I'd want to avoid.

I've only experienced it playing a medium sized character in a kobold den,but that was enough.
Closing with the enemy at half speed sucks.
Running away at half speed sucks.
I belive a passageway sized for small creatures would only be accessible for a large via squeezing.
Separation from your party sucks.
None of that seems fun to me.

But you do have an excellent point.
Without prep time, you will not save actions over simply moving twice.
If you had to Squeeze into medium spaces, things would be different,but as difficult terrain,the usefulness/cost calculation doesnt pan out.
There maybe an affordable item that really eliminates the movement penalties of being Large, but this isn't it.

Yeah, it’s hard to research cause there are just so many options, but it seems like most effects to change size are going to run into the action cost problems of a fanged rune until high levels. Shrinking potions are an action and take a minute to take effect, so that’s not particularly good. Eventually, Quick Squeeze would work, but that’s only at legendary acrobatics.

There are some class-specific abilities and spells that can change your size with movement baked in or teleport you - air kineticist, unbound step psychic, and mirror implement thaumaturge come to mind, but I’m sure there are plenty of others. A burrow speed could also be situationally useful, maybe through a versatile heritage? Ardandes can get 15 feet burrow speed at level 13. Dhampirs can also get bat form around the same time, though that retains the action cost problems.

There’s also the option of just upping your speed, though that’s not particularly helpful for tight spaces. For structures that aren’t too sound, you could just kick the walls down - still an action but it’s a hell of an entrance. Ask your gm if you can have a circumstance bonus to intimidation as you burst through the walls!

[ottdmk]

Not sure if you have an Alchemist in the party, or if you're open to buying the odd consumable here or there, but this stuff exists...

[The Ronyon]

Getting access to Pest Form or being a wererat are the basic work arounds I've come up with.

I do like the idea of being a Large sized rat man that can become a Tiny Rat and then eventually a Smol sized rat man.

I wish they made heritage that focused on changing your size,shape and reach.
Maybe we'll see some6 in the Player Core 3.