PDA

View Full Version : Useless Features



Shhalahr Windrider
2007-01-26, 05:22 PM
I've recently had an experience with a class that has two features that pretty much cancel each other out. Using one negates the other. Therefore one of the features is effectively useless at any given time.

Has anyone else had any problem like that? A feature or set of features that work in such a way to be completely useless even when used "as intended". And I'm not talking about useless in terms of "the bonus is nice, but it's got to be bigger to have a real impact," but outright "this combination has no reason to be together." If you have, do share. Even if you haven't experienced one directly, point out one you find glaringly obvious.

And, if it's a really bad or frustrating one, feel free to vent. :smallwink:

[hr]Here's mine:

I'm currently playing a Shadowcaster in a PbP game (see the link to Dulos in my sig if you're interested in what he's like). One of the things that's recently come up, however, is the utter near-uselessness of one of his class abilities.

A Shadowcaster gains a class ability called Sustaining Shadow. As you gain levels, it slowly takes over various metabolic processes. When you first gain it, you can survive on one meal per week. Later on, you gain the ability to become fully rested with only 1 hour of sleep per night.

Now, the problem is that, like a Sorcerer, a Shadowcaster requires a full 8 hours of complete and total rest to regain mystery slots, regardless of how much sleep he or she needs.

See what's silly about that? All the time saved by not sleeping is spent doing absolutely nothing.

That is unless the shadowcaster managed to get through the previous day without using his or her signature class ability (casting mysteries).

It's a pretty boring life for a shadowcaster, I guess. :smallyuk:

[hr]So what do you have?

Yuki Akuma
2007-01-26, 05:40 PM
Actually, it's a pretty good ability; he can spend the other seven hours keeping watch.

My useless abilities? The Frenzied Berserker's Deathless Frenzy. When he frenzies, he takes 2 points of nonlethal damage per round. With deathless frenzy, he can't die if reduced to lower than -10 hit points when he's frenzying.

The kicker? As soon as his nonlethal damage exceeds his hit point total, he falls unconcious... so if he's ever reduced to below -10 hp he goes unconcious, stops frenzying, and dies anyway.

Great.

Fax Celestis
2007-01-26, 05:43 PM
Here's one: Flurry of Blows. No, really. It sounds useful, but all it really does is make you miss more.

EDIT: Oh, and for the Shadowcaster, you only need rest to regain your arcane spell mysteries. Your spell-likes and supernaturals don't require you to rest, since they're now "per day" abilities instead of spontaneous magic.

Thomas
2007-01-26, 06:18 PM
See what's silly about that? All the time saved by not sleeping is spent doing absolutely nothing.

Unless, you know, you don't use all your magic every day. Sorcerers and wizards, at least, don't need to rest that 8 hours if they have no slots to regain or spells to prepare.

Looking at Fax Celestis' note, the Shadowcaster doesn't need to rest as badly as sorcerers and wizards do, anyway.

It's very limited usability, but not quite as bad as you portray it.

(Incidentally, does anyone else think Shadowcaster isn't a class but an old first-person RPG on the PC where you changed shape into various creatures to get past various obstacles and defeat monsters?)

Fax Celestis
2007-01-26, 06:38 PM
(Incidentally, does anyone else think Shadowcaster isn't a class but an old first-person RPG on the PC where you changed shape into various creatures to get past various obstacles and defeat monsters?)

Heh. I was trying to not date myself, but yes.

Neo
2007-01-26, 06:42 PM
Yeah, the old Raven game, which rocked.

Anyway, I know some people see differently but i'd class Toughness as a useless feature. 3hp woop-dee-freaking-doo.

Caelestion
2007-01-26, 06:44 PM
It's brilliant at 1st- and 2nd-level, then it starts sucking. The feat that grants +1 hp per level every level is a much better feat.

squishycube
2007-01-26, 06:49 PM
I disagree with your view on Flurry of Blurry (as my party lovingly refer to the ability ever since a new player couldn't remember the name correctly).
You should not see the flurry of blows as two separate attacks which both, indeed, have less chance of hitting than the one attack.
You should see it like this: either you get one attack at BAB x. OR you get two attacks at BAB x-2. This is on average almost always better, unless you need to roll an 18 or higher to hit (Without flurrying). I could do the math, but I am lazy and tired. The conclusion of the math is this: the chance you hit with one attack is much better if you get to make several attacks at a penalty. The only situation this doesn't work is when you need to roll a 20 after you apply the penalty.

Useless class features/racial abilities:
Elf. 4 hours meditation, favoured class: Wizard.
Wizard. Requires 8 hours rest anyway. Great...

EDIT: Woo, I am young :thog:

Caelestion
2007-01-26, 06:51 PM
Useless class features/racial abilities:
Elf. 4 hours meditation, favoured class: Wizard.
Wizard. Requires 8 hours rest anyway. Great...
As has already been noted, simply needing to rest means you can be on watch if necessary. Elf mages get to read lots of books at night when the others are asleep!

squishycube
2007-01-26, 06:55 PM
I noticed, but actually I agree with the OP and mentioned another example.

Dark
2007-01-26, 06:58 PM
Now, if you could spend those hours reading books and thereby gain extra Knowledge ranks, it would be nice :)

But no, can't learn anything without killing some monsters first.

Twisted.Fate
2007-01-26, 06:58 PM
Druids: Resist Nature's Lure - WOW. +4 to save against the spell-like abilities of Fey. How many Fey do you fight on a regular basis? Not too many, if your game is anything like the ones I've been in. Not that I'm suggesting that the druid get more stuff, mind, but still. Useless, useless feature.

Caelestion
2007-01-26, 07:00 PM
Druids: Resist Nature's Lure - WOW. +4 to save against the spell-like abilities of Fey. How many Fey do you fight on a regular basis? Not too many, if your game is anything like the ones I've been in. Not that I'm suggesting that the druid get more stuff, mind, but still. Useless, useless feature.
It might be "useless" but it's extremely thematic. If I'm playing a druid, I like to know I can cut across country, moving rapidly and unhindered and I actively like the fact that I'm more protected against the faerie people than others are.

The_Snark
2007-01-26, 07:14 PM
As has already been noted, simply needing to rest means you can be on watch if necessary. Elf mages get to read lots of books at night when the others are asleep!

Now if only wizards and shadowcasters actually could Spot things.

Actually, I think the shadowcaster does get Spot, so hey.

The multiclass Ranger/Scout, with that new feat from Complete Scoundrel, gets Skirmish. And then gets... Rapid Shot. Hmmm...

Manyshot later on, too, but it can't do the skirmish more than once.

Caelestion
2007-01-26, 07:21 PM
Elven Arcane Trickster as the nightwatchman! *g*

Frojoe21
2007-01-26, 07:22 PM
The multiclass Ranger/Scout, with that new feat from Complete Scoundrel, gