C is for Curmudgeon: Debunking the King of Smack [Archive]

HugeC

2011-06-15, 11:42 PM

Short version: This build doesn't work unless the DM wants to sleep with you.

I see playgrounders reference this build quite a bit, so tonight I finally got around to googling it. I found it here: http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/19866038/The_king_of_smack

In a nutshell, it says:

Be an elan (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/psionicRaces.htm#elans) psychic warrior (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/classes/psychicWarrior.htm) / slayer (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/prestigeClasses/slayer.htm) / warshaper (the first three from Expanded Psionics Handbook or SRD, the last from Complete Warrior)
Get the feats Rapidstrike and Improved Rapidstrike from Draconomicon, and Improved Natural Attack (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsterFeats.htm#improvedNaturalAttack) from the SRD
Use the Claws of the Beast power combined with Claws of the Vampire to do a zillion damage per round, healing yourself for half the damage

Here are some of the problems I see with this build:

Feats

Rapidstrike: The author says you qualify by virtue of the fact that an elan is an abberation (we all know he's really a bard, and only slightly abberant, but I digress). He fails to mention the "one or more pairs of natural weapons" requirement of the feat, which an elan does not meet. Perhaps he thought that being able to manifest the Claws of the Beast power allowed him to qualify, but he's gonna have to hope for DM leniency there.
Improved Rapidstrike: IMHO, this is definitely a contender for one of the game's most poorly worded feats. The build's author interprets it to mean you get 4 extra claw attacks; the first at -5, and the next three at -10. One might also interpret it such that each extra attack is -5 worse than the last one, i.e. -5, -10, -15, -20. The wording in the feat about "two or more extra attacks" makes me think that the feat's author intended it to work like iterative attacks, i.e. if you still have a positive BAB after subtracting 5, you can make another attack. You could only ever get a fourth extra attack if your BAB was greater than +20 in that case, but lots of dragons would qualify (almost as if this feat was meant for dragons and not PCs to take!). Unfortunately, that's not what the feat's benefit description says. I guess if you can convince your DM that you qualify for this feat as an elan with no natural attacks, you can probably convince him to use the build author's more favorable interpretation of the attack penalty progression too.
Monstrous Feats: Both Rapidstrike and Improved Rapidstrike are monstrous feats, which supposedly require a monstrous form of some kind. The opening paragraph that talks about them in Draconomicon says you can take them only with DM permission. Once again, you are at the mercy of your DM, which IMHO is not a position that a much-touted build should be in.
Improved Natural Attack: Elans still don't have one.

If you can acquire a pair of claws, you can qualify for the feats more easily. About the easiest way I know of to do that is take a level of sorcerer and 2 levels of Dragon Disciple. That is problematic because sorcerer is not a favored class for an elan (hello 20% exp penalty), and you also lose 3 manifester levels and a point or two of BAB besides. A half-dragon also works (and doesn't need to be an elan since it can qualify by being a dragon), but it's ECL +3, so you still lose the manifester levels and now some hit dice too.

Even if you qualify for the feats by virtue of actual natural attacks, do they affect the claws given to you by the Claws of the Beast power? Or does the power replace your natural weapons with new ones? I could see the argument for [Imp.] Rapidstrike; you need actual claws to qualify for the feats, but you can apply them to the new claws provided by the power "on the fly". On the other hand, I could certainly understand if a DM requires Imp. Natural Weapon to be applied to the natural weapons used to qualify for the feat, which are then replaced by those from the power, making the feat pointless.

Warshaper Entry
RAW, the build does not qualify for this prestige class. I do agree it's not much of a stretch to equate Metamorphosis with Polymorph, but once again, a DM who goes by RAW might destroy your plans here.

Claws of the Beast damage
Here is how the build says the damage progresses:

Damage scaling (per claw):
5d6 base for medium-size claws
6d6 improved natural attack
8d6 expansion 1
12d6 expansion 2
16d6 morphic weapons (if warshaper is included)
24d6?? if the ring that improves natural attacks from Dragon Mag is included
32d6?? if you metamorphose into a larger size (ie, firbolg)

First, the table for Claws of the Beast damage in the SRD doesn't go past Large size. Since there is no weapon that does 5d6 anywhere I could find, I'm not sure where the build author came up with that damage progression. Judging by the last row of the table here (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/powers/clawsoftheBeast.htm), there is a certain pattern. It goes, "4, 5, 6..." 8? No, 7 comes next. Then 8. Then 9 (not 12). Perhaps he wants to use the progression shown in the Imp. Natural Attack feat, but 5d6 isn't in that progression, so he's got no starting point. Some DMs might go along with it, but some might try to extrapolate the table shown in the power's description instead. Once again, you need another favorable call by the DM to get the crazy damage this build supposedly produces.

Metamorphosing into a Sharn
This creature has an ability called "Archetypal Shape", which specifically disallows polymorphing into one, thus invalidating this entire subsection of the build.

The King is Dead; Long Live the King?
So, can the build be salvaged? Since it's after midnight, I guess I'll leave that as an exercise for the reader, but to this curmudgeon, 7d6 a bunch of times per round still seems pretty good. I'm sure somebody will come up with something. :smallbiggrin:

Eldariel

2011-06-16, 12:07 AM

Rapidstrike: The author says you qualify by virtue of the fact that an elan is an abberation (we all know he's really a bard, and only slightly abberant, but I digress). He fails to mention the "one or more pairs of natural weapons" requirement of the feat, which an elan does not meet. Perhaps he thought that being able to manifest the Claws of the Beast power allowed him to qualify, but he's gonna have to hope for DM leniency there.

By RAW, as long as you have the ability you qualify for such feats. Doesn't matter where it comes from; Claws of the Beast is more than fine for this since it lasts basically all day so it's just as good as having real Claws. Sure, you lose the feats' benefits when you lose the Claws but who cares since you're not using them then anyways?

Improved Rapidstrike: IMHO, this is definitely a contender for one of the game's most poorly worded feats. The build's author interprets it to mean you get 4 extra claw attacks; the first at -5, and the next three at -10. One might also interpret it such that each extra attack is -5 worse than the last one, i.e. -5, -10, -15, -20. The wording in the feat about "two or more extra attacks" makes me think that the feat's author intended it to work like iterative attacks, i.e. if you still have a positive BAB after subtracting 5, you can make another attack. You could only ever get a fourth extra attack if your BAB was greater than +20 in that case, but lots of dragons would qualify (almost as if this feat was meant for dragons and not PCs to take!). Unfortunately, that's not what the feat's benefit description says. I guess if you can convince your DM that you qualify for this feat as an elan with no natural attacks, you can probably convince him to use the build author's more favorable interpretation of the attack penalty progression too.

It's clear in what it does; all future attacks are at additional -5, so -10. It may be poorly worded or whatever but Rules As Written is clear.

Monstrous Feats: Both Rapidstrike and Improved Rapidstrike are monstrous feats, which supposedly require a monstrous form of some kind. The opening paragraph that talks about them in Draconomicon says you can take them only with DM permission. Once again, you are at the mercy of your DM, which IMHO is not a position that a much-touted build should be in.

You qualify for them. What's the problem? Let DM send you out for a quest or something if he feels like it; how to gain feats is beyond the considerations of traditional optimization.

