Post/Author/DateTime	Post
DarkmageRector 04-02-08, 10:50 PM	Say a creature has a colossal weapon. If they cast Enlarge Person on themself, does the weapon damage increase? The Player's Handbook says damage increases according to the table 2-2 in the DMG, and the table in the DMG bases damage increases on size categories increased. Since colossal is already the largest size category, does the damage stay the same? If so, I'm disappointed that this spell does nothing for large weapons.
Vegepygmy 04-02-08, 10:53 PM	What is this creature that has a colossal weapon and is also a valid target for enlarge person?
DarkmageRector 04-02-08, 11:04 PM	I don't know, a human with improved monkey grip and exotic weapon proficiency fullblade, for example.
ZiggZagg 04-02-08, 11:26 PM	The SRD has a really good guide for weapon damage. The damage would go up, and if you really need to know what to, you could check that table out.
DarkmageRector 04-02-08, 11:37 PM	(sorry for unintentional double post)
DarkmageRector 04-02-08, 11:39 PM	Thanks.
mplindustries 04-03-08, 12:53 AM	The SRD has a really good guide for weapon damage. The damage would go up, and if you really need to know what to, you could check that table out. If the weapon was actually colossal, it would not go up anymore as colossal is the largest size possible. I don't understand how you could be disappointed with a level 1 spell that does not help a character who is using a feat that sounds made up ("Improved Monkey Grip?") with a weapon from 3.0. The circumstances are insane, and I just can't understand when this could possibly come up so that it could be disappointing. Now, if you updated the Fullblade to 3.5, it would be one of two things: 1) A Fullblade could be a bastard sword designed for a large creature. In this case, anyone with EWP: Bastard Sword could wield a Fullblade two-handed with a -2 penalty to hit. Now, since its already a large weapon, monkey grip (or any invented improved version of it) would not help you wield a larger weapon. It would, however, let you use the 2d8 Fullblade in one hand (still with the -2 penalty). 2) A fullblade could be a two-handed exotic weapon that deals 2d8 damage when wielded by a medium creature. That means with Monkey Grip, you could wield a large Fullblade and it would do whatever 2d8 upgrades to (4d8?) In that case, your example would still not be Colossal yet, and could be upgraded. I understand that you're likely just objecting in theory, but in reality, there is almost no way for this "critical flaw" in the first level spell, Enlarge Person, to manifest. I'm sure some out there, however, would enjoy trying to come up with an actually legal way to do so.
DarkmageRector 04-03-08, 01:42 AM	It's not "invented." Dragon magazine man. Improved Monkey Grip has a prerequisite of Monkey Grip, and lets them use a size larger weapon for a -4 penalty. Thus, a normally Huge Fullblade would be a Colossal Fullblade. It does increase damage. I didn't say "critical flaw." I don't think your sarcasm is productive.
ZiggZagg 04-03-08, 01:54 AM	The weapon doesn't necessarily have to increase a size category to treat it as a damage size bigger. If you want to justify it, say that it went to Collosal+.
narack 04-03-08, 08:10 AM	The weapon doesn't necessarily have to increase a size category to treat it as a damage size bigger. If you want to justify it, say that it went to Collosal+. Go to the next size which is Gargantuan. It's in the MM3 if im not mistaken.
mplindustries 04-03-08, 10:33 AM	It's not "invented." Dragon magazine man. Improved Monkey Grip has a prerequisite of Monkey Grip, and lets them use a size larger weapon for a -4 penalty. Thus, a normally Huge Fullblade would be a Colossal Fullblade. It does increase damage. I didn't say "critical flaw." I don't think your sarcasm is productive. I think I already explained why the fullblade was a bad example to use. Lets just pretend, however, that you were in fact Large. There is, I believe, only one Huge humanoid, and its some naga from Oriental Adventures, so I think its safe to eliminate that one. If you are Large already, and you have "Improved Monkey Grip," your weapon (regardless of whether you're using a Fullblade or not) could be sized for a Gargantuan creature. If you can come up with some way for it to become one size category larger before Enlarge Person, then I guess this problem would apply. I don't know of any. In truth, it seems more of a problem for a psionic character who can change two size categories with Expand. Additionally, isn't Colossal+ not really a size category, but rather a way to keep increasing the power of Epic Dragons? You really can't go past Colossal.
