How good/bad is Battle Dancer?

[John Cribati]

Just thinking. For those of you who don't have Dragon Compendium, a Battle Dancer is more or less a Charisma-focused, Full Bab Monk ( but only with AC Bonus and Bonus Speed), poor Will and Fort saves, and Stat-boosting Dances.

[Dusk Eclipse]

I think it was considered Tier 4; but I don't really have experience with them.

[GoatBoy]

I believe that Tier 4 is pushing it. Their skill list is nothing special, most of their class features are simply about avoiding Attacks of Opportunity, their only party buff is a bonus to saves against fear, and they have no special melee tricks. Frankly, they might be a candidate for Tier 6.

[Dusk Eclipse]

Even weaker than a Monk? I don't think so, maybe tier 5 but not 6.

[GoatBoy]

Well, a Monk has 3 good saves, the Battle Dancer has 1 (Ref). Monk has feat support and alternate class features. Monk has stunning fist, which is not great, but it is something. Both have attacks which overcome damage reduction, but the Monk's come 2 levels sooner. Monk has bonus feats, evasion, purity of body...

Really, the Battle Dancer is BAD. It has a full BAB, yes, but so does the Samurai.

[John Cribati]

... Huh. Didn't know it was that bad. At the very least, I must admit that it might make a reasonable dip for the Sorcerer.

[GoatBoy]

True, the +Cha to AC is not bad, but the rest is just awful. And classes can't really be defined on their "dippability," or else Fighter and Monk would be far higher. I mean, it has to spend a standard action to make its unarmed strikes overcome DR vs magic.

I'm personally disappointed because it looked good at first, but once you read its actual class features, it's just horrible.

[John Cribati]

I'm personally disappointed because it looked good at first, but once you read its actual class features, it's just horrible.

Hey! Just like the Monk!

[stainboy]

Straight Battle Dancer looks pretty poor. 20 class levels with about three abilities to recommend it (Springing Tiger, Vexing Snake, real grapple damage on a full-BAB class) and the worst save progression a class is allowed to have.

If your DM rules that you can advance your battle dancer abilities with monk PrCs you could combine with Favored Soul or Shukenja to make a spontaneous Sacred Fist. Shame it doesn't work with Enlightened Fist or I'd totally build a Battle Dancer/Dread Necro gish.

Basic damage optimization: take Hammer Fist and Snap Kick, build like a 2H power attacker.

[Toliudar]

Just like the Monk, it's a great 1-2 level dip for some builds.

[Person_Man]

The Battle Dancer offers full BAB, Cha to AC when unarmored, Monk unarmed damage, Scout-ish bonus to speed, Pounce (at 11th level), several "dance" related abilities which all suck, and 6 dead levels. It's pretty much garbage, and there is essentially no reason to take levels of this class. And in general, any "while unarmored" X to Y ability generally results in lower AC and MAD issues.

[Viktyr Gehrig]

Unless you're arcane, it's your casting stat, and you get it at 1st level. Then it's candy.

It's not bad for a Shugenja, but you're almost always better off with 2 levels of Paladin for heavy armor and divine grace. And you can't afford a third level for Battle Dancer.

[Reynard]

+Cha to AC isn't so delicious when you consider how bad the Sorc's casting progression is. That one level dip means you'll be a whole spell level behind a same-level Wizard at all times.

Also, getting a suit of magic armour that has no Arcane Casting failure chance and a -0 Armour Check penalty is... really really easy.

[Coidzor]

True, the +Cha to AC is not bad, but the rest is just awful. And classes can't really be defined on their "dippability," or else Fighter and Monk would be far higher. I mean, it has to spend a standard action to make its unarmed strikes overcome DR vs magic.

I'm personally disappointed because it looked good at first, but once you read its actual class features, it's just horrible.


Hey! Just like the Monk!

No, Trappier than the Monk! :smalleek:

[Brock Samson]

If you're already playing a Sorcerer you know you're not playing a Wizard, perhaps you are ok with being 1 spell level behind the Wizard. A level 1 Sorcerer/1 Battle Dancer, let's say has 20 Cha, and a 16 Dex, would have a normal and TOUCH AC of 18, then cast Mage Armor and Shield for an AC of 26 at level 2. Not bad by any means.

Later on in levels you grab yourself a Monk's Belt, and get to add your Wis modifier on TOP of your Cha and Dex and now Greater Mage Armor, throwing up Shield and Protection from X.