First, the table for Claws of the Beast damage in the SRD doesn't go past Large size. Since there is no weapon that does 5d6 anywhere I could find, I'm not sure where the build author came up with that damage progression. Judging by the last row of the table here (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/powers/clawsoftheBeast.htm), there is a certain pattern. It goes, "4, 5, 6..." 8? No, 7 comes next. Then 8. Then 9 (not 12). Perhaps he wants to use the progression shown in the Imp. Natural Attack feat, but 5d6 isn't in that progression, so he's got no starting point. Some DMs might go along with it, but some might try to extrapolate the table shown in the power's description instead. Once again, you need another favorable call by the DM to get the crazy damage this build supposedly produces.

The table is in the DMG. 5d6 doesn't exist there but 6d6 does. Basically, all damage scales in serieses of 2 with the multiplier doubling each round; 2d6, 3d6, 4d6, 6d6, 8d6, 12d6, 16d6, 24d6, etc.

In other words, yeah, it works; you just gotta read the rules a bit more carefully :smalltongue:

Draz74

2011-06-16, 12:22 AM

[
Rapidstrike: The author says you qualify by virtue of the fact that an elan is an abberation (we all know he's really a bard, and only slightly abberant, but I digress). He fails to mention the "one or more pairs of natural weapons" requirement of the feat, which an elan does not meet. Perhaps he thought that being able to manifest the Claws of the Beast power allowed him to qualify, but he's gonna have to hope for DM leniency there.

Improved Natural Attack: Elans still don't have one.

You realize that, by your logic here, Druids can't take Improved Natural Attack either? Or flight-improving feats, or whatever? It's a pretty well-established optimization principle that you can qualify for feats, PrCs, etc., with temporary traits, courtesy of your spells or class features or powers. You just lose the requisite benefits when you don't have the prerequisite active.

I don't know if this ambiguity is anywhere resolved in the official rules, but it's definitely been in the FAQs and such. And if you're going to crack down on this, there's a lot of other builds you're disqualifying from existence, alongside the King of Smack.

Mind you, I actually agree that the game should be this way (temporary buffs shouldn't get counted as prerequisites). But that ain't the status quo.

Improved Rapidstrike: IMHO, this is definitely a contender for one of the game's most poorly worded feats.
Then you need to read more feats. :smallwink: j/k

The build's author interprets it to mean you get 4 extra claw attacks; the first at -5, and the next three at -10. One might also interpret it such that each extra attack is -5 worse than the last one, i.e. -5, -10, -15, -20. The wording in the feat about "two or more extra attacks" makes me think that the feat's author intended it to work like iterative attacks, i.e. if you still have a positive BAB after subtracting 5, you can make another attack.
Interesting. Yeah, that's how I saw it: "each of your claw attacks gets two iterative attacks." Kind of like GTWF. (With the feat's high BAB prerequisite, there's no "if" about having enough BAB to make said iterative attacks.) I haven't read it in a while, but I thought the intent (if not the actual wording) was pretty clear.

You could only ever get a fourth extra attack if your BAB was greater than +20 in that case, but lots of dragons would qualify (almost as if this feat was meant for dragons and not PCs to take!).
Or as if it applied to both of your claws, not one or the other. Like I said above.

Monstrous Feats: Both Rapidstrike and Improved Rapidstrike are monstrous feats, which supposedly require a monstrous form of some kind. The opening paragraph that talks about them in Draconomicon says you can take them only with DM permission. Once again, you are at the mercy of your DM, which IMHO is not a position that a much-touted build should be in.
Every PrC pretty much says you can only take it with DM permission, too. Such things tend to get ignored. :smalltongue:

Do the rules ever explicitly say that monstrous feats can't be taken by normal PCs, or spell out the definition of a "monstrous" PC? (Sincere question.)

Warshaper Entry
RAW, the build does not qualify for this prestige class. I do agree it's not much of a stretch to equate Metamorphosis with Polymorph, but once again, a DM who goes by RAW might destroy your plans here.
You do have a point here, but I'd be surprised if you could find a DM who would enforce it, if the DM allowed Warshaper in the first place.

I'm not qualified to discuss the rest of your points, so I'll leave off here.

JaronK

2011-06-16, 12:32 AM

You realize that, by your logic here, Druids can't take Improved Natural Attack either? Or flight-improving feats, or whatever? It's a pretty well-established optimization principle that you can qualify for feats, PrCs, etc., with temporary traits, courtesy of your spells or class features or powers. You just lose the requisite benefits when you don't have the prerequisite active.

I don't know if this ambiguity is anywhere resolved in the official rules, but it's definitely been in the FAQs and such. And if you're going to crack down on this, there's a lot of other builds you're disqualifying from existence, alongside the King of Smack.

It's right there in the start of the PHB feats section. You need prerequisites "to select or use" a feat. So, as long as you have the prerequisites when you select the feat, you keep it after that... you just can't use the feat when you don't qualify, but as soon as you qualify again you can use it again.

JaronK

Godskook

2011-06-16, 12:34 AM

I for one demand that you remove Curmudgeon's name from this piece of work. It simply isn't up to his standards.

--------------------------------

1.By the time rapid strike is taken, claws of the beast is up 24/7. It qualifies. You're wrong. Applies equally to INA

2.You're misreading the rules on monstrous feats. They're not disallowed to PCs in that text. They're disallowed to humanoids and animals. Again, you're very, very wrong.

3.Warshaper is not part of the original king of smack, but its a reasonable interpretation to allow it.

4.The damage progression is completely correct, but here I understand that you got confused. *EVERYONE* gets confused by this one. But again, horribly wrong.

Please, before writing an arrogant retort of established TO builds in the name of established well known RAW posters, *VERIFY* at least *SOME* of your facts.

Draz74

2011-06-16, 12:51 AM

It's right there in the start of the PHB feats section. You need prerequisites "to select or use" a feat. So, as long as you have the prerequisites when you select the feat, you keep it after that... you just can't use the feat when you don't qualify, but as soon as you qualify again you can use it again.
I suppose. It would be clearer, though, if the rules ever spelled out minor issues like, oh, how long it takes to acquire a feat or otherwise "level up." But they left that out on purpose, so that DMs who e.g. want to require a week of downtime/training are free to do so.

I for one demand that you remove Curmudgeon's name from this piece of work. It simply isn't up to his standards.
[snip]
in the name of established well known RAW posters,

You, um, do know that it was a word before it was a screen name, right?

Thiyr

2011-06-16, 12:52 AM

Two notes

a), and I realize this is ninja'd, but he references himself as the titular curmudgeon. While I greatly respect Curmudgeon, it is, in fact, a regular ol' word.

b) The bit about the sharn? If you read down further in the KoS thread, they debunk that one right there. Everything else is fairly well argued before me, so...yea.

Darth Stabber

2011-06-16, 01:16 AM

Godskook

2011-06-16, 01:44 AM

You, um, do know that it was a word before it was a screen name, right?

Not particularly, although its one of those names that likely are words before hand, so I can't say I'm surprised. I still think that he should remove the thread title.

deuxhero

2011-06-16, 01:57 AM

Monstrous Feats: Both Rapidstrike and Improved Rapidstrike are monstrous feats, which supposedly require a monstrous form of some kind. The opening paragraph that talks about them in Draconomicon says you can take them only with DM permission. Once again, you are at the mercy of your DM, which IMHO is not a position that a much-touted build should be in.

