Pathfinder Official Damage Die Size Increase Chart Thingy

[grarrrg]

Last week Paizo put up an actual comprehensive die-size increase listing (http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fm#v5748eaic9t3f) in the FAQ!

Quick! Someone go figure out how big the Bigger Boat (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?245496-PF-We-re-gonna-need-a-bigger-boat) is again!

I'd do it, but NoSleep+Math=BadMath

[137beth]

I just wish they'd call it 'errata'. Or a 'rules update'. In the so-called FAQ, they don't even pretend that they are basing their decisions on the rules in the books.
Anyways, Mark Seifter says that the 566 FAQ requests for that post was more than three times the next-highest number of FAQ requests for a single question.

[Mithril Leaf]

I mean, they are just confirming the way it worked by default, where you double each previous number of dice for every step increase. For d6s for example it's:
2d6
3d6
4d6
6d6
8d6
12d6
16d6
24d6
32d6
48d6
64d6
96d6
128d6
192d6
256d6
etc...

[Psyren]

Woohoo, I can delete the table I've been keeping in my Drive folder for months.


I just wish they'd call it 'errata'. Or a 'rules update'. In the so-called FAQ, they don't even pretend that they are basing their decisions on the rules in the books.
Anyways, Mark Seifter says that the 566 FAQ requests for that post was more than three times the next-highest number of FAQ requests for a single question.

Eh, I'm glad they don't - the base needs to get over that lingering "FAQ is not RAW" hangup from 3.5. This is Pathfinder, and an official source is an official source. At least we know that here, the FAQ is a collaborative effort by the design team, instead of being the result of whatever Skip put in his cornflakes that morning.

[Boci]

Eh, I'm glad they don't - the base needs to get over that lingering "FAQ is not RAW" hangup from 3.5. This is Pathfinder, and an official source is an official source. At least we know that here, the FAQ is a collaborative effort by the design team, instead of being the result of whatever Skip put in his cornflakes that morning.

But why call it FAQs though? Pathfinder only exists because of 3.5, so its not as if hangups over different attitude to something with the same name can be considered unexpected. Is there a reason they need to be called FAQs?

[Psyren]

But why call it FAQs though?

Because they arise from questions that the players ask. The "Frequently" comes from their FAQ system, where questions that a lot of people agree need an official answer get elevated in the queue (though that in itself does not guarantee the question will be prioritized.)


Pathfinder only exists because of 3.5, so its not as if hangups over different attitude to something with the same name can be considered unexpected. Is there a reason they need to be called FAQs?

See above - and sure, it might be expected, but the fact remains that whatever its roots, ultimately PF is not 3.5. No paradigm will change unless someone changes it - a tautology perhaps, but still true.

[Boci]

Because they arise from questions that the players ask. The "Frequently" comes from their FAQ system, where questions that a lot of people agree need an official answer get elevated in the queue (though that in itself does not guarantee the question will be prioritized.)


See above - and sure, it might be expected, but the fact remains that whatever its roots, ultimately PF is not 3.5. No paradigm will change unless someone changes it - a tautology perhaps, but still true.

So there is no reason they had to use FAQ (even if they want to keep it separate from errata they could still call it "clarification" or something), and when you say "the base needs to get over that lingering "FAQ is not RAW" hangup from 3.5" you could also say "people need to get over the admittingly confusing phrase Paizo chose to use because reasons".

[torrasque666]

So there is no reason they had to use FAQ (even if they want to keep it separate from errata they could still call it "clarification" or something), and when you say "the base needs to get over that lingering "FAQ is not RAW" hangup from 3.5" you could also say "people need to get over the admittingly confusing phrase Paizo chose to use because reasons".
Clarification, FAQ, what's really the difference other than one doesn't immediately cause a visceral reaction among certain groups? FAQ is clarification, its the devs clarifying something because there are frequently asked questions about it.

[Boci]

Clarification, FAQ, what's really the difference other than one doesn't immediately cause a visceral reaction among certain groups?

In meaning? Nothing, that's rather the point. Paizo would have lost nothing by not using the term "FAQs", and would have avoided some misunderstandings.

