Is this a fair circumstance penalty?

[killem2]

I should know better than to post here with out every single T crossed and I dotted, like I'm dealing with Contract Devils. This is Pathfinder.

Request: I am simply asking if you all feel it is a circumstance penalty which is stated as:

A circumstance bonus (or penalty) arises from specific conditional factors impacting the success of the task at hand. Circumstance bonuses stack with all other bonuses, including other circumstance bonuses, unless they arise from essentially the same source.

This person is a Filborg:

http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/bestiary5/firbolg.html

He has the ability:
Oversized Weapons (Ex) A firbolg can wield weapons sized as if the firbolg were one size category larger.

He also wears:
http://archivesofnethys.com/MagicWondrousDisplay.aspx?FinalName=Irongrip%20Gau ntlets

As the GM, i feel these stack. We can move on from that. That choice is final.

He also wears:

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic-items/wondrous-items/wondrous-items/a-b/belt-of-the-weasel/

This grants Compression, which is:

Compression (Ex)
The creature can move through an area as small as one-quarter its space without squeezing or one-eighth its space when squeezing.

Format: compression; Location: Special Qualities.

He also has a the ability to become Enlarged as enlarge person with a magic item

He Wields:

At normal size (Large) a Gargantuan lucerne hammer.

When he Squeezes into a spot that he is clearly to big for, I was thinking of imposing a possible -2/-4 Circumstance penaltiy to attack rolls.

My thought process is, the default squeezing rules I feel are clearly talking about creatures squeezing with manufactured weapons that they are intended to use. I don't classify natural weapons in this because there really isn't a case for oversized natural weapons. If they are a part of you, the -4 from squeezing is enough for any size.

So when he squeezes as a Large creature he is using a Gargantuan sized weapon. When he is Huge, it is Colossal.

-4 might be over the top. But -2 seems reasonable to me. But I'm not concrete on the idea either. My players brought it to me. I didn't just think of this.

If you all think the squeezing penalty applies for over sized weapons just like regular weapons then ok I'll do nothing. If you see that it could impost the penalty, alright fine, then I have no issue walking away here.




So in my session I've allowed players to use some monsters. Long story short, got a Firbolg player, with iron grip gauntlets, with the ability to use enlarge person. Large -> Huge

He also wears a belt of the weasle for compression.

Has a garg, lucern hammer.

I'm thinking if imposing a -2/-4 circumstance penalty for using a colossal sized weapon when he enlarges to huge.

Thought proccess is, you can compress, but your weapon is still ridiculously huge.

[TheYell]

If his weapon is the wrong size isn't there already a penalty?

Compression ability says weapons do less damage, doesn't allow or require a further to-hit penalty.

[Starkeeper]

There's already a penalty for inappropriately sized weapons. (https://www.d20pfsrd.com/equipment/weapons#TOC-Weapon-Size)

In addition, you simply cannot wield a Lucerne Hammer two sizes larger due to it shifting out of the two-handed weapon category into limbo.

Even if you get past that, there's still the issue of the weapon itself being Colossal after the Enlarge, so if it doesn't even fit in the area you're fighting, I doubt you can wield it unless you smash everything around you first.

[Crake]

There is already rules in place for wielding oversized weapons. For each category difference, the weapon gains a -2 penalty, and increases by 1 weight category. So to wield a gargantuan weapon as a large creature, it must be a light weapon to begin with, increasing to one handed for 1 category difference, and to two handed for 2 category differences, as well as imposing a -4 penalty to hit.

If you had the powerful build trait, or strongarm bracers, you could get a size category without penalty, combined with monkey grip, you could maintain the handedness of 2 categories larger, but you'd get a -2 penalty. So with those two, you could a 2 handed gargantuan weapon with only a -2 penalty.

[Blu]

If you had the powerful build trait, or strongarm bracers, you could get a size category without penalty, combined with monkey grip, you could maintain the handedness of 2 categories larger, but you'd get a -2 penalty. So with those two, you could a 2 handed gargantuan weapon with only a -2 penalty.

