PDA

View Full Version : [3.5] Unarmed Swordsage Oversight...



Zovc
2010-05-29, 01:13 PM
Yeah, yeah, Wizzo has done it again.

Under Adaptation in the Swordsage entry of ToB, the Swordsage loses his light armor proficiency to gain the monk's unarmed damage progression. The problem is, Swordsages don't get their AC bonus unless they're in light armor (and unencumbered).

Is there (official) errata anywhere that fixes this?

Greenish
2010-05-29, 01:15 PM
No errata for you!

Reynard
2010-05-29, 01:17 PM
It's called a reasonable DM, and they're not really that uncommon.

Boci
2010-05-29, 01:19 PM
Surely its more powerthing this way. Nimble mithril chainshirt has no ACP, so why do I care I'm not proficient? And it it bothers you that much, a single feat to be able to wear light armour is well worth it IMO.

Zovc
2010-05-29, 01:22 PM
Surely its more powerthing this way. Nimble mithril chainshirt has no ACP, so why do I care I'm not proficient? And it it bothers you that much, a single feat to be able to wear light armour is well worth it IMO.

Not if I also lose my Wisdom to AC as a monk (from being an ACF Druid).

Ferrin
2010-05-29, 01:22 PM
Surely its more powerthing this way. Nimble mithril chainshirt has no ACP, so why do I care I'm not proficient? And it it bothers you that much, a single feat to be able to wear light armour is well worth it IMO.

This, or a reasonable DM, either way works.

Reynard
2010-05-29, 01:23 PM
But they don't stack anyway. So you lose nothing.

Greenish
2010-05-29, 01:23 PM
Not if I also lose my Wisdom to AC as a monk (from being an ACF Druid).They wouldn't stack anyway.

[Edit]: Swordsage'd on swordsage.

Zovc
2010-05-29, 01:24 PM
But they don't stack anyway. So you lose nothing.

Well, DM hasn't said they don't stack yet. When I asked him he said they were incompatible (due to one requiring unarmored and the other requiring light armor).

Greenish
2010-05-29, 01:26 PM
Well, DM hasn't said they don't stack yet.If there's no houserule, default rules apply, no?

Zovc
2010-05-29, 01:28 PM
If there's no houserule, default rules apply, no?

Eh, I'm asking anyways. ^_^

Douglas
2010-05-29, 01:29 PM
Well, DM hasn't said they don't stack yet. When I asked him he said they were incompatible (due to one requiring unarmored and the other requiring light armor).
That's the RAW way to ban it. The RAI way is they have the same name and represent the same thing, and two copies of the same thing don't stack. Either way, they don't stack unless your DM is being particularly generous with his house rules to power you up.

tyckspoon
2010-05-29, 01:30 PM
They also don't stack because they're same benefit from the same source (same named feature: 'AC Bonus'), much like getting Evasion from two different classes doesn't give you Improved Evasion or let you roll your Reflex save twice; you just have Evasion (unless you *do* get Improved Evasion, as in some PrCs that give you the Improved variety if you entered from a class that already had Evasion. But you won't get it from, say, being a Monk 2/Rogue 2.)

Zovc
2010-05-29, 01:32 PM
...unless your DM is being particularly generous with his house rules to power you up.

This is sort of the case, because the rest of my group is crazy powerful. I don't see how they think we need a healer, but I'm trying to fill that role without focusing on it too hardcore.

I don't see how they think we need a healer because 3/5 members have fast healing, one person can heal immediately after taking damage, I believe, and everyone is just crazy powerful in general.

Reynard
2010-05-29, 01:33 PM
If you swing having both, congratulations.

heywaitasecond. Why do you want the unarmed variant anyway? Druids can cast in most light armour with no penalty, and better unarmed damage is pointless when you can turn into a bear, where it won't change a thing about your attacks. Unless your DM is willing to let you swap Imp. Unarmed Strike for Imp. Natural Attack?

Greenish
2010-05-29, 01:36 PM
heywaitasecond. Why do you want the unarmed variant anyway?Druid AFC (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/variantCharacterClasses.htm#druid).
better unarmed damage is pointless when you can turn into a bear, where it won't change a thing about your attacks.Except you get iteratives as unarmed attacks and then your natural attacks as secondaries.