It seems to me if you're not concerned with being Teh God Wizzzzard, it could make a pretty effective dip.

And of course, just for the lulz you later get into Fist of the Forest(?) for Con to AC, and polymorph yourself into a high-Con creature.

[Brock Samson]

Hm, and if you're going to go the Fist of the Forest route, anyone know the requirements? At that point you could always dip 1 level of Swordsage later on in your levels if that'd get you in with Superior Unarmed Strike, plus lots of fun maneuvers to play around with on top of your spells. Yes, you'll not likely be pulling but 7th level spells at the end of the game, but it'd sure be a fun time!

[Curmudgeon]

Later on in levels you grab yourself a Monk's Belt, and get to add your Wis modifier on TOP of your Cha
Nope. It's the same source (class feature named AC Bonus), so it won't stack any more than the Monk and Ninja AC Bonus class features stack. You just get the better bonus of the two.

[The Cat Goddess]

Nope. It's the same source (class feature named AC Bonus), so it won't stack any more than the Monk and Ninja AC Bonus class features stack. You just get the better bonus of the two.

Disagree.

For the same reason that the "AC Bonus" from Con from Fist of the Forest stacks with the "AC Bonus" from Wis from Monk.

I would agree that "AC Bonus" from the same stat won't stack, since that literally is the same source (the stat).

[Brock Samson]

I feel like the Fist of the Forest sets precedent for different stats being able to apply to AC. At least, I bet most DMs would interpret it that way.

[Curmudgeon]

Disagree.

For the same reason that the "AC Bonus" from Con from Fist of the Forest stacks with the "AC Bonus" from Wis from Monk.
AC Bonus is a named source, so these don't stack. You would need to show that an ability score is called a "source" somewhere (anywhere) in the rules, or your disagreement has no RAW foundation.

[Brock Samson]

If the bonus is entirely dependent on one certain ability to provide AC or not, that sounds like the "source" of the AC to me.

[Curmudgeon]

If the bonus is entirely dependent on one certain ability to provide AC or not, that sounds like the "source" of the AC to me.
"Sounds like" isn't a rational basis for deciding which way to adjudicate an ambiguous rule; after all, the alternative sounds just as likely.

[Brock Samson]

Meh, I think most DMs would err on the side of allowing it.

[Curmudgeon]

Meh, I think most DMs would err on the side of allowing it.
That would also mean disallowing bonuses from different named abilities that happen to be driven from the same ability score. After all, you've got a stacking limitation in the rules, and you've still got to enforce it; it's just a matter of figuring out how. So that means most DMs "err on the side of disallowing" many other combinations. I don't see how that's better. They'd be making it impossible for the Blackguard's Dark Blessing and Paladin's Divine Grace to stack, for instance. There are many fewer abilities (just 6) than named class features, spells, feats, and so on, so those DMs would be restricting many more combinations than they would be allowing.

[Talya]

The monk/fist of the forest/battledancer bonuses to AC are untyped. They are just bonuses to ac. A typed armor bonus to AC is "an armor bonus to AC," or "a deflection bonus to AC" or a "dodge bonus to AC" or a "natural armor bonus to AC." If it just says "Bonus to AC" it is untyped, and therefore stacks with everything, including the same feature on another class.

(You can also have bonuses to bonuses. The Enhancement bonus on armor provides a bonus to the armor bonus on the armor. *boggle.*)

[Curmudgeon]

The monk/fist of the forest/battledancer bonuses to AC are untyped. They are just bonuses to ac. A typed armor bonus to AC is "an armor bonus to AC," or "a deflection bonus to AC" or a "dodge bonus to AC" or a "natural armor bonus to AC." If it just says "Bonus to AC" it is untyped, and therefore stacks with everything, including the same feature on another class. Maybe in your house rule, but not generally.

Stacking

In most cases, modifiers to a given check or roll stack (combine for a cumulative effect) if they come from different sources and have different types (or no type at all), but do not stack if they have the same type or come from the same source (such as the same spell cast twice in succession). If the modifiers to a particular roll do not stack, only the best bonus and worst penalty applies.
Untyped doesn't matter, if the source is the same. That's why it makes a big difference how you interpret the term "source".