Powerfull build and monkey grip actually don't stack. Both make reference to your base size and only allow one category larger than that.

[Fizban]

Enlarge Person doesn't work on Firbolgs, Humanoid-only.

Even without the unfamiliar magic items, I get the feeling the OP is using 3.0 weapon sizes. Wherin a two-handed weapon for a medium creature is a large weapon. The two steps is therefore one for being two-handed, and one for powerful build/monkey grip/whatever. If this is true, they suffer no penalties other than those already part whatever they're using.

Which leads me to believe the OP is simply taking issue with the massive damage boosts gained from size increases- if you want to penalize the player for that, you'd best penalize all the monsters too.

[Starkeeper]

This Firbolg (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/monster-listings/humanoids/firbolg/) is a humanoid so would be a legal target for Enlarge Person and the Irongrip Gauntlets (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic-items/wondrous-items/wondrous-items/e-g/gauntlets-irongrip/), Belt of the Weasel (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic-items/wondrous-items/wondrous-items/a-b/belt-of-the-weasel/) as well as the Lucerne Hammer (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/equipment/weapons/weapon-descriptions/hammer-lucerne/) make it relatively safe to assume this is a Pathfinder question.

[killem2]

1. Yes it's pathfinder question. I will update the title. I really wish this The Giant would segregate the two.

2. Iron Grip will stack as it doesn't say it can't. Also, it should be safe to assume the Firbolg can wield larger than normal weapons because of it's traits (oversized weapon) it is an EX ability. I'm the gm, I'm cool with it stacking.

3. I know their is a penalty for inappropriate size weapons.


The real issue here is, you have a large/huge creature (which compression totally works on and I'm fine with) but the weapon which is two size categories above him does not compress, reshape, or anything. I don't have to give him any penalties of course. I feel his squeezing penalties would apply, but they would also apply because of HIS SIZE not because of HIS WEAPONS SIZE.


There's already a penalty for inappropriately sized weapons. (https://www.d20pfsrd.com/equipment/weapons#TOC-Weapon-Size)

In addition, you simply cannot wield a Lucerne Hammer two sizes larger due to it shifting out of the two-handed weapon category into limbo.

Even if you get past that, there's still the issue of the weapon itself being Colossal after the Enlarge, so if it doesn't even fit in the area you're fighting, I doubt you can wield it unless you smash everything around you first.


It is pathfinder - Firbolg has this:
Oversized Weapons (Ex) A firbolg can wield weapons sized as if the firbolg were one size category larger.

With this item:
http://archivesofnethys.com/MagicWondrousDisplay.aspx?FinalName=Irongrip%20Gau ntlets


This Firbolg (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/monster-listings/humanoids/firbolg/) is a humanoid so would be a legal target for Enlarge Person and the Irongrip Gauntlets (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic-items/wondrous-items/wondrous-items/e-g/gauntlets-irongrip/), Belt of the Weasel (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic-items/wondrous-items/wondrous-items/a-b/belt-of-the-weasel/) as well as the Lucerne Hammer (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/equipment/weapons/weapon-descriptions/hammer-lucerne/) make it relatively safe to assume this is a Pathfinder question.

True!


Enlarge Person doesn't work on Firbolgs, Humanoid-only.

Even without the unfamiliar magic items, I get the feeling the OP is using 3.0 weapon sizes. Wherin a two-handed weapon for a medium creature is a large weapon. The two steps is therefore one for being two-handed, and one for powerful build/monkey grip/whatever. If this is true, they suffer no penalties other than those already part whatever they're using.

Which leads me to believe the OP is simply taking issue with the massive damage boosts gained from size increases- if you want to penalize the player for that, you'd best penalize all the monsters too.

I'm the GM, I helped the player make the character. If I had an issue with it, I wouldn't have allowed it. I got zero issues. He's rolling with an 11th level party. Dealing big damage with a hammer is not really such a fancy thing at this level.

I have a slight issue using something that is naturally larger than the physical area. It's a grey rule I admit. Which is why this is an opinion post really about Circumstance bonus/penalty which by natural are based on opinion.