Zovc
2010-05-29, 01:40 PM
heywaitasecond. Why do you want the unarmed variant anyway? Druids can cast in most light armour with no penalty, and better unarmed damage is pointless when you can turn into a bear, where it won't change a thing about your attacks. Unless your DM is willing to let you swap Imp. Unarmed Strike for Imp. Natural Attack?

Well, my race's base land speed is 5 feet. The Feral template is making that 15', so I'm not a total pushover. At level 3 I'll be at 25' with the ACF, as well. I may not take Unarmed Swordsage, Unarmed Swordsage is just being the point of leverage, since it doesn't bother to adjust the class feature's wording.

Reynard
2010-05-29, 01:48 PM
Druid AFC (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/variantCharacterClasses.htm#druid).
:smallconfused: That's.... retarded.

Except you get iteratives as unarmed attacks and then your natural attacks as secondaries.
Ah. That is pretty good. Except US doesn't get seem to get FoB.

Well, my race's base land speed is 5 feet. The Feral template is making that 15', so I'm not a total pushover. At level 3 I'll be at 25' with the ACF, as well. I may not take Unarmed Swordsage, Unarmed Swordsage is just being the point of leverage, since it doesn't bother to adjust the class feature's wording.
I'd ditch the ACF and multiclass to plain Swordsage. That way, you don't have to worry about your DM okay-ing Wis-to-AC-x2, and get to keep the awesomeness of wildshape. Which will get rid of that movement problem you have. Plus you'll get maneuvers in addition to your Wis-to-AC, and proficiency with some better, if irrelevant in this case, weapons.

What race is that, btw?

Zovc
2010-05-29, 02:05 PM
I'd ditch the ACF and multiclass to plain Swordsage. That way, you don't have to worry about your DM okay-ing Wis-to-AC-x2, and get to keep the awesomeness of wildshape. Which will get rid of that movement problem you have. Plus you'll get maneuvers in addition to your Wis-to-AC, and proficiency with some better, if irrelevant in this case, weapons.

What race is that, btw?

I can't ditch it because getting +8 to my AC is too good to pass up at level 1.

DM has cited same source rule, so it's a no-go anyways. That doesn't make the ACF worse, it makes Swordsage worse. I can still be a Warblade or a Crusader if I see fit.

The race is Anthropomorphic Bat, from Savage Species. It has a fly speed of 20, it just makes doing certain things difficult while essentially using my arms to fly.

Curmudgeon
2010-05-29, 02:07 PM
Under Adaptation in the Swordsage entry of ToB, the Swordsage loses his light armor proficiency to gain the monk's unarmed damage progression. The problem is, Swordsages don't get their AC bonus unless they're in light armor (and unencumbered).
The reasonable DM that Reynard referred to will latch onto the key phrase "To create a monklike character", and treat that as permitting use of the Monk's AC bonus specification instead of the usual Swordsage AC bonus.

Greenish
2010-05-29, 02:14 PM
:smallconfused: That's.... retarded.You'll get no argument from me, there.

I can't ditch it because getting +8 to my AC is too good to pass up at level 1.Hide armour and heavy shield is +5, and you don't lose one of the pillars of druid's power. Next level you can take SS on the other side and get the wis to AC in light armour.

Thrice Dead Cat
2010-05-29, 02:20 PM
I have to agree with Greenish on this. If you're looking for PrCs, then that implies that the game will run past 5th level. The cost of getting a simple +8 AC bonus at first level is not worth the cost of being a bear at 5th level. The longer the game goes, the worse this will get.

Besides, low levels tend to be lethal if you get into melee combat. That +8 AC bonus is nice at level one, but chances are, high rolls are going to kill you, so it's somewhat moot.

true_shinken
2010-05-29, 02:29 PM
Never, ever give up wild shape.
How else would you be Kung-fu Panda, for crying out loud?!

Zovc
2010-05-29, 02:30 PM
Besides, low levels tend to be lethal if you get into melee combat. That +8 AC bonus is nice at level one, but chances are, high rolls are going to kill you, so it's somewhat moot.

I don't see how that makes sense. Using that argument, I might as well dump my AC as much as possible, because it just doesn't matter how high my AC is. High rolls are still going to kill me, but they're the only ones that matter anyways.

You silly argument is, in fact, moot.