mvincent 04-03-08, 01:22 PM	What is this creature that has a colossal weapon and is also a valid target for enlarge person?For fun, here are some possibilities: - Werebear monkeygripping a colossal sunblade. - Weretiger wielding a huge club with Shillelagh oil on it.
mvincent 04-03-08, 01:26 PM	Say a creature has a colossal weapon. If they cast Enlarge Person on themself, does the weapon damage increase?.Yes. The weapon size table is merely for convenience. As shown in the Improved Natural Attack (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsterFeats.htm#improvedNaturalAttack) feat, damage can be incremented almost without limit. However, check with your DM first, as they may have a different interpretation. Also, even if they allow it, they may not allow it if the damage goes past this listed incrementing.
risner 04-03-08, 08:48 PM	I don't know, a human with improved monkey grip and exotic weapon proficiency fullblade, for example. The largest weapon a human can use is a Large weapon. If you have IMG that allows two sizes, and I've never heard of that before, then it would be Huge. Again, how do you get colossal?
mplindustries 04-03-08, 08:48 PM	Yes. The weapon size table is merely for convenience. As shown in the Improved Natural Attack (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsterFeats.htm#improvedNaturalAttack) feat, damage can be incremented almost without limit. However, check with your DM first, as they may have a different interpretation. Also, even if they allow it, they may not allow it if the damage goes past this listed incrementing. False. According to the actual spell, Enlarge Person (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/enlargeperson.htm), " All equipment worn or carried by a creature is similarly enlarged by the spell" (Emphasis mine). If there is no size for the weapon to be enlarged to, it can't be enlarged, just like a character. Additionally, Improved Natural Attack (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsterFeats.htm) says, "The damage for this natural weapon increases by one step, as if the creature’s size had increased by one category..." (Emphasis mine). It does not actually get bigger, it just increases damage by the same amount as getting bigger. This is not sufficient to suggest a weapon can increase its size beyond Colossal. It doesn't actually address it all. For fun, here are some possibilities: - Werebear monkeygripping a colossal sunblade. - Weretiger wielding a huge club with Shillelagh oil on it. 1) A Colossal Sunblade would function as a Colossal Shortsword. Thus, it would be a one-handed weapon for a gargantuan creature, a two-handed weapon for a Huge creature, and a three handed weapon for a large. Unless a werebear is Huge, it couldn't wield the colossal weapon. Monkey Grip does not decrease the effort required to wield larger weapons by one step. It only provides a specific benefit for weapons that are exactly one size larger than you are. Thus, said Large character could Monkey Grip a Huge Sunblade and treat it as a light weapon. Or, it could wield a Gargantuan Sunblade in two-hands, becuase Monkey Grip only helps with weapons one size larger than he is. 2) The Weretiger, however, is a situation when Enlarge Person would not increase your weapon's damage any further. One of the few I could conceive of. Nice job on that. I don't really get why you wanted to use two different kinds of werecreature though. It stood out to me as odd for some reason.
ciaran 04-03-08, 08:57 PM	It's not "invented." Dragon magazine man. Improved Monkey Grip has a prerequisite of Monkey Grip, and lets them use a size larger weapon for a -4 penalty. Thus, a normally Huge Fullblade would be a Colossal Fullblade. It does increase damage. What are the prereqs like? Comp Warrior - the place Monkey Grip appears - already has an epic level version.
mvincent 04-03-08, 11:15 PM	The largest weapon a human can use is a Large weapon.That is incorrect. Any human can wield a huge, light weapon.