Powerfull build and monkey grip actually don't stack. Both make reference to your base size and only allow one category larger than that.

And if this were 3.5 I would agree. Even if it was, and these items were worded like Oversized Weapon and Iron Grip Gaunlets stacking is allowed. They don't even effect the same rule type. One is adjust the size category that you can wield, one is changed the penalty for using an oversized weapon. Sure, same sport but not the same ballpark.


If his weapon is the wrong size isn't there already a penalty?

Compression ability says weapons do less damage, doesn't allow or require a further to-hit penalty.

I apologize, not sure if you are referring to the compression spell or the ability but the ability under universal monsters only states:

Compression (Ex)
The creature can move through an area as small as one-quarter its space without squeezing or one-eighth its space when squeezing.

Format: compression; Location: Special Qualities.

[Fizban]

So your issue is that the actual length of the weapon is longer than the space of the creature wielding it? Well, plenty of creatures are a bit taller than their spaces, same with wingspans and snakes. I'm also not aware of any hard rules in 3.5 that state how big a weapon actually is in terms of length multipliers, just a (very small) weight multplier in Arms and Equipment Guide and a general statement that two-handed weapons are the same category as their wielders- but again there's a ton of variance that can be handwaved there. Gargantuan creatures have a 20' space and start with a height or length of 32 feet, while Colossal have a space of 30' and start at 64.

Does Pathfinder have hard rules on how long a weapon is, and do they make the weapon exceed similar appendage values such as wingspans for creatures of the size that the PC is reaching? 3.5 MM1 has the Yrthak for Huge flying creature, wingspan 40 feet. A Colossal object, fitting in a a 30' space, is still below the appendage length of the huge creature.

Either way, I find it hard to reconcile "If I had an issue I wouldn't have allowed it, 11th level big damage etc" and putting an arbitrary penalty on using the weapon for fluff rather than mechanical reasons. At the level when ordinary phsyics is about spent, and with a character that's already impossibly large.

[killem2]

Just remember, I am asking if you think’s fair or not. I’ve not committed to anything.


So your issue is that the actual length of the weapon is longer than the space of the creature wielding it? Well, plenty of creatures are a bit taller than their spaces, same with wingspans and snakes. I'm also not aware of any hard rules in 3.5 that state how big a weapon actually is in terms of length multipliers, just a (very small) weight multplier in Arms and Equipment Guide and a general statement that two-handed weapons are the same category as their wielders- but again there's a ton of variance that can be handwaved there. Gargantuan creatures have a 20' space and start with a height or length of 32 feet, while Colossal have a space of 30' and start at 64.

One part you are talking about weapons another creature. Natural weapons and their parts is not in contention. If he was using his fists, a bite attack or he managed to get a wing attack from some template I would not care because it’s contained with in his Compression ability granted from his belt.
His weapon, which is perfectly legal to carry and use and all that work wonderfully in spaces he can normally fit in. Compression says he can fit into X spot with out squeezing, I assume that means it was adjusting it for an appropriate size weapon.
When you squeeze, it imposes a -4 penalty to attack. Maybe it’s because of the creature’s size maybe it considers the weapon size.


Does Pathfinder have hard rules on how long a weapon is, and do they make the weapon exceed similar appendage values such as wingspans for creatures of the size that the PC is reaching? 3.5 MM1 has the Yrthak for Huge flying creature, wingspan 40 feet. A Colossal object, fitting in a a 30' space, is still below the appendage length of the huge creature.
I would not contend with natural attacks or body parts as compression allows the adjustment of those. A colossal object also does not give in size when “squeezed”.

One could argue that a medium creature squeezing with an approrpiate sized weapon, is penalized because well it's harder to move. No where does it talk about what happens when you are fighting with inappropriate sized weapons.

The rules for fighting with inappropriate sized weapons does give a penalty, but as I've stated this creature can use those weapons fine, in areas which you would normally try and fight.


Do we really think that the devs of these games made these long lists of weapons and said, now these rules are typically only for fighting in the cubby hole as a great dragon, mushed in there by magic, with a huge version of this weapon that took an item and ability to use.