[Talya]

No matter how you look at it, the source is different. Either the source is (a) the class (which is different) or (b) the ability score (which is also different. -- under this viewpoint, the monk and swordsage --assuming you could get past the armor issue -- would not stack, as they are both sourced "wisdom", but everything else would.) The source cannot be "a class feature." If that was true, multiclassing would always result in severe BAB loss, as both classes gain bonus to BAB from class features. Plus they are different class features with similar descriptions. If the source is the class giving the feature, then monk/fist of the forest/battle dancer are all separate classes, and therefore different sources. If the source is the ability score, well then you've got wisdom/constitution/charisma.

Stacking or not, it's generally a bad idea to take monk or battle dancer. Combining them is even worse. I doubt fist of the forest can redeem this.

[Brock Samson]

On a side note for the Battle Dancer, one of my friends actually played one for a session or two in our Epic (22-23) level campaign. He attacked one of the other players who was not there and we called the player to see how he'd want to respond. In the end player 2 decided to have me, the Wizard/Druid/Mystic Theurge/Arcane Heirophant, do some magical shenanigans to weld metal brackets onto his legs, which gave him like a -10 to Tumble checks. It sounds pretty cruel, but was all in good fun.

[Curmudgeon]

Either the source is (a) the class (which is different) or (b) the ability score ...
The source cannot be "a class feature." If that was true, multiclassing would always result in severe BAB loss ...
Even a cursory check shows that justification doesn't hold water. Explicit specific instructions always override general rules. From Player's Handbook page 59:
Base Attack Bonus: Add the base attack bonuses acquired for each class to get the character’s base attack bonus.
...
Saving Throws: Add the base save bonuses for each class together. A named class feature most assuredly can be a source, and here are some examples of how the rules use the term.
Sneak Attack: This is exactly like the rogue ability of the same name. The extra damage dealt increases by +1d6 every other level (2nd, 4th, 6th, 8th, and 10th). If an arcane trickster gets a sneak attack bonus from another source the bonuses on damage stack.
Sneak Attack: This is exactly like the rogue ability of the same name. The extra damage dealt increases by +1d6 every other level (1st, 3rd, 5th, 7th, and 9th). If an assassin gets a sneak attack bonus from another source the bonuses on damage stack.
Sneak Attack This ability, gained at 4th level, is like the rogue ability of the same name. The extra damage increases by +1d6 every third level beyond 4th (7th and 10th). If a blackguard gets a sneak attack bonus from another source the bonuses on damage stack.
I can produce at least a couple dozen more examples just for the Sneak Attack class feature saying that source of damage stacks. (Since Sneak Attack is untyped damage, it wouldn't be necessary, if either of your possibilities had any basis in the RAW, to make these statements at all. The classes are different, and Sneak Attack isn't tied to any ability score.) Anyway, those are just a few citations where a named class ability is explicitly declared a source in the rules.

Can you produce any rules which state that a "source" is either a class, or an ability score?

[GoatBoy]

Does that mean that since a monk adds their wisdom mod to AC, they don't get to add their dexterity mod to AC anymore?

[Curmudgeon]

Does that mean that since a monk adds their wisdom mod to AC, they don't get to add their dexterity mod to AC anymore?
Maybe if you buy Talya's argument. That's certainly not my understanding of the RAW. Dexterity modifier to AC and the AC Bonus class feature have different names (actually, the first one doesn't even have a proper name), so these are different sources; they stack.

[stainboy]

According to the FAQ: (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/files/Main35FAQv06302008.zip)


Does the Armor Class bonus ability from the monk, swordsage, and ninja stack?
No, each of these abilities provides the same bonus. You are not able to benefit from multiple sources that have the same name more then once.


Same name -> doesn't stack.

[MeeposFire]

I guess my draconic knowledge feat, my other draconic knowledge feat, and the draconic knowledge invocation should not stack.:smallbiggrin:

Sorry I am just amused by the lack of imagination in naming!

[Curmudgeon]

According to the FAQ: (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/files/Main35FAQv06302008.zip)
Same name -> doesn't stack.
Based on how "source" is used in the rules, I believe the FAQ has this answer right. The trouble is that they've also got quite a few answers wrong, so as a way to support your position in a debate the FAQ is of questionable value. (As a source of questions to think about and answer yourself it's an excellent resource, though, and that's mostly how I use it.)