[Psyren]

So there is no reason they had to use FAQ (even if they want to keep it separate from errata they could still call it "clarification" or something), and when you say "the base needs to get over that lingering "FAQ is not RAW" hangup from 3.5" you could also say "people need to get over the admittingly confusing phrase Paizo chose to use because reasons".

Yep, you got it.

One other point: they sometimes use FAQ as a staging ground for rules changes before updating the printed versions of the books (if indeed that is needed) and have been known to change their minds based on feedback from the wider player base using the ruling in action. Changing a print run only to change it back later would be far more confusing and much more costly.

[Zanos]

Woohoo, I can delete the table I've been keeping in my Drive folder for months.



Eh, I'm glad they don't - the base needs to get over that lingering "FAQ is not RAW" hangup from 3.5. This is Pathfinder, and an official source is an official source. At least we know that here, the FAQ is a collaborative effort by the design team, instead of being the result of whatever Skip put in his cornflakes that morning.
Doesn't James Jacobs always run around answering questions on the forums and then backtracking and saying his answers aren't official, even though he's on the design team?

Nothing is wrong with this particular FAQ, in any case. I don't think it actually changes anything from how things were already being run in any of my groups.

[Psyren]

Doesn't James Jacobs always run around answering questions on the forums and then backtracking and saying his answers aren't official, even though he's on the design team?

That's because he's not on the design team - that's why his answers aren't official and are at more risk of being reversed once the designers get around to them. He is Creative Director, i.e. in charge of the Golarion stuff, though he does design crunch for adventure paths and modules set in Golarion as well (and his answers are fully authoritative in those cases.)

The design team is Jason Buhlman, Stephen Radney-McFarlane, and a couple of other folks whose names I forget. And the FAQs are always posted from the "Pathfinder Design Team" account that they use after arriving at consensus.

[PsyBomb]

So, say you are starting from 6d6 and going up multiple steps. Do ALL of the steps increase by 2, or just the first?

Situation: 6d6 base damage, with 7 virtual size increases. Do you end up on 24d6 or 81d6? This obviously makes a bit of difference to the outcome, especially on Vital Strike builds.

EDIT: Nevermind, I got confused by how they worded the freaking instructions. 24d8 it is. Basically, the entire thing was a VERY long-winded and unneccesarily complicated way of saying "map to either d6 or d8 die size on first size increase, each step either increases your d6's to d8 or splits d8's to twice that number of d6"

[Yanisa]

Eh? :smallconfused:


If the size increases by one step, look up the original damage on the chart and increase the damage by two steps.

So a medium 1d6 bite now becomes a 1d10 bite when enlarged? Instead of the old (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/rules-for-monsters/universal-monster-rules#TOC-Natural-Attacks) 1d8?

Also:
1d6 -> 1d10 -> 2d8 -> d8 track
1d8 -> 2d6 -> d6 track

That sounds mixed up?

Or am I just stupid and misreading something?

[Kudaku]

Eh? :smallconfused:



So a medium 1d6 bite now becomes a 1d10 bite when enlarged? Instead of the old (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/rules-for-monsters/universal-monster-rules#TOC-Natural-Attacks) 1d8?

I wouldn't call you stupid, but you missed the second line in the writeup.


• If the size decreases by one step, look up the original damage on the chart and decrease the damage by two steps. If the initial size is Medium or lower (or is treated as Medium or lower) or the initial damage is 1d8 or less, instead decrease the damage by one step.

[Yanisa]

I wouldn't call you stupid, but you missed the second line in the writeup.

You are quoting the part about decreasing, not increasing.

But nevertheless you are right, I missed a part of the second part.

If the initial size is Small or lower (or is treated as Small or lower) or the initial damage is 1d6 or less, instead increase the damage by one
There we go, 1d6 is a 1 step increase. 1d8 is not and still ends up on the d6 track. Eh?

[Kudaku]

Bah, that's what I get for posting while half asleep. That is odd. Hmm.

[Yanisa]

Bah, that's what I get for posting while half asleep. That is odd. Hmm.

The whole FAQ seems in line with 3.5 (Edit: link) (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/weapons.htm#weaponSize) and the infamous Improved Natural Attack feat (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/monster-feats/improved-natural-attack). That also has the 1d8 disappearing in the d6 line.

Still it seems mismatched with the natural attacks table. For example a Huge Creature dealing 2d6 bite becomes a Gargantuan Creature dealing 3d6 Bite, whereas a natural Gargantuan Creature deals 2d8?