mvincent 04-04-08, 01:14 PM	If there is no size for the weapon to be enlarged to, it can't be enlargedThat's your opinion, but the rules don't actually say that anywhere. The charts understandable have to end somewhere (out of practicality), but if the DM knows about the incrementing pattern, I'd say it's his call. Improved Natural Attack says, "The damage for this natural weapon increases by one step, as if the creature’s size had increasedThen use the Increased Damage By Size Table (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/improvingMonsters.htm#sizeIncreases) instead. It is specifically for size increases, and it does not stop at any particular size. Monkey Grip only helps with weapons one size larger than he is.True, the exact wording on monkey grip says that it's usable on weapons one size larger, so a strict reading might imply that it would be useless on a weapon two sizes larger. However, that seems overly literalistic and not what the writer intended. The 3.5 FAQ provides an example of powerful build (which has similar wording) aiding a medium character to wield a huge weapon. Another answer in the 3.5 FAQ paraphrases the ability as "the character is treated as one size larger than normal... when determining what size of weapons the character can use". So (at a minimum) the issue is subject to some interpretation, and the Sage himself interprets it to allow what I said. But if you prefer, replace monkey-grip in what I said above with strongarm bracers. Unlike Monkey grip and Powerful Build, the description for Strongarm Bracers doesn't technically state that they let you wield weapons one size larger than you; rather, they say that they let you wield weapons as if you were one size larger.
mplindustries 04-04-08, 03:30 PM	That's your opinion, but the rules don't actually say that anywhere. The charts understandable have to end somewhere (out of practicality), but if the DM knows about the incrementing pattern, I'd say it's his call. Then use the Increased Damage By Size Table (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/improvingMonsters.htm#sizeIncreases) instead. It is specifically for size increases, and it does not stop at any particular size. Yes, both of those things you said rely on size actually changing. However, the weapon's size is not changing, only the character's size. There is no size larger than Colossal for anything to change into, so you can't increase the damage by a step if the size doesn't change by a step. True, the exact wording on monkey grip says that it's usable on weapons one size larger, so a strict reading might imply that it would be useless on a weapon two sizes larger. However, that seems overly literalistic and not what the writer intended. The 3.5 FAQ provides an example of powerful build (which has similar wording) aiding a medium character to wield a huge weapon. Another answer in the 3.5 FAQ paraphrases the ability as "the character is treated as one size larger than normal... when determining what size of weapons the character can use". So (at a minimum) the issue is subject to some interpretation, and the Sage himself interprets it to allow what I said. This is just wrong, I'm sorry. For one, Powerful Build and Monkey Grip are worded differently enough that they don't both function the same way in all things, most glaring being the penalty. Monkey Grip's function is specifically to prevent the increase in effort required to wield a larger weapon. That is it. It does not "reduce the effort," it completely negates the increased effort for a weapon exactly one size larger than you. That is it. There is no way to interpret it further. Powerful Build (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/monsters/halfGiant.htm) lets you "use weapons designed for a creature one size larger without penalty." This also is explicitly only for weapons one size larger. It does not help you wield anything bigger than that. Again, it does not say "Powerful Build reduces the penalties," it says it totally removes the penalties in one instance. The example in the FAQ does not help you at all because it uses a houseruled version of the Fullblade. It is a very poorly worded house rule at that. What the Sage really means is that a Fullblade that deals 2d8 is sized as a martial weapon for a large creature, but that a special EWP can let it be treated as if it were sized one size smaller. Its a bad choice for a houserule on the Sage's part and that example has brought far more confusion than clarity. If you look at what he's really saying, and replace the Fullblade, it supports my statements. Also the FAQ is not official and should never be referenced in rules discussions as factual or RAW. It can be helpful in some cases, but the Sage is fallible. But if you prefer, replace monkey-grip in what I said above with strongarm bracers. Unlike Monkey grip and Powerful Build, the description for Strongarm Bracers doesn't technically state that they let you wield weapons one size larger than you; rather, they say that they let you wield weapons as if you were one size larger. I don't have the MIC, but if the wording is truly what you have written, then yes, that would work just fine.
Toki_Wartooth 04-04-08, 04:32 PM	how do you get colossal?The debate is applicable to other situations as well, like cloud giants with psionic expansion, polymorphed characters, and casters with the "giant size" spell.