I guess my draconic knowledge feat, my other draconic knowledge feat, and the draconic knowledge invocation should not stack.:smallbiggrin:
You mean Draconic Knowledge [Monstrous] and Draconic Knowledge [Draconic]? There are also quite a few "Feat X" and "Feat X [Epic]" instances. The names are different, but you've got to include the entire title line of each feat to make that distinction. :smallannoyed:

[stainboy]

If you don't accept the FAQ as RAW, then how do you get that same name = same source? Rogue, blackguard, and arcane trickster sneak attack also have the same mechanics, so you'd need something else to infer that same name is sufficient.

Either way you're being inconsistent: you've said "same name" and "same title line," which aren't the same thing. The name of Quicken Spell is Quicken Spell. Prereq lists and stat blocks don't call it Quicken Spell [Metamagic].

[Veyr]

Arcane Trickster and Blackguard both explicitly state that they can stack with other forms of Sneak Attack. Specific trumps general, in that case.

Also, two feats with the same name that do completely different things are not the "same source" (which is the actual rule, not the "same name" rule of thumb). But two feats are called "AC Bonus" and give a bonus to AC based on an Ability?

[Curmudgeon]

If you don't accept the FAQ as RAW, then how do you get that same name = same source?
I get that from reading the actual RAW, perhaps in the same way the FAQ author arrived at that conclusion. I refer you back to my earlier post where the term "source" was used in the rules for the Sneak Attack named class features of Arcane Trickster, Assassin, and Blackguard classes regarding stacking. Those are RAW citations that help to determine what's being referred to as a "source". It would make no sense in those cases for "source" to refer to either a class name or an (irrelevant) ability score, while the term was used (sensibly) in the context of a named class ability.

I've still never seen a use of the term "source" in the rules where it refers to a class name or ability score; that appears only to crop up as a debate construct in discussion forums such as this one.

[Noneoyabizzness]

its alright.

if you are in the mood for low power fighting it can be fun.
if you are going to gestalt, it mixes well with barb or any chr caster
things it has going for it
1)vexing snake-tumbling at normal speed is useful around the time you get it
2)springing tiger-boost to charging builds.
3)soaring eagle-permanent flight speed with another boost to charging the only way it could be more fun would be if it were an EX ability instead of Su,

now the rest of it has conditional usefulness.

and as far as source=nonstackable, depends on the source multiple dodge & circumstance typed bonuses do. rest don't

[The Cat Goddess]

Alright...

If you do not allow the Con-to-AC bonus of Fist of the Forest to stack with the Wis-to-AC bonus of Monk, then you break the value of the class.

Just like denying the Int-to-AC bonus of the Duelist class to stack (not that anyone would actually take that PrC... I'm just using it as an example).

[Curmudgeon]

If you do not allow the Con-to-AC bonus of Fist of the Forest to stack with the Wis-to-AC bonus of Monk, then you break the value of the class.
The class really has little value in any case. You'll get more unarmed damage if you just take the Superior Unarmed Strike feat, over time, than if you take all the levels of Fist of the Forest. Breaking the basic stacking rule to try to redeem one poor PrC is a thoroughly bad idea. :smallfrown:

[JaronK]

AC Bonus is a named source, so these don't stack. You would need to show that an ability score is called a "source" somewhere (anywhere) in the rules, or your disagreement has no RAW foundation.

It's like having an insight bonus vs a sacred bonus. They're different bonuses. Same source but different bonus type DOES work, because they're not stacking... they're giving something different. One is giving a Wis bonus to AC, the other is giving a Charisma bonus to AC, just as Fist of the Forest clearly gives a Con bonus to AC to people who already had a Wis bonus to AC.

JaronK

[Talya]

The class really has little value in any case. You'll get more unarmed damage if you just take the Superior Unarmed Strike feat, over time, than if you take all the levels of Fist of the Forest. Breaking the basic stacking rule to try to redeem one poor PrC is a thoroughly bad idea. :smallfrown:

Fist of the forest + superior unarmed strike will get you full monk level 20 fist damage by RAW.

Superior unarmed strike = 2d6 damage.
Fist of the Forest unarmed damage ability states, at both level 1 and level 3, that "If your unarmed attack already deals this amount of damage, increase the base damage to the next step indicated on the monk class table."

2d6 is on the monk class table. The two upgrades from fist of the forest move it up two steps (2d8, 2d10.)

It's just a little tricky to figure out...but if you have superior unarmed strike and that class feature together, you apply the FotF class feature after your unarmed strike damage from Superior Unarmed Strike is calculated, and you're good to go.