This is just an example of WotC not being able to make up its own mind. They have explicitly said Monks can take Improved Natural Attack (Unarmed Strike) as well.

Curmudgeon

2011-06-16, 02:02 AM

Not particularly, although its one of those names that likely are words before hand, so I can't say I'm surprised. I still think that he should remove the thread title.
As long as there's no confusion about the actual author involved, I don't mind. My skin is on the thickish side. :smallwink:

Gardener

2011-06-16, 02:02 AM

Also, if you have a problem with the natural attacks, replace Elan with Warforged. You lose, what? 2 pp? And you get slam attacks as natural wapons, along with the Construct type to bypass the restrictions on [Monstrous] feats. You can even grab Jaws of Death at 1st level if there's a free feat in the build to have two different types of natural weapon.

Also, the weapon size table (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/weapons.htm#weaponSize) and the natural weapon size increase table (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/improvingMonsters.htm#sizeIncreases). Yes, 5d6 doesn't appear on it, and we wind up off the table by several steps, but the progression presented there is a reasonable extrapolation. I'd probably say it went more like 8d6 -> 12d6 -> 16d6 -> 24d6 ->32d6, but we're extrapolating from very little data, most of which isn't consistent.

Doc Roc

2011-06-16, 02:22 AM

As long as there's no confusion about the actual author involved, I don't mind. My skin is on the thickish side. :smallwink:

I would characterize it more as reactive armor, rather than simply heavy plating..

KillianHawkeye

2011-06-16, 06:59 AM

Not particularly, although its one of those names that likely are words before hand, so I can't say I'm surprised. I still think that he should remove the thread title.

Well here ya go, pal!

cur·mudg·eon
–noun
a bad-tempered, difficult, cantankerous person.
/themoreyouknow

Runestar

2011-06-16, 07:27 AM

Who even uses "cantankerous" these days? :smalltongue:

Where is it stated that humans cannot take monstrous feats? I thought anyone could take them so long as they met the requirements. Eg: a human could also qualify if he could somehow acquire, say, a gaze attack or poisonous sting? :smallconfused:

HugeC

2011-06-16, 07:44 AM

The thread title is a reference to my own screen name, as in it's what the 'C' in HugeC stands for (at least for this thread). :smallwink:

TO (theoretical optimization) is a wild and crazy world populated by builds no GM in his right mind would allow, but work with in RAW. They exist as thought exercises, not something you bring with you to a game session.
Ok, that's fine, thought exercises are fun. What made my nerd-rage explode into the OP to exist was seeing people on these forums say to someone looking for build help, "You should use the King of Smack." If what you said is true, such things, it seems to me, should not be said.

I'll let you guys debunk my debunking for a bit more, I need to head to work, but I shall return! :smallsmile:

Gullintanni

2011-06-16, 08:02 AM

The playgrounders are expert optimizers, and some of them are rather relentless in its pursuit. A lot of people who suggest builds like this for actual play share either one of two traits:

1) They've lost perspective. Real DnD tends to play at substantially lower levels of optimization than we optimize for. Because of the widespread theory op on these boards, people tend to accept optimization as an implicit assumption of 3.5 DnD and simply throw these builds out as real suggestions without a second thought. It becomes a reflex.

2) They're sharing perspective. By throwing out a TO build, people can pick and choose pieces of the build they like, and know that they'll come out with an effective character. These posters are not actually suggesting taking the build to its game breaking conclusions, but are in all actuality saying, "Look here. There's some really good stuff here that might be applicable to the kind of character you'd like to play."

That being said, the notion that these builds are not intended for actual gameplay still holds. They're not. I would say the TO builds are designed to showcase useful, often obscure, abilities, PrC's, feats and etc. in order to help you build characters that are both flavourful AND effective.

Kalaska'Agathas

2011-06-16, 08:12 AM

So, you can point out holes in a theoretical optimization build based on how you would rule things as a GM? Congratulations, you are contributing nothing to the dialog of this site (other than an outlet for sarcasm).

TO (theoretical optimization) is a wild and crazy world populated by builds no GM in his right mind would allow, but work with in RAW. They exist as thought exercises, not something you bring with you to a game session.

I have a question here - the King of Smack is TO? I've seen one in play, a full on Epic King of Smack, and he was pretty easily outclassed by my Master of the Unseen Hand (for damage) and our resident Wizard (for everything else). Sure, he was a highly effective build (and oh! the shenanigans he pulled!) but he wasn't overpowering in the presence of a well-played BFC Wizard, an Anima Mage (also BFC focused), a Master of the Unseen Hand (Blaster), and the other characters in play.

The playgrounders are expert optimizers, and some of them are rather relentless in its pursuit. A lot of people who suggest builds like this for actual play share either one of two traits:

1) They've lost perspective. Real DnD tends to play at substantially lower levels of optimization than we optimize for. Because of the widespread theory op on these boards, people tend to accept optimization as an implicit assumption of 3.5 DnD and simply throw these builds out as real suggestions without a second thought. It becomes a reflex.

2) They're sharing perspective. By throwing out an TO build, people can pick and choose pieces of the build they like, and know that they'll come out with an effective character. These posters are not actually suggesting taking the build to its game breaking conclusions, but are in all actuality saying, "Look here. There's some really good stuff here that might be applicable to the kind of character you'd like to play."

That being said, the notion that these builds are not intended for actual gameplay still holds. They're not. I would say the TO builds are designed to showcase useful, often obscure, abilities, PrC's, feats and etc. in order to help you build characters that are both flavourful AND effective.

I'm not sure I'm comfortable with the assertion that the optimizers on this board have "lost perspective" or that "Real DnD tends to play at substantially lower levels of optimization than we optimize for." Just because you may not play at those levels of optimization (which is a perfectly valid way to play, so long as you're all having fun) it doesn't mean that other people don't play at higher levels of optimization, or that what they're playing is some scary thought exercise and not "Real DnD." Both high- and low-op are valid playstyles, so long as everyone is having fun.

Gullintanni

2011-06-16, 08:41 AM

Kalaska...unless your party is running around with King of Smack/D2 Crusaders/Emerald Legionnaires/Cheaters of Mystra and Pun-Pun, then I'm probably not talking about you in my statement...

Moreover; I didn't qualify play at high levels of optimization as "invalid". I simply suggested that the level of play exhibited in most people's games does not even begin to approach TO. "Real DnD" was not meant as "Correct DnD" but rather, "DnD that we witness as it tends to be played in Reality".

The King of Smack may not actually be effective enough to function consistently with a party built using the kind of builds above, I don't really know how it competes. I'm basing my assumption off of what others in thread have said about it being TO.

Frankly though, if you are coming in to threads suggesting people play any of the above builds (King of Smack possibly notwithstanding), then you probably ARE out of touch with what MOST players and more importantly most DMs are capable of playing well at a table. I do; however, agree that if you're having fun, you're playing DnD right.

Essence_of_War

2011-06-16, 08:49 AM

2) They're sharing perspective. By throwing out an TO build, people can pick and choose pieces of the build they like, and know that they'll come out with an effective character. These posters are not actually suggesting taking the build to its game breaking conclusions, but are in all actuality saying, "Look here. There's some really good stuff here that might be applicable to the kind of character you'd like to play."