This is supposed to become a stealth errata of that table? :smalltongue:

[Mithril Leaf]

So, say you are starting from 6d6 and going up multiple steps. Do ALL of the steps increase by 2, or just the first?

Situation: 6d6 base damage, with 7 virtual size increases. Do you end up on 24d6 or 81d6? This obviously makes a bit of difference to the outcome, especially on Vital Strike builds.

EDIT: Nevermind, I got confused by how they worded the freaking instructions. 24d8 it is. Basically, the entire thing was a VERY long-winded and unneccesarily complicated way of saying "map to either d6 or d8 die size on first size increase, each step either increases your d6's to d8 or splits d8's to twice that number of d6"

I mean, 6d6 base damage with 7 size increases ends up at 64d6 because of how the math behind it works. Every other size increase you double, after getting onto the right track with your first size increase. Since 6d6 is already on the track, you follow the same path as everyone else.

[The Grue]

Only Paizo could publish an FAQ that is more confusing than the rules tangle it was meant to clarify.

[grarrrg]

Still it seems mismatched with the natural attacks table.

It's going to mismatch something.
I did some digging around a while ago, and came up with THREE different damage progressions from various weapons/feats/natural attacks/abilities/etc... tables. 4 if you want to throw Monk Unarmed in there.

I'd say the good old rule of "specific trumps general" comes into play here as well. If something specifically states what size die you get, use that. If you're up to Bigger Boat tactics, use the FAQ.


Paizo would have lost nothing by not using the term "FAQs"

It's a grouping of QUESTIONS that are FREQUENTLY ASKED. I'm failing to see how this is Paizo 'screwing up'.

[Yanisa]

It's going to mismatch something.
I did some digging around a while ago, and came up with THREE different damage progressions from various weapons/feats/natural attacks/abilities/etc... tables. 4 if you want to throw Monk Unarmed in there.

I'd say the good old rule of "specific trumps general" comes into play here as well. If something specifically states what size die you get, use that. If you're up to Bigger Boat tactics, use the FAQ.

There were a ton of tables, but those all followed the same progression, except the Natural Attack table. How did you end up at 3 different progression? And how is the monk size progression different from the normal rules? :smallconfused:

The big problem was the Improved Natural Attack Feat which followed the weapon progression rules instead of the Natural Attack Table which had their own special rules, even though both dealt with natural weapons. It didn't help that these two where the only ones that went past large.
This FAQ seemingly invalidates the NA-Table and sides with the INA-Feat, so that doesn't help a lot. Unless Paizo is seriously considering to toss their own redesign out of the window and going back to the 3.5 rules? Or is this just another case of "whoops we forgot we redesigned the natural attack progression" like what happened with the INA-feat in the first place?

The other big problem was a lack of rules for going past large, and this FAQ has fixed that. Also having the rules in a central place helps a lot, but all these rules are in the Pathfinder books (and consistent at that).

[Boci]

It's a grouping of QUESTIONS that are FREQUENTLY ASKED. I'm failing to see how this is Paizo 'screwing up'.

Because Paizo was a reimagining/remastering/rewhatever of D&D 3.5, and in 3.5 FAQs weren't RAW. Given how similar the two games were, and still are, Paizo should have been able to predict that changing what FAQs represented their their game without changing what they were called would lead to confusion. Its too late now, they should stick with it, but if this had occurred to them at the start a fair bit of confusion could have been avoided.

[Mithril Leaf]

Because Paizo was a reimagining/remastering/rewhatever of D&D 3.5, and in 3.5 FAQs weren't RAW. Given how similar the two games were, and still are, Paizo should have been able to predict that changing what FAQs represented their their game without changing what they were called would lead to confusion. Its too late now, they should stick with it, but if this had occurred to them at the start a fair bit of confusion could have been avoided.

I'm all for jumping on the Paizo hate bandwagon but all that it really requires is something at the top that says:
This FAQ page is considered official errata. This may not yet reflect changes in the book.
You see it once and then you know that if something is in the Pathfinder FAQ it's a rule. It's not that hard really.

[Psyren]

Because Paizo was a reimagining/remastering/rewhatever of D&D 3.5, and in 3.5 FAQs weren't RAW.