[Curmudgeon]

Fist of the forest + superior unarmed strike will get you full monk level 20 fist damage by RAW.

Superior unarmed strike = 2d6 damage.
Fist of the Forest unarmed damage ability states, at both level 1 and level 3, that "If your unarmed attack already deals this amount of damage, increase the base damage to the next step indicated on the monk class table."

2d6 is on the monk class table. The two upgrades from fist of the forest move it up two steps (2d8, 2d10.)
You're slipping some gears here. Let's walk through those steps, and see what the rules really give you.
Superior unarmed strike = 2d6 damage. That's if your character level is 16+.
If your unarmed attack already deals * this amount of damage, increase the base damage to the next step indicated on the monk class table. The Unarmed Damage values on the table are 1d8 and 1d10. Does your unarmed attack already deal this amount of damage? No. It deals 2d6, which is a different value, so you get no improvement.

You seem to be reading an "at least" where I've inserted the * marker in this rule. That's just wishful thinking on your part, though. It's not even guaranteed that 2d6 will be more damage than 1d8 or 1d10; it could be less.

[Veyr]

I'm with Talya on this: I think the "at least" is assumed the same way it is when a prerequisite says "BAB +1" or whatever.

[stainboy]

I've still never seen a use of the term "source" in the rules where it refers to a class name or ability score; that appears only to crop up as a debate construct in discussion forums such as this one.

But the only example you've given is three abilities that have the same name and the same mechanics. +1d6 damage vs denied-Dex and flanked targets is the same mechanic as +1d6 damage vs denied-Dex and flanked targets. +Wisdom to AC is not the same mechanic as +Charisma to AC.

Personally I'm satisfied with the FAQ, but if you're not I'm curious as to your reasoning. Why would the name of the ability matter and the mechanics not matter?

[Coidzor]

It's not even guaranteed that 2d6 will be more damage than 1d8 or 1d10; it could be less.

Ok, I was following you up to this point.

[Curmudgeon]

But the only example you've given is three abilities that have the same name and the same mechanics.
Those were easy examples to cite that used the word "source" in the context of named class abilities stacking. There are other citations that refer to named class abilities stacking, but omit that term. Examples:

Spell Power: At 2nd level, a Red Wizard gains a bonus that increases his effective caster level for purposes of determining level-dependent spell variables and for caster level checks. The bonus starts at +1 and increases at higher levels, as shown on Table 6–15. This ability stacks with other spell power benefits that affect spells from the Red Wizard’s specialist school.

Spell Power: This ability increases the archmage’s effective caster level by +1 (for purposes of determining level-dependent spell variables such as damage dice or range, and caster level checks only). Since the basic stacking rule restricts stacking "from the same source", this specific mention that spell power stacks only makes sense if Spell Power is a source.

Here's an example which uses two abilities that have both different mechanics and different names (but are treated as equivalent for stacking purposes). From Complete Adventurer on page 8:
SUDDEN STRIKE AND SNEAK ATTACK
For the purpose of qualifying for feats, prestige classes, and similar options that require a minimum number of sneak attack extra damage dice, treat the ninja’s sudden strike ability as the equivalent of sneak attack.

Sudden Strike (Ex):
A ninja can’t use sudden strike when flanking an opponent unless that opponent is denied its Dexterity bonus to AC.
...
The extra damage from the sudden strike ability stacks with the extra damage from sneak attack whenever both would apply to the same target.

Another example of named class abilities stacking, from Complete Arcane and Complete Mage:

Damage Reduction (Su): Fortified by the supernatural power flowing in his body, a warlock becomes resistant to physical attacks at 3rd level and above, gaining damage reduction 1/cold iron

Damage Reduction: You gain temporary damage reduction (overcome by cold iron) equal to 1/2 your class level (minimum 1).This damage reduction stacks with the damage reduction granted by the warlock class.


Personally I'm satisfied with the FAQ, but if you're not I'm curious as to your reasoning. Why would the name of the ability matter and the mechanics not matter? It's not that the mechanics don't matter, but that the name does. If the name determines the source, the mechanics are not the source. Also, exactly what part of the mechanics would determine the source? That just shifts the question. :smallannoyed: Anyway, the use of the term "source" in the rules, as in the examples I provided from the SRD for the various Sneak Attack class features, means that we've gotten to our answer (likely in the way the FAQ author arrived at that same conclusion).