This.

When you see people suggest "take a look at the King of Smack", they aren't necessarily saying "you should play the King of Smack".

What they're saying is "The King of Smack has explored this niche of combat strategy already, you should take a look at it to see what pieces you can take and adapt for your game/build". TO is really nice to know about because if you know the TO'd build, you can ALWAYS tone it down. It's a lot like orange juice concentrate. It's easy to dilute to your favorite tasting level, but damned if it isn't hard to concentrate it additionally, if you like it even more orange-y.

Eldariel

2011-06-16, 08:50 AM

I have a question here - the King of Smack is TO? I've seen one in play, a full on Epic King of Smack, and he was pretty easily outclassed by my Master of the Unseen Hand (for damage) and our resident Wizard (for everything else). Sure, he was a highly effective build (and oh! the shenanigans he pulled!) but he wasn't overpowering in the presence of a well-played BFC Wizard, an Anima Mage (also BFC focused), a Master of the Unseen Hand (Blaster), and the other characters in play.

The premise of KoS is not TO by any means. You can easily play a Claw-based Psychic Warrior/Slayer with the Rapid Strike feat chain in any game and that's little more than using Psy War out of the box (basically, you're picking an Aberration-race to qualify for Rapid Strike and that's the extent of your trickery). Even more fundamentally, if you leave RS and IRS out too and cut out few of the size increases (leaving only, say, INA and Augmented Expansion), you're purely Psy War. This is probably what most of people saying "check out King of Smack" suggest; play a Claw-based Psy War increasing your size for the lulz.

So while KoS might be taken as far as the brawler can, it's still Tier 2ish at most in power; there's plenty of games where he'd be playable as long as the game is played by players with a degree of system mastery. KoS really does nothing special and hell, the build assumes melee combat (and taking hits and healing it up with his own attacks) and does not assume sufficient damage output to kill all opponents in one turn. Those assumptions alone speak volumes.

Sir Swindle89

2011-06-16, 08:59 AM

I have a question here - the King of Smack is TO?

KoS is TO just very specific TO he is gettingthe biggest Natural attacks one can get.

A Magic Missile mage with that feat from Dragon lance and an Ubercharger are the same type of TO and they are also outclasses by playing a wizard and throwing darts at the book for spells.

An aside the Warshaper thing kinda irritates me. People use strict RAW when it's convinient and ignore requirements because they are "resonable exceptions" when that's better.

Kalaska'Agathas

2011-06-16, 10:52 AM

Kalaska...unless your party is running around with King of Smack/D2 Crusaders/Emerald Legionnaires/Cheaters of Mystra and Pun-Pun, then I'm probably not talking about you in my statement...

If by Cheaters of Mystra you mean casters with Initiate of Mystra, then yeah, we had those. D2 Crusaders, no, and I'm not familiar with the Emerald Legionnaire, but I don't think we had any.

Moreover; I didn't qualify play at high levels of optimization as "invalid". I simply suggested that the level of play exhibited in most people's games does not even begin to approach TO. "Real DnD" was not meant as "Correct DnD" but rather, "DnD that we witness as it tends to be played in Reality".

The trouble with your statement, however, is that it implies that high-op D&D isn't "Real D&D" which can then be extrapolated to mean that I'm playing it wrong (at least when I play high-op games). I doubt that you meant that, specifically, but that is an implication of your statement.

The King of Smack may not actually be effective enough to function consistently with a party built using the kind of builds above, I don't really know how it competes. I'm basing my assumption off of what others in thread have said about it being TO.

That's fair, however, I'm still not certain that the KoS is TO - rather, he seems to be Practical Optimization, if of a high level. Theoretical Op, at least as I've understood it, is optimization to push the bounds of the system, rather than generate a playable character (which the KoS is, in my experience).

Frankly though, if you are coming in to threads suggesting people play any of the above builds (King of Smack possibly notwithstanding), then you probably ARE out of touch with what MOST players and more importantly most DMs are capable of playing well at a table. I do; however, agree that if you're having fun, you're playing DnD right.

I've suggested the KoS before, as it's an effective mêlée build which doesn't turn attacks into a binary game of either Target Destroyed or Miss (Character Destroyed) as a 'Hood would. It can easily be dialed up or down depending on the situation (you can choose your buffs, and how to augment those buffs, depending on what you're facing) while remaining the King of Smack, and remaining playable (again, in my experience).

Amphetryon

2011-06-16, 10:57 AM

Here (http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/19872770/new_build:_The_Cheater_of_Mystra) is the Cheater of Mystra build, Kalaska. I'm sure there are variants. Basically it's using Mystra's domains to gain access to Anyspell, through which Incantatrix and other high-powered Arcane PrCs become available by RAW.

Darth Stabber

2011-06-16, 11:07 AM

I would consider KoS a TO build, but I don't think that is a bad thing. It is a logical extreme. Actually I am working on a KoS build that swaps out the psionic piece for Incarnum, but psywar may work it's way back in just for access to expansion.

Oh no, this is becoming a TO/PO debate!!!

Pyro_Azer

2011-06-16, 11:10 AM

Emerald Legionaire is Here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=101587&highlight=%22emerald+legionaire%22)

Person_Man

2011-06-16, 11:48 AM

You put forward the classic theoretical King of Smack. But I've seen variations on a practical King of Smack in several games, and it works fine, without breaking anything.

All you need is Claws of the Beast, Claws of the Vampire, and Expansion. Then if you're feeling extra fancy you can pick up an AoO combo, like Knock-Down, Karmic Strike, Robilar's Gambit, or whatever. But it's generally just garden variety melee optimization.

You don't need Rapidstrike or Improved Rapidstrike, and there are plenty of other ways to increase your size (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=7081777) or effective size without using Improved Natural Attack.

Trust me, it works fine. It's not even that resource intensive. You retain most of your Powers, Power Points, and Feats to do whatever else you want with them, so that you're not a one trick pony. That's why the Psychic Warrior is a great Tier 3 class.

Gullintanni

2011-06-16, 11:56 AM

1. If by Cheaters of Mystra you mean casters with Initiate of Mystra, then yeah, we had those. D2 Crusaders, no, and I'm not familiar with the Emerald Legionnaire, but I don't think we had any.

2. The trouble with your statement, however, is that it implies that high-op D&D isn't "Real D&D" which can then be extrapolated to mean that I'm playing it wrong (at least when I play high-op games). I doubt that you meant that, specifically, but that is an implication of your statement.

3. That's fair, however, I'm still not certain that the KoS is TO - rather, he seems to be Practical Optimization, if of a high level. Theoretical Op, at least as I've understood it, is optimization to push the bounds of the system, rather than generate a playable character (which the KoS is, in my experience).

4. I've suggested the KoS before, as it's an effective mêlée build which doesn't turn attacks into a binary game of either Target Destroyed or Miss (Character Destroyed) as a 'Hood would. It can easily be dialed up or down depending on the situation (you can choose your buffs, and how to augment those buffs, depending on what you're facing) while remaining the King of Smack, and remaining playable (again, in my experience).