And that was a serious problem in 3.5, so good riddance I say. It meant that if they couldn't get a new errata document or reprint past their own internal red tape, nothing could ever be fixed - which is exactly what happened. ToB errata anyone?

Hell, thanks to their own nonsensical policies, even Rules Compendium has dubious status with some folks now.


I'm all for jumping on the Paizo hate bandwagon but all that it really requires is something at the top that says:
This FAQ page is considered official errata. This may not yet reflect changes in the book.
You see it once and then you know that if something is in the Pathfinder FAQ it's a rule. It's not that hard really.

They did that in the forums when they created the FAQ. Could they have gone further to appease the 3.5-RAW grognards on Giantitp, probably, but I think the majority of their target audience was able to figure it out.

[grarrrg]

There were a ton of tables, but those all followed the same progression, except the Natural Attack table. How did you end up at 3 different progression? And how is the monk size progression different from the normal rules? :smallconfused:

I think there were some weapons that listed odd values for Small/Medium/Large that didn't follow 'the standard'.
And I thought there was an Eidolon attack (they list up to Huge) that didn't follow, but a quick check doesn't show any oddities.

Monk Size is fine, but the base Monk Unarmed is its own thing.

[Yanisa]

I think there were some weapons that listed odd values for Small/Medium/Large that didn't follow 'the standard'.
And I thought there was an Eidolon attack (they list up to Huge) that didn't follow, but a quick check doesn't show any oddities.

Monk Size is fine, but the base Monk Unarmed is its own thing.

Yeah, there might be odd ones out, Paizo isn't well own for editing and mistakes happen by everyone.

I can see how the Monk Base Damage can be confused as a form of die progression. And that might also be the case for the Natural Attacks Table, I.E., the table is meant for base damage but is not a reflection on size increases. The table head for damage even states "Base Damage by Size" after all. So it seems that I (and many others?) used that table wrongfully? Or am I just reading to deep into this base damage line?

P.S. I would guess all this changes for the bigger boat that goes from 12d8 to 16d6. Although the Eidolon Improved Natural attack is still unclear on whether it is a size increase or not and the FAQ answer only talks about size increases. The FAQ question does seem to any dice progression as a form of size progression:

Size Changes, Effective Size Changes, and Damage Dice Progression: I'm confused by how to increase and decrease manufactured and natural weapon damage dice when the weapon's size or effective size changes. There's a bunch of different charts, and I'm not sure which to use.

[grarrrg]

P.S. I would guess all this changes for the bigger boat that goes from 12d8 to 16d6. Although the Eidolon Improved Natural attack is still unclear on whether it is a size increase or not and the FAQ answer only talks about size increases. The FAQ question does seem to any dice progression as a form of size progression:

I don't know about "official", but for the sake of sanity any/all increases should just follow the same chart, regardless of size/bonus/monk-ness/etc...
Otherwise you run into places where doing "size then bonus" has a higher result than "bonus then size", and people arguing over the order things stack and...yeah.

No "size", no "bonus, just "Increase Chart".

P.S. since that "same ability mod to thing doesn't stack" FAQ, you may need to update the Fast Fabio build.

[Yanisa]

I don't know about "official", but for the sake of sanity any/all increases should just follow the same chart, regardless of size/bonus/monk-ness/etc...
Otherwise you run into places where doing "size then bonus" has a higher result than "bonus then size", and people arguing over the order things stack and...yeah.

No "size", no "bonus, just "Increase Chart".
I agree, wish the FAQ also stated that instead of hinting that.


P.S. since that "same ability mod to thing doesn't stack" FAQ, you may need to update the Fast Fabio build.
I should, but I am lazy. Lot's a new material came out and tbf I never finished it, there is more stupidity to find in mythic.
Also not too sure about the literal wording of the double stacking of charisma, I might get away with it :smallamused:, but I should start a thread on it instead of derailing it here.

[Mithril Leaf]

And that was a serious problem in 3.5, so good riddance I say. It meant that if they couldn't get a new errata document or reprint past their own internal red tape, nothing could ever be fixed - which is exactly what happened. ToB errata anyone?

Hell, thanks to their own nonsensical policies, even Rules Compendium has dubious status with some folks now.



They did that in the forums when they created the FAQ. Could they have gone further to appease the 3.5-RAW grognards on Giantitp, probably, but I think the majority of their target audience was able to figure it out.

Yes I was agreeing with you guys for once.

[Psyren]

Yes I was agreeing with you guys for once.

I know, both halves were really directed at Boci, it's just that your quote had the "banner" idea at the top of the FAQ section and I wanted to address that specifically.

[Anlashok]

I think most of the complaints have less to do with the concept of it and more to do with there being a degree of implied pretentiousness in FAQerrata.

[Psyren]

I think most of the complaints have less to do with the concept of it and more to do with there being a degree of implied pretentiousness in FAQerrata.

However you choose to perceive it, the fact still remains that full-blown errata is a very involved process; it relies on compiling an addenda document with all the changes (complete with maintaining/reuploading that document, plus relying on players to download it just to see what the changes are, and version control issues whenever changes are made,) and ultimately changing actual text in future print runs of the book. This is impractical as a primary means of conveying intent - the "plain speech" required can break the tone of a book's writing style, it can muck with the print layout of the entire book (e.g. by pushing something onto a new page), a given interaction may involve a combination of multiple books such that it's unclear which one(s) would actually get the new text, and it's very hard to refine further or reverse once committed. Therefore it stands to reason that if that were their only way of clarifying, adding to - or yes, even changing the rules, that we would simply get no clarifications at all (or at least, far fewer) and the game would be worse off for it.

From my side, I always thought the very notion of errata being the only "official" way to patch a game was inherently ludicrous for just that reason. It would be like if Blizzard was barred from applying hotfixes to any of their games, and had to wait for major patch releases to fix even the tiniest of bugs or unintended interactions. WotC padlocked themselves into that particular cell with their "Primary Source" rule forgetting to mention FAQ responses, but thankfully Paizo has yet to do so.

[Anlashok]

However you choose to perceive it, the fact still remains that full-blown errata is a very involved process.

Preparing errata for print is. Having a "rules changes" document that's set up like the FAQ wouldn't be any harder to make than the FAQ, by definition.

It might actually be beneficial too, as it would allow someone to look at things that have altered without having to sift through the huge number of actual question-and-answers in the FAQ.

As it stands it can be unclear when something is being clarified and when something is being changed and there's a fundamental degree of shadiness involved in referring to a design change as a rules clarification rather than, well, a change.

[Psyren]

That would have the effect of making the things labeled as "rules change" be "more official" than the answers they're providing, rendering those answers dubious or even meaningless and undermining the system. That is exactly the outcome they're trying to avoid, or else they'd never have set up a FAQ to begin with.

And frankly, perceptions of "shadiness" or "pretentiousness" don't matter - the goal of solving the rules issue that prompted the entry is what matters. The means by which they do so are irrelevant; all you have to know is where the answers are coming from (i.e. the design team.)

[Anlashok]

That would have the effect of making the things labeled as "rules change" be "more official" than the answers they're providing, rendering those answers dubious or even meaningless and undermining the system. That is exactly the outcome they're trying to avoid, or else they'd never have set up a FAQ to begin with.

I'm not sure I follow. How could calling a rules change a rules change possibly be more dubious than trying to sweep it under the rug and pretend people just didn't know what they were talking about?

It doesn't make anything less official, but it does clarify when Paizo is actually changing things.

[Psyren]

I'm not sure I follow. How could calling a rules change a rules change possibly be more dubious than trying to sweep it under the rug and pretend people just didn't know what they were talking about?

It doesn't make anything less official, but it does clarify when Paizo is actually changing things.

Because some of the FAQs really are just answering questions. For example, the Toothy + Razortusk (http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fn#v5748eaic9n88) FAQ didn't change anything - you only get one bite per head, this response was just emphasizing that. And it being a FAQ allowed them to open with a very informal/direct writing style, i.e. "this was an example of us letting a half-orc get the same thing in two different ways, rather than intending to give the same half-orc two things."

I think, for the true changes, statements like "this will be reflected in future errata" to signify a change, or "use the following rules" to point out that it's a new/updated rule (like they did here) - statements like that are literally all they need, if they need anything at all. Furthermore, I see no problem with the concept of official FAQ creating or even changing rules.