Toki_Wartooth 04-04-08, 04:34 PM	There is no size larger than Colossal for anything to change into, so you can't increase the damageYou can play as *you* like, but the rules do provide increments, and they don't say you *can't* do this... nor to they imply that common sense shouldn't be used. I'm sorry.Agreed. is explicitly only for weapons one size larger. It does not help you wield anything bigger than that.Again, play as *you* like in your own game, but don't *insist* that others not use common sense when interpreting the rules for their own games. You got pwn'ed earlier, now you're just being silly.
mplindustries 04-04-08, 06:18 PM	You can play as *you* like, but the rules do provide increments, and they don't say you *can't* do this... nor to they imply that common sense shouldn't be used. Agreed. Again, play as *you* like in your own game, but don't *insist* that others not use common sense when interpreting the rules for their own games. You got pwn'ed earlier, now you're just being silly. I think I must have missed the spot where all this happened. First, I never said that anyone has to play by RAW. I personally hate RAW and I change quite a bit. When I speak authoritatively on the boards, its from the viewpoint of RAW, however. I do not have to agree with what the game says to tell people its the way the rules are written, nor are people obliged to run the rules as they are written. When someone claims that they can use common sense to expand upon the rules, I will say, as I did, "Yes you can, but that does not make it in the rules." Which its not. There is no size category larger than colossal for creatures, yes? (Colossal+ is not a real size category, but rather a boost to Dragon powers for those more powerful than the normal Colossal ones). If there is a size category larger than Colossal, then show it to me, and I will relent. The section on weapon sizing (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/weapons.htm) says quite clearly, "Every weapon has a size category. This designation indicates the size of the creature for which the weapon was designed." So, if a weapon that is colossal increases in size, what size is it? The damage changes because the weapon changes size, not just because a spell that could increase its size is cast on it. There is no allowance in RAW for anything (any creature and by extension of that quote, any weapon) that is larger than Colossal. There is nowhere for it to go. The incremental nature of the increases are provided for alternative options to increase damage die steps, such as the aforementioned Improved Natural Attack. So, show me 1) where there is a size category larger than Colossal and what its called and 2) where I said nobody is allowed to houserule anything they want. All I said was what RAW was. You can personally change anything you like, I just don't think its constructive to bring houserules into a rules discussion, as they are simply not universal enough and people will not have common ground to stand upon.
Toki_Wartooth 04-04-08, 06:38 PM	When someone claims that they can use common sense to expand upon the rules, I will say, as I did, "Yes you can, but that does not make it in the rules."For many players RAI takes precedence over RAW... especially since there are some areas where going by strict RAW can can even lead to absurd results that were clearly not intended. The english language can be odd, and no one can write perfectly. Illuminating the context of a rule can indeed be helpful. So legitimate, reasonable interpretations of RAI are not neccesarily 'house-rules' so much as likely... or at least reasonably possible... 'Rules as intended'. RAI is suitable to discuss in this forum. All I said was what RAW was.Then I will be happy to agree with you on strict RAW. I even understand how you desire to use this. However, if *you* cannot understand how one might reasonably come to a different RAI conclusion here... that is your bad, not their's.
mplindustries 04-04-08, 07:20 PM	So legitimate, reasonable interpretations of RAI are not neccesarily 'house-rules' so much as likely... or at least reasonably possible... 'Rules as intended'. RAI is suitable to discuss in this forum. Then I will be happy to agree with you on strict RAW. I even understand how you desire to use this. However, if *you* cannot understand how one might reasonably come to a different RAI conclusion here... that is your bad, not their's. If you are talking on the topic of the Monkey Grip thing, I also don't believe it is RAI to do anything but allow you to wield a weapon one sized larger than you, not because it alone would be overpowered, but because of the combination of things you can do. I think perhaps the writer of the Monkey Grip feat may have thought there'd be no problem if you used a Huge one-handed weapon in two hands using the feat, but I think if you suggested the idea of using it to wield colossal weapons and other such things, I am pretty sure he'd balk. Rather than say, "This feat is probably intended to work this way, but not if you use it to abuse this thing over here..." which is a rather tricky proposition, I'd just as soon say, "Hey, this is how it works. If you want to change it, thats a houserule." As for his argument, its not that I don't think someone can reasonably decide something is intended to be X, its that I was given a line of logic, and I showed where that logic was flawed. If all that was said was, "I think Monkey Grip was intended to work this way" it'd be fine. It was the inclusion of the "...because of X, Y, and Z" that I had a problem with. When people make statements like that, without caveat, on a board designed to help others with rules questions, it muddies the waters quite a bit and you will end up with even more threads about what Monkey Grip really can and can't do both here and on the "Whats a DM to do?" forums. My purposes were not to shut someone down. I believe I even showed my admiration for a few different things that did work and showed my earlier statement of "This can't really come up" to be wrong. I still think its unlikely to, but there are solid ways that it could. My purpose was to clarify for the vast audience of clueless gamers what was and wasn't in the rules.