1. Cheater of Mystra is something different (see Amphetyron's post); however, other builds that fit the bill include the Twice Betrayer of Shar (a build that allows you to cast spells from/into an AMF), Beholder Magi, Planar Bubble Druids, Tainted Scholar abuse etc. Again, if you're not in this category, then I'm not talking about you.

2. Yes hence my clarification in the subsequent post. I think I've answered that sufficiently that we can let the point drop, yes?

3. & 4. Possible. Like I said in my clarifiaction, the KoS may be one of those "notwithstanding" examples. I'm willing to suspend any criticisms based on the KoS. This doesn't really diminish my original assessment, it just makes renders it non-applicable for the purposes of your situation.

I don't intend to provoke a debate here. The majority of people who suggest TO builds, in my experience, fall into one of those two categories. I suspect that anyone who's been on these forums a while can attest to that. For what it's worth, more people who suggest TO builds fall into the "Look here for ideas" category rather than the "I've lost sight of what level of OP the common 3.5 party plays at", category.

...A different, and possibly more relevant for the OP debate would be whether or not the KoS falls into the realm of TO. On that point, I defer to the playground.

Thiyr

2011-06-16, 12:41 PM

Really, PO and TO differ in the intent of use. The KoS seems to be very focused, some of its proposed shenanigans I would argue are in the TO range, but it ultimately seems very much PO in its mindset. It's mostly using things the way their written, the only part really being in contention being rapidstrike, which seems to be for the most part properly described in my opinion (It says without shenanigans that don't work that you're getting 6 attacks, which sounds right. 2 from claws of the beast, and 4 from improved rapidstrike (one at -5, three at -10. The wording actually seems quite clear to me. ..."the first at a -5 penalty, and the second and subsequent attacks at an additional -5." If it meant a -5 for each attack, it would be "and each subsequent attack at an additional -5".) Potent? Yes. But it's not really pulling any massive shenanigans, esp considering it gets to probably 16d6 tops at 20th.

And even if you think it goes too far for your group (note: I -hate hate hate hate hate- when people say things like "the normal D&D group". There is no such thing. There is just "Your group" and "other people's groups". There is no Platonic Ideal of D&D Groups.) it still holds nifty tricks that can be adapted elsewhere. Heck, I'm gonna be implementing a few tricks with a char I've got right now to make a ToB/Psionic hybrid KoS style build (Using a warmind rebuild I found here, admittedly, but still. Looks like such fun to play.), and have used it in the past to beef a totemist up a bit. So ultimately, I'd find it to be practical in nature.

Sir Swindle89

2011-06-16, 12:50 PM

All you need is Claws of the Beast, Claws of the Vampire, and Expansion. Then if you're feeling extra fancy you can pick up an AoO combo, like Knock-Down, Karmic Strike, Robilar's Gambit, or whatever. But it's generally just garden variety melee optimization.

Trust me, it works fine. It's not even that resource intensive. You retain most of your Powers, Power Points, and Feats to do whatever else you want with them, so that you're not a one trick pony. That's why the Psychic Warrior is a great Tier 3 class.

I agree with him on this. If claws+size makes you a king then every psychic warrior(even at pretty low OP) is one.

dextercorvia

2011-06-16, 01:08 PM

While we're on it, Improved Rapidstrike only grants you 4 extra attacks, or 4 per claw?

Draz74

2011-06-16, 01:13 PM

The King of Smack is definitely PO if all it's using is Expansion, Claws of the Beast, Claws of the Vampire, and moderate AoO tricks. IMHO, it's even still PO when it adds (Improved) Rapidstrike and Warshaper, probably.

It crosses the line into TO when it starts using Metamorphosis abuse (e.g. the Sharn), or more obscure sources of size increases or AoOs.

This is of course very subjective, so YMMV.

HugeC

2011-06-16, 01:26 PM

While we're on it, Improved Rapidstrike only grants you 4 extra attacks, or 4 per claw?
I'm AFB right now, but if I recall, you're making the extra attacks with only one of your claws.

And it doesn't say 4 extra attacks, it says, "2 or more extra attacks" and then later "not more than 4 extra attacks". (I'm paraphrasing from memory here, in case that's not precisely what it says.) In order to reach the conclusion that the extra attacks are 1 at -5 and 3 at -10, you have to ignore the bit about it being 2 or more extra attacks. To me, having the extra attacks work like iteratives makes the most sense; when you first qualify for the feat at +15 BAB, you'd get 2 extra attacks; one at +10, and another at +5. Then as your BAB went up, you'd get more, to a limit of 4 extra attacks at BAB +21 or higher.

But, as I said before, the feat's wording is poor, and it isn't spelled out the way I described.

Thiyr

2011-06-16, 02:04 PM

Improved Rapidstrike says that
If you have a pair of natural weapons...you can make two or more extra attacks with one of those weapons, the first at a -5 penalty, and subsequent attacks at an additional -5, but never more than four extra attacks.

Nothing is being ignored at all if you come to the -5/-10/-10/-10 conclusion. Point by point of what the feat text says.

You need two or more of the same natural weapon
You have the option to make anywhere between two and four additional attacks with a single one of those weapons
The first extra attack comes at a -5 penalty. Each attack after that takes an additional -5.

The second point has nothing to do with the third point. You have a minimum of two extra attacks using improved rapid strike. The first extra attack is at a -5. If it was a stacking -5 for each additional attack, then it wouldn't lump them all together like that. Instead of saying "and subsequent attacks at an additional -5", it would be "with each subsequent attack at an additional -5".

Besides, at that point it would mention iterative attacks. In fact, that alone would have made it a worthwhile argument, as players can't get above 20 BAB. But it -doesn't-. It may make sense to you that way, but that just plain isn't how it's written. It's actually not all that poorly written at all, to be honest (at least in comparison to a lot of other content). Heck, looking at it now, there's nothing really saying you can't use rapidstrike and improved rapidstrike at the same time, using one for one claw and one for the other. Not that I'd personally let that fly, but it could be done anyway.

HugeC

2011-06-16, 03:27 PM

I'm not saying your interpretation isn't valid, but here is how I interpret it.

Extra attack #1 is at -5.
Extra attack #2 is subsequent to extra attack #1. It is made at an additional -5 penalty relative to extra attack #1, or -10 total.
Extra attack #3 is subsequent to extra attack #2. It is made at an additional -5 penalty relative to extra attack #2, or -15 total.
Extra attack #4 is subsequent to extra attack #3. It is made at an additional -5 penalty relative to extra attack #3, or -20 total.

That sequence of penalties for additional attacks looks exactly like iterative attacks to me. Does it make sense that a game designer would include text in a feat that says, "You get 4 extra attacks, but if you don't want to take all of them, you can just take 2"? I find it far more likely that the feat's author just omitted the reference to the rule for multiple attacks granted by a high base attack bonus.

But, since he did omit said reference, your reading makes sense also.

Amphetryon

2011-06-16, 03:30 PM

Keld Denar

2011-06-16, 03:37 PM

Well, look at all the different PrCs that grant "+1 spellcasting level". There are like, 4 or 5 different texts, varying from the DMG, through the different Complete books, Races books, ToB, and other misc boosk. If WotC was smart, they would copy/pasta'ed the text from the DMG, but instead it seems like each book (and even sometimes different PrCs within the same book) have it worded slightly different WRT spells known and spells learned.

In light of that, it doesn't surprise me that someone tried to write the wording for Rapidstrike in the Draconomnomnomnomnomnomicon in his own words and might have worded it ambiguously and made it non-uniform with other text concerning iterative attacks. And we all know how wunderbar the WotC editing process is (and by wunderbar, I mean non-existant)...

On this one, I'm actually inclined to believe that the intent is to make a set of natural weapons match an iterative weapon sequence. While nobody knows the TRUE intent of the dev except the dev himself, this isn't a totally off-base interpretation.

PlzBreakMyCmpAn

2011-06-16, 03:37 PM

Emerald Legionaire is Here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=101587&highlight=%22emerald+legionaire%22)That is some lovely TO. Of course its abusive on RAI (multiple lycanthropy), and maybe even RAW (air variant...), assumes that time and resources are available, etc. I see nothing dangerous there to a campaign that isn't solved by a read through the dirty trick fixes. The worst things like trait removal and ferocity are in the mages disjunction category -- its best if neither the DM nor players use them.

To the OP if you are worried about the king of smack, whatever you do, don't look at the PBM

faceroll

2011-06-16, 03:46 PM

I don't intend to provoke a debate here.

Then what's your intent? You kind of offensively pigeonholed much of the playground.

HugeC

2011-06-16, 04:32 PM

Also, the weapon size table (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/weapons.htm#weaponSize) and the natural weapon size increase table (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/improvingMonsters.htm#sizeIncreases). Yes, 5d6 doesn't appear on it, and we wind up off the table by several steps, but the progression presented there is a reasonable extrapolation. I'd probably say it went more like 8d6 -> 12d6 -> 16d6 -> 24d6 ->32d6, but we're extrapolating from very little data, most of which isn't consistent.

4.The damage progression is completely correct, but here I understand that you got confused. *EVERYONE* gets confused by this one. But again, horribly wrong.

So, could one of you gents (or anyone really) kindly explain why the damage progression from the build makes sense for Claws of the Beast? I still can't find a pattern for size increases that matches [4d6, 5d6, 6d6] in any of the other rules, and logically (at least to this curmugdeon's mind), the continuation of that pattern is +1d6 per size category increase.

Keld Denar

2011-06-16, 05:02 PM

Example Weapon Fine Diminutive Tiny Small Medium Large Huge Gargantuan Colossal
Shuriken — — — 1 1d2 1d3 1d4 1d6 1d8
Gauntlet — — 1 1d2 1d3 1d4 1d6 1d8 2d6
Dagger — 1 1d2 1d3 1d4 1d6 1d8 2d6 3d6
Shortspear 1 1d2 1d3 1d4 1d6 1d8 2d6 3d6 4d6
Falchion 1d2 1d3 1d4 1d6 2d4 2d6 3d6 4d6 6d6
Longsword 1d2 1d3 1d4 1d6 1d8 2d6 3d6 4d6 6d6
Bastard Sword 1d3 1d4 1d6 1d8 1d10 2d8 3d8 4d8 6d8
Greataxe 1d4 1d6 1d8 1d10 1d12 3d6 4d6 6d6 8d6
Greatsword 1d4 1d6 1d8 1d10 2d6 3d6 4d6 6d6 8d6

Also:

Choose one of the creature’s natural attack forms. The damage for this natural weapon increases by one step, as if the creature’s size had increased by one category: 1d2, 1d3, 1d4, 1d6, 1d8, 2d6, 3d6, 4d6, 6d6, 8d6, 12d6.

A weapon or attack that deals 1d10 points of damage increases as follows: 1d10, 2d8, 3d8, 4d8, 6d8, 8d8, 12d8.

After 2dX, its an alternating 3/2 and 4/3 increasing pattern.

2d6 * 3/2 is 2d6
3d6 * 4/3 is 4d6
4d6 * 3/2 is 6d6
6d6 * 4/3 is 8d6
8d6 * 3/2 is 12d6
12d6 * 4/3 is 16d6
16d6 * 3/2 is 24d6

etc.

Thats the pattern.

Lord.Sorasen

2011-06-16, 05:07 PM

So, could one of you gents (or anyone really) kindly explain why the damage progression from the build makes sense for Claws of the Beast? I still can't find a pattern for size increases that matches [4d6, 5d6, 6d6] in any of the other rules, and logically (at least to this curmugdeon's mind), the continuation of that pattern is +1d6 per size category increase.

The table is in the DMG. 5d6 doesn't exist there but 6d6 does. Basically, all damage scales in serieses of 2 with the multiplier doubling each round; 2d6, 3d6, 4d6, 6d6, 8d6, 12d6, 16d6, 24d6, etc.

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/weapons.htm doesn't have 5d6: that is true. But both instances of 6d6 continue with 8d6. I don't want to do the math right now, but I'm guessing the increase is curved and rounded to the nearest dice possibility.

HugeC

2011-06-16, 07:23 PM

After 2dX, its an alternating 3/2 and 4/3 increasing pattern.
...
Thats the pattern.
OK, I agree that's the pattern for the tables you quoted. But, the last two rows of the table in Claws of the Beast's description don't match that pattern. If they did, the last row would be [4d6, 6d6, 8d6], right? But it isn't.

Yeesh, I'm tired of arguing. :smallsigh:

Keld Denar

2011-06-16, 07:55 PM

You started it...

And claws of the beast doesn't follow the standard weapon progression, but then again, neither does the monk. It is the exception, and we should follow it as a base, building on it with the general rules when it no longer applies.

faceroll

2011-06-16, 08:04 PM

stainboy

2011-06-16, 08:04 PM

Claws of the Beast damage

You're right that Improved Natural Attack never gives a progression from 5d6->6d6->8d6, but it does say that 4d6->6d6->8d6. His base claw damage is a 19 PP, 5d6 Claws of the Beast. His claw advancement starts from a 15 PP, 4d6 Claws of the Beast.

He's not rounding 5d6 down to 4d6. He's actually starting from a not-full-powered Claws of the Beast that gives him 4d6. I guess he just left 5d6 line in for anyone using the King of Smack as guide for similar but a less optimized build.

E: The one shaky bit about his claw progression is that the Claws of the Beast chart and the size advancement chart don't match. he gets different results depending on the order he applies Claws of the Beast and the size bonuses.

15 PP Claws of the Beast + Improved Natural Attack + Warshaper + Expansion:
4d6 -> 6d6 -> 8d6 -> 12d6
Cost: 15 PP

Expansion + 19 PP Claws of the Beast + Improved Natural Attack + Warshaper:
no claws -> 6d6 -> 8d6 -> 12d6
Cost: 19 PP

Expansion + 15 PP Claws of the Beast + Improved Natural Attack + Warshaper:
no claws -> 5d6 -> 6d6 -> 8d6
(or if the DM doesn't go for rounding 5d6 down to 4d6, no claws -> 5d6 -> Segmentation Fault)

Improved Natural Attack + Warshaper + Expansion + Claws of the Beast:
no claws -> no claws -> no claws -> Segmentation Fault

Eldariel

2011-06-16, 08:06 PM

OK, I agree that's the pattern for the tables you quoted. But, the last two rows of the table in Claws of the Beast's description don't match that pattern. If they did, the last row would be [4d6, 6d6, 8d6], right? But it isn't.