Whether or not I should do this isn't the subject of either of my threads, either. Speaking of which, this thread's issue has been resolved.

Thrice Dead Cat
2010-05-29, 02:46 PM
I don't see how that makes sense. Using that argument, I might as well dump my AC as much as possible, because it just doesn't matter how high my AC is. High rolls are still going to kill me, but they're the only ones that matter anyways.

You silly argument is, in fact, moot.

Whether or not I should do this isn't the subject of either of my threads, either. Speaking of which, this thread's issue has been resolved.

Actually, yeah.:smalltongue:

My point was less "AC is worthless in general" and more "At low levels, odds are the high hits (which is to say, rolls that are critical threats) are the ones that tend to kill you." Therefore, going for an extra 8 AC, which, as has been shown, the real difference is only 3 points difference in AC.

So, in the end, you're giving up the near countless options wildshape offers for only 3 points of AC.

Zovc
2010-05-29, 06:23 PM
Actually, yeah.:smalltongue:

My point was less "AC is worthless in general" and more "At low levels, odds are the high hits (which is to say, rolls that are critical threats) are the ones that tend to kill you." Therefore, going for an extra 8 AC, which, as has been shown, the real difference is only 3 points difference in AC.

So, in the end, you're giving up the near countless options wildshape offers for only 3 points of AC.

Just to troll, my regular and Flat-Footed AC ended up at 25 (+1 small, +6 Natural, +8 Wis), so a basic fighter with a +4 Strength modifier has to crit me in order to hurt me at all.

This is compared to a 18-20 hitting me. :) I think that's a significant enough difference (what, a 10% difference?).

DragoonWraith
2010-05-29, 07:01 PM
18-20 is 3/20 (18, 19, or 20, out of 20 possibilities), so 15% chance. 20 is 1/20, so a 5% chance. The difference is, in fact, 10%.

Curmudgeon
2010-05-30, 12:06 AM
18-20 is 3/20 (18, 19, or 20, out of 20 possibilities), so 15% chance. 20 is 1/20, so a 5% chance. The difference is, in fact, 10%.
No, the difference is a 67%; that's the reduction in threat range from 18-20 to just 20. It's the relative difference that matters.

DragoonWraith
2010-05-30, 12:25 AM
15% - 5% = 10%

Difference. Subtraction.

Yes, it is an effective 67% reduction in the number of times you get hit, which is probably more relevant, but the statement I made is still accurate.

Pluto
2010-05-30, 12:39 AM
Is there (official) errata anywhere that fixes this?
I know the issue's been resolved and the conversation's shifted, but what would ever make you think there'd be errata?

Has any Adaptation section ever explicitly outlined a complete variant class?

The entire purpose of the Adaptation section is to suggest ideas for houserules and homebrew alterations. This thread makes no sense to me.

Zovc
2010-05-30, 12:53 AM
Has any Adaptation section ever explicitly outlined a complete variant class?

I have never read an adaptation section prior to finding out that the Unarmed Swordsage is in one... how would I reach that conclusion?

AslanCross
2010-05-30, 01:54 AM
Yeah, yeah, Wizzo has done it again.

Under Adaptation in the Swordsage entry of ToB, the Swordsage loses his light armor proficiency to gain the monk's unarmed damage progression. The problem is, Swordsages don't get their AC bonus unless they're in light armor (and unencumbered).

Is there (official) errata anywhere that fixes this?

The Tome of Battle "errata" might as well not exist, and Wizards currently pretends 3.5 doesn't exist, so it could not care less whether the errata they posted is useful or not usable at all or not. :smallfurious:

Brock Samson
2010-05-30, 08:29 AM
Quick point, I'm pretty sure that as an anthro-flying-animal you have regular arms with hands AND wings. I'm fairly certain on this. Go re-read through it again because it's quite beneficial if I'm correct.

Also, think about the different between a small creature (bat) with monk-unarmed strike progression (meh), and a Dire Ape with overland flight, able to wield monstrous weapons with various enhancements and climb speed and such and such. Just food for thought.

Escheton
2010-05-30, 08:57 AM
Unless you rolled 3 18's and better. Don't give up wildshape. Otherwise swift hunter is decent. Especially if you base form has fast healing and such. As I don't think your pandabearform is feral as well.

The oversight can quickly be fixed with dm logic, as been done.