No, of course not, they probably went at it, with the idea, of a vaccum, open battlefield, room to move around.


Either way, I find it hard to reconcile "If I had an issue I wouldn't have allowed it, 11th level big damage etc" and putting an arbitrary penalty on using the weapon for fluff rather than mechanical reasons. At the level when ordinary phsyics is about spent, and with a character that's already impossibly large.

It certainly is arbitrary lol, I am not just coming out of the blue with this. I’m coming at his with some reason and logic. That’s the job of the GM sometimes to question those grey areas, even if the age of rationality is lost after a certain level.
If we read circumstance bonus/penalty:
Circumstance A circumstance bonus (or penalty) arises from specific conditional factors impacting the success of the task at hand. Circumstance bonuses stack with all other bonuses, including other circumstance bonuses, unless they arise from essentially the same source.




Overall, if you guys don’t think’s fair fine. That’s what I came here to ask. But don’t quote me existing rules which don’t say these are Circumstance penalties (looking at you squeezing and improper size rules) and make me out to be the overreaching GM here.

[Starkeeper]

It is pathfinder - Firbolg has this:
Oversized Weapons (Ex) A firbolg can wield weapons sized as if the firbolg were one size category larger.

With this item:
http://archivesofnethys.com/MagicWondrousDisplay.aspx?FinalName=Irongrip%20Gau ntlets

The issue remains that the Firbolg player is only a Huge creature while Enlarged, meaning it would be able to wield a Gargantuan Lucerne Hammer with no problem but not a Colossal one.

The Irongrip Gauntlets only lower the numerial penalties and specifically state that they do not affect the handling, an oversized two-hander still remains illegal.

[killem2]

The issue remains that the Firbolg player is only a Huge creature while Enlarged, meaning it would be able to wield a Gargantuan Lucerne Hammer with no problem but not a Colossal one.

The Irongrip Gauntlets only lower the numerial penalties and specifically state that they do not affect the handling, an oversized two-hander still remains illegal.

But then that's where you apply this penalty correct?

Inappropriately Sized Weapons: A creature can't make optimum use of a weapon that isn't properly sized for it. A cumulative –2 penalty applies on attack rolls for each size category of difference between the size of its intended wielder and the size of its actual wielder. If the creature isn't proficient with the weapon, a –4 nonproficiency penalty also applies.

That reads that he would normally get a -2 peanlty.

Since his intended size limit for Large is Huge weapons because of his ability - oversized weapon. Which negates the first -2 penalty. He can just wield it. No issue of course.

By using the gloves, when he uses a a gargantuan sized weapon. If he didn't use these gloves he would be getting a -2 penalty. Since he does use the gloves it is reduced to 0.

When he becomes enlarged nothing is changed here. Everything scales.

Unless I'm understanding the Inappropriately sized weapon rule wrong for 10 years - completely possible.

[Starkeeper]

Unfortunately there's a second part to that rule:


The measure of how much effort it takes to use a weapon (whether the weapon is designated as a light, one-handed, or two-handed weapon for a particular wielder) is altered by one step for each size category of difference between the wielder’s size and the size of the creature for which the weapon was designed. For example, a Small creature would wield a Medium one-handed weapon as a two-handed weapon. If a weapon’s designation would be changed to something other than light, one-handed, or two-handed by this alteration, the creature can’t wield the weapon at all.

The combination of Oversized Weapons (Ex) and Irongrip Gauntlets would enable you to wield a weapon two sizes larger without any numerical penalties, that much is true, but they still wouldn't allow you to wield a two-hander which is two size categories larger.

[JNAProductions]

Ultimately, it doesn't really matter what WE think. Ask the player. We can double check you, we can offer advice, but if we all say "Yeah, that seems fair" and the player disagrees? Then that can cause issues.

Now, you are the DM, so you have your right to give a ruling, but you should also consider what's fun.

For what it's worth, I don't think the penalty is really needed. At a guess, he's probably not overshadowing anyone else, so why slap more penalties on him?