Yeah, basically you use the listed values for the listed sizes and then the general tables for anything beyond those (because specific trumps general in D&D rules so you use specific table for what it lists and general tables for anything outside those). Tiny would be 3d6 (since Small is 4d6), Diminutive would be 2d6 and Fine would be 1d10. And Huge is 8d6, Gargantuan is 12d6 and so on.

Elric VIII

2011-06-16, 08:12 PM

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/weapons.htm doesn't have 5d6: that is true. But both instances of 6d6 continue with 8d6. I don't want to do the math right now, but I'm guessing the increase is curved and rounded to the nearest dice possibility.

OK, I agree that's the pattern for the tables you quoted. But, the last two rows of the table in Claws of the Beast's description don't match that pattern. If they did, the last row would be [4d6, 6d6, 8d6], right? But it isn't.

Yeesh, I'm tired of arguing. :smallsigh:

May I ask what alternative you would suggest?

If there's no set rule, it's the DM's job to make a ruling. Would you disallow a player to increase his damage dice if his size increases beyond a table?

It seems to be a really trite point to argue that the fact that you don't agree with the KoS extrapolation is a point for debunking it. The fact is that in this situation, the game has set a precedent for an increase and a DM who would deny a reasonable extrapolation because "the rules don't explicitly say it" is just begging for his players to start abusing RAW. Remember, Pun Pun is RAW-legal.

Personally, I let my player (Tash-Monk on an Ardent base with Natural World Mantle substituted with the claw powers) to increase the size of the die for each increase beyond the table. The player loved rolling his d12s and it's not like being 4+ sizes larger than the tables really increases damage by unreasonable amounts.

HugeC

2011-06-17, 08:06 AM

My point is simply that it can be interpreted differently than the author has. You could say, "hey, close enough to that other rule, I guess I'll jump to the other table," or you could say, "hey, I see a pattern here that seems to differ enough from that other rule that I should extrapolate this pattern instead," or even, "hey, the table doesn't go beyond Large, so I guess that's as good as the damage gets."

The author's interpretation isn't a problem in itself, but after seeing builds like Horizon Tripper, which is pretty much ironclad, having KoS put forth as "something you can definitely do" seemed insane, given the assumptions it needs to work.

What I really wanted (mentioned perhaps inelegantly in the final paragraph of the OP) was something that didn't rely on what I saw (and pretty much still see) as questionable assumptions. And yeah, to vent some steam via sarcasm too, I guess. :smallsmile: If the answer really is that Claws of the Vampire and Claws of the Beast and maybe even Expansion have nice synergy, that's great, and you guys have my thanks for pointing it out.

We can let it die now, if you wish. Thanks all for your indulgence. :smallbiggrin:

Amphetryon

2011-06-17, 08:22 AM

My point is simply that it can be interpreted differently than the author has.That can be applied to essentially every rule and build in 3.5, though, so I'm not sure how useful it is. "Some DM somewhere might not allow this in a specific campaign" is a disclaimer that could reasonably be attached to every aspect of the game. For example, I actually had a DM ban Spring Attack because a) he thought it was overpowered and b) the group could not come to a consensus "fix" that worked with the perceived intent.

stainboy

2011-06-17, 09:26 AM

Keld Denar

2011-06-17, 10:22 AM

By your definition, there can also be no Huge, Gargantuan, Collosal, Tiny, Diminuative, or Fine Monks, since the table only includes damage for Small, Medium, and Large Monks.

Why are there rules for extrapolating weapon damage size if we are not allowed to use them when they apply? That makes no sense.

Eldariel

2011-06-17, 12:59 PM

But there's no rule to prevent him from doing his claw progression. He's using a legal combination of abilities that can be interpreted to produce undefined behavior. (Even the interpretation that Claws of the Beast can't scale past Large produces ambiguities. Creatures that are already Huge can know and manifest Claws of the Beast. What happens?)

If there are two interpretations, and one produces a usable number and the other produces a big question mark, it seems like the one that produces a number is correct by default.

(In this case there are at least six interpretations and about three of them produce usable numbers. I don't know which of those three is correct.)

Lacking other tables you use the general tables. I don't see how that's ambiguous. The rules for size increases beyond those listed exist in DMG; you check the next step on the damage progression and go from there. Those are the only rules for the matter so there's no ambiguity. DMs can rule what they please, but RAW is abundantly clear.

Draz74

2011-06-17, 01:39 PM

If the size-based damage progression is really a big deal, couldn't the KoS simply save 4 PP when he manifests Claws, therefore ending up with 4d6 base damage instead of 5d6, and then just use the by-size progression from the DMG? No need to argue over where you go starting from 5d6.

HugeC

2011-06-17, 03:34 PM

If you start from the 15 PP line, there's still a 5d6 in there. I guess if you use the 11 PP line, put your hand over the last two lines in the table and pretend they aren't there, then it's all better. :smallwink:

To paraphrase something I read recently regarding interpretations of D&D rules (I think it was for 4th edition, but maybe it still applies): if there is an interpretation of the rules that can satisfy both a general and a specific rule, then it's better than one that breaks the general rule in favor of the specific one. But for those last two rows in the table, the change in the damage progression relative to the other rules for increasing damage with size prevents you from adhering to both at the same time, which would lead one to use the specific rather than the general rule. It's just the table in the specific rule is woefully inadequate in that it only shows 3 of the size categories.

Maybe that's the issue; if the last two rows had the same damage progression as the more general rule, there would be no dilemma. Misprint, perhaps? I wish they wouldn't have left it open for debate!

Eldariel

2011-06-17, 04:36 PM

If you start from the 15 PP line, there's still a 5d6 in there. I guess if you use the 11 PP line, put your hand over the last two lines in the table and pretend they aren't there, then it's all better. :smallwink:

To paraphrase something I read recently regarding interpretations of D&D rules (I think it was for 4th edition, but maybe it still applies): if there is an interpretation of the rules that can satisfy both a general and a specific rule, then it's better than one that breaks the general rule in favor of the specific one. But for those last two rows in the table, the change in the damage progression relative to the other rules for increasing damage with size prevents you from adhering to both at the same time, which would lead one to use the specific rather than the general rule. It's just the table in the specific rule is woefully inadequate in that it only shows 3 of the size categories.

The 3 sizes form a specific rule for those 3 sizes. Rest of the sizes go as extrapolations with the maximum and minimum values.

stainboy

2011-06-17, 08:42 PM

Lacking other tables you use the general tables. I don't see how that's ambiguous. The rules for size increases beyond those listed exist in DMG; you check the next step on the damage progression and go from there. Those are the only rules for the matter so there's no ambiguity. DMs can rule what they please, but RAW is abundantly clear.

Look at the thing I posted above. The damage changes depending on whether you apply size advancement using the Claws of the Beast chart or the Improved Natural Attack chart when you change from medium to large.

Eldariel

2011-06-17, 09:33 PM

Look at the thing I posted above. The damage changes depending on whether you apply size advancement using the Claws of the Beast chart or the Improved Natural Attack chart when you change from medium to large.

What's the ambiguous part? You use the Claws chart for the sizes it lists and the general Size Increase Chart for everything else.

stainboy

2011-06-17, 10:16 PM

Eldariel

2011-06-17, 10:32 PM

Because in some cases the Claws of the Beast chart doesn't produce numbers that line up with the Improved Natural Attack chart. If you don't go for rounding down (which some people in this thread don't), and go with what I said earlier that whatever solution produces useful numbers is correct, then you jump off the Claws of the Beast chart from whichever column gives you an even number of d6's. Depending on how many PP you have to spend, that may be at Large or it may be at Medium.

The only Large value not in the table (5d6) is the only potential issue since there's no precedent set in rules on what scaling it should have. 19pp Claws of the Beast are simply:
Medium: 5d6
Large: 6d6
Huge: 8d6 (basically, at this point it leaves the Claws Chart and follows normal progression as per Weapon Size (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/weapons.htm#weaponSize) table)
Gargantuan: 12d6
etc.

Since that's what the build uses, I don't see the problem here; at 19pp they unambigous.

15pp is irrelevant to the discussion, but lacks entry in the table. Still, we can easily deduct what it should be:
Medium: 4d6
Large: 5d6
Huge: 6d8
Gargantuan: 8d8
Colossal: 12d8
etc.

That's the only value on the chart between 6d6 and 8d6, both of which are trivially wrong since they're the values for 4d6 and 6d6 respectively - it's also the natural progression of 4d8 which is principally identical damage to 5d6 (avg. 18 vs. 17.5; same difference can be found in 2d6 and 1d12 which are also treated as identical damage dice).

stainboy

2011-06-17, 10:54 PM

That's the only value on the chart between 6d6 and 8d6, both of which are trivially wrong since they're the values for 4d6 and 6d6 respectively - it's also the natural progression of 4d8 which is principally identical damage to 5d6 (avg. 18 vs. 17.5; same difference can be found in 2d6 and 1d12 which are also treated as identical damage dice).

That's a house rule. And not even the only defensible house rule. I could just as easily use 5d6->7d7->10d6, or 5d6->6d6->8d6, or 5d6->5d6->5d6. See? Ambiguity.

The only way to get a RAW result for 15 PP is to jump off the Claws of the Beast chart at Medium. The only way to get a RAW result for 19 PP is to jump off at Large. See? More ambiguity.

Eldariel

2011-06-17, 11:04 PM

That's a house rule. And not even the only defensible house rule. I could just as easily use 5d6->7d7->10d6, or 5d6->6d6->8d6, or 5d6->5d6->5d6. See? Ambiguity.

There's no such entry on the table. It only recognizes 4d6 -> 6d6 -> 8d6 -> 12d6 and 4d8 -> 6d8 -> 8d8 -> 12d8. Those are literally the only infinite progressions in the game. Everything will follow one or the other. 5d6 = 4d8 and thus it follows the 4d8 line (the precedent for dice with equal or .5-from-each-other outcome is all over the standard damage tables; 2d4 = 1d8, 2d6 = 1d12).

There are some basic D&D rules at works here that allow us to figure out what's the RAW:
- Weapon damage die increases when the weapon size increases.
- Damage die increases follow a table outside explicit exceptions.
- Claws of the Beast provides you with explicit tables for 3 sizes with no mention of the remaining sizes. Thus the rest defaults to standard D&D weapon size rules, in the absence of any specific exception.
- Die increases follow a pattern (3/2, 4/3, 3/2, etc.).

We can pinpoint all but 5d6 straight from the table by these points. Then we look at 5d6 and since it isn't in the table, seek out an equal value, find 4d8 and go from there (4d8 = 5d6 by the dice equivalencies).

And you can't "jump off the chart" at any value you desire. The chart extends to Large size, therefore you follow it up to Large size, no questions. It's a specific exception to the general weapon size rules; you only follow normal progression for sizes without specific exceptions listed.

stainboy

2011-06-17, 11:51 PM

There's no such entry on the table. It only recognizes 4d6 -> 6d6 -> 8d6 -> 12d6 and 4d8 -> 6d8 -> 8d8 -> 12d8. Those are literally the only infinite progressions in the game. Everything will follow one or the other. 5d6 = 4d8 and thus it follows the 4d8 line (the precedent for dice with equal or .5-from-each-other outcome is all over the standard damage tables; 2d4 = 1d8, 2d6 = 1d12).

Well, of course it's not on the table. 5d6->5d8 isn't either. That's a thing you invented. You've done a good job of justifying your house rule, but that doesn't make it RAW.

Eldariel

2011-06-17, 11:52 PM

Well, of course it's not on the table. 5d6->5d8 isn't either. That's a thing you invented. You've done a good job of justifying your house rule, but that doesn't make it RAW.

5d6 = 4d8; that's not my invention, that's math. They're identical values, by D&D terms.

stainboy

2011-06-18, 12:00 AM

5d6 = 4d8; that's not my invention, that's math. They're identical values, by D&D terms.

5d6 does not equal 4d8. The mean values are different. The minimum and maximum values are different. The standard deviation is different.

Eldariel

2011-06-18, 12:04 AM

5d6 does not equal 4d8. The mean values are different. The minimum and maximum values are different. The standard deviation is different.

Aye. And yet, far as D&D is concerned, they're equal damage dice; this is more than adequately spelled out earlier in the chart. Dice that come within ½ of each other invariably have the exact same progression regardless of the fact that their properties are in fact very different. That is, far as the weapon size chart is concerned they're equal. You could even say 5d6 is on the table, just not written out.

Either way, this solves the question of what you do with 5d6 since we can actually pinpoint its location in the chart and thus extrapolate naturally; and indeed, this is what the general weapon size rules force us to do.

stainboy

2011-06-18, 12:10 AM

Aye. And yet, far as D&D is concerned, they're equal damage dice; this is more than adequately spelled out earlier in the chart.

Can you quote the text that says this? (Or give a row and column that shows that 5d6 and 4d8 are interchangeable.)

I'm a 5th level wizard. I cast Fireball. It does 5d6 damage. Nowhere in D&D does it say that if I feel like rolling 4d8 damage I can do that instead.

Thiyr

2011-06-18, 12:41 AM

Aye. And yet, far as D&D is concerned, they're equal damage dice; this is more than adequately spelled out earlier in the chart. Dice that come within ½ of each other invariably have the exact same progression regardless of the fact that their properties are in fact very different. That is, far as the weapon size chart is concerned they're equal. You could even say 5d6 is on the table, just not written out.

Either way, this solves the question of what you do with 5d6 since we can actually pinpoint its location in the chart and thus extrapolate naturally; and indeed, this is what the general weapon size rules force us to do.

It actually...isn't. The table shows that they have "the same" progression, but they're never said to be interchangeable. They just show that, specifically for 2d4 and 2d6 (actually for two specific weapons which use 2d4 and 2d6, which we extrapolate from, but that's beside the point), that they use the same progression as 1d8 and 1d12, respectively. But EVEN IF we assume this...how is math telling you that 5d6 is 4d8? Because the pattern I'm seeing with the extremely small sample size there is that two different die sizes that are being treated as equivalents, it's because the maximum possible roll is the same (2d4 at max is 8, 2d6 at max is 12). At that point, we'd be looking at 5d6 (30) versus 4d8 (32), which is...not equal at all. If we're looking at averages, it's an average of 7 versus an average of 9. Unless you've got a better way to make them "the same" than I do (and I don't discount that, I doubt i've seen everything), your argument kinda doesn't work.