Ok, I was following you up to this point.
2d6 yields values in the 2-12 range. 1d8 and 1d10 can produce numbers higher than 2, therefore some of the time they will exceed a random 2d6 damage value. 2d6 is only statistically higher damage.

Regardless, there's no mechanic in the RAW for indexing into the Monk table other than if your unarmed damage deals the amount specified on the Fist of the Forest table.

[stainboy]

Thanks. The Spell Power thing isn't 100% proof (the explicit stacking could have been included as a clarification rather than an exception) but it's pretty convincing.

[Coidzor]

2d6 yields values in the 2-12 range. 1d8 and 1d10 can produce numbers higher than 2, therefore some of the time they will exceed a random 2d6 damage value. 2d6 is only statistically higher damage.

Regardless, there's no mechanic in the RAW for indexing into the Monk table other than if your unarmed damage deals the amount specified on the Fist of the Forest table.

No. I meant I wasn't following your reason for saying that at all. Seemed completely non sequitur.

[The Cat Goddess]

Seriously Curmudgeon... you seem determined to destroy a fairly decent PrC (Fist of the Forest) by smashing it to oblivion upon overly-strict reading of stacking rules.

Do you really hate Monks that badly?

[Curmudgeon]

I disagree that Fist of the Forest is "a fairly decent PrC"; it's actually quite poor, since most of what it offers can be obtained without taking any class levels.

I don't hate Monks at all; I believe they deserve serious help. (Shou Disciple is a decent PrC to consider in this regard.) But what I do hate is applying wishful thinking instead of paying attention to what the rules actually say, regardless of how much you like a particular part of the game. I like Rogues a lot, but I'm not going to insist that their sneak attack stacks, unless coupled with another instance of sneak attack that includes a stacking proviso; stacking language just isn't there in the Rogue class description. My fondness for the class isn't going to blind me to its flaws.

[Tokuhara]

I disagree that Fist of the Forest is "a fairly decent PrC"; it's actually quite poor, since most of what it offers can be obtained without taking any class levels.

I don't hate Monks at all; I believe they deserve serious help. (Shou Disciple is a decent PrC to consider in this regard.) But what I do hate is applying wishful thinking instead of paying attention to what the rules actually say, regardless of how much you like a particular part of the game. I like Rogues a lot, but I'm not going to insist that their sneak attack stacks, unless coupled with another instance of sneak attack that includes a stacking proviso; stacking language just isn't there in the Rogue class description. My fondness for the class isn't going to blind me to its flaws.

I also agree that monk needs every bone it can get. hence why I plan on playing a monk tomorrow.

Githzerai Monk/Shou Disciple/Zerth Cenobite

[The Cat Goddess]

I disagree that Fist of the Forest is "a fairly decent PrC"; it's actually quite poor, since most of what it offers can be obtained without taking any class levels.

Fist of the Forest gives:
d10 hit die.
Good BAB.
Con-to-AC.
Fast Movement like a Barbarian, that stacks with Barbarian Fast Movement.
Uncanny Dodge
Scent
Two increases in unarmed damage (if the table were written correctly, like Shou Disciple was).
Ki Strike: Magic (so you don't need all those Monk levels) which becomes Lesser Ghost Touch if you already have magic fists (from any source, even just a "magic weapon" spell).
A rage-like ability that isn't terribly impressive, but would synergize very well with a Dex-focused melee fighter using Weapon Finesse & Shadow Blade.

All over three levels.

(BTW, the sample character is shown getting both Con & Wis to AC... and while sample characters are known to have errors, I didn't spot any other errors on this character.)

[MeeposFire]

I doubt that there is any question that the designers thought they should stack.

[Incanur]

A single level dip into this class isn't terrible in that it's the only way I know of to get Improved Unarmed Strike plus better damage without sacrificing base attack bonus.

[Talya]

You seem to be reading an "at least" where I've inserted the * marker in this rule. That's just wishful thinking on your part, though. It's not even guaranteed that 2d6 will be more damage than 1d8 or 1d10; it could be less.


No. Superior unarmed strike will keep advancing. You recalculate it at every level and always as a player take the better option. When superior unarmed strike advances past 1d8/1d10, then the fist of the forest abilities will ramp up from it. Everything in this game always retroactively changes as the character does -- except skill points from intelligence scores.

[atemu1234]

There's no guarantee that a dagger will do better than a greatsword, but try selling that to a fighter.