Holy_Beholder 04-04-08, 08:16 PM	Go to the next size which is Gargantuan. It's in the MM3 if im not mistaken. Gargantuan is before Colossal. Although I think I have seen Titanic somewhere.
risner 04-05-08, 02:54 PM	That is incorrect. Any human can wield a huge, light weapon. I'll bite, I am not perfect. What did I miss? How do you use a Huge Light? -4 attack for sizing? Meaning it is used as a two handed weapon? So what is the damage? Huge Dagger is 1d4->1d6->1d8 damage? The debate is applicable to other situations as well, like cloud giants with psionic expansion, polymorphed characters, and casters with the "giant size" spell. Well, in that case the size of the user is increased or the spell itself is enhancing the size of the weapon (which may negate the ability of the user from using things like Monkey Grip etc to add to that increase while the spell is actively increasing the weapon size.) Gargantuan is before Colossal. Although I think I have seen Titanic somewhere. That was listed in a 3rd party book. Colossal and Colossal+ are the ones from WotC books. The Colossal+ was only in Dragonomicon (iirc) and wasn't a size but rather a template of sorts on what to change for very large Colossal creatures.
war_thog 04-06-08, 10:45 AM	While this would never happen, just for theories sake..... What about a 20th level monk of a colossal race.... Base unarmed damage 12d8 and who also wields a 1/4staff for 4d6 dmg. Sonehow righteous might gets busted out on his big ass *dont need to be humanoid for all you nitpickers* Where do we go from there? Is colossal the legal limit and the spell fails or does colossal ++ exist? Also what would his dmg's be?
SolEiji 04-06-08, 11:15 AM	Offically ++ sizes don't exist but I know the Immortals Handbook continued the progression, going to Titanic, then Macro-Fine, Macro-Diminutive, etc..... then running with [Some Other Title]-Fine, [Title]-Diminutive, etc. In my case I don't place caps on these things, and I wouldn't find it unreasonable if you DM didn't either. Just follow whatever progression you see as if it was up X sizes.
M-bark 04-06-08, 01:29 PM	I'll bite, I am not perfect. What did I miss? How do you use a Huge Light? -4 attack for sizing? Meaning it is used as a two handed weapon? So what is the damage? Huge Dagger is 1d4->1d6->1d8 damage? For as far as I know, a Huge dagger is the same as a Medium greatsword, because a light weapon is two size categories smaller than the size creature it was made for and a two-handed weapon is the same size. Thus, they are both within the same size category, and deal the same damage.
mvincent 04-06-08, 03:47 PM	For as far as I know, a Huge dagger is the same as a Medium greatswordDamage-wise, a huge shorts-sword is similar to a medium greatsword... but even then a medium creature will still take a -4 when attacking with it, and none of their greatsword feats would be applicable.
narack 04-07-08, 08:10 AM	Gargantuan is before Colossal. Although I think I have seen Titanic somewhere. Ya right Gargantuan is before, i mixed it up with Titanic. Titanic is in MM2 if my memory's good and the picture is a huge frog. it gain crazy HD. I remember it says that a titanic creature is unaware of his size. It's liek the frog see a lake bu only 1 of his leg can fit in but for him it doesn't matter he still think he can fit in.
mplindustries 04-07-08, 09:13 AM	Ya right Gargantuan is before, i mixed it up with Titanic. Titanic is in MM2 if my memory's good and the picture is a huge frog. it gain crazy HD. I remember it says that a titanic creature is unaware of his size. It's liek the frog see a lake bu only 1 of his leg can fit in but for him it doesn't matter he still think he can fit in. Actually, no, Titanic is a template. I think it makes a totally mundane animal Colossal...it might just be gargantuan though. And the frog does look silly.
Holy_Beholder 04-07-08, 05:47 PM	I also think titanic was in the epic level handbook, as an alternate name for collosal+, since the prismastic dragon and a few other creatures went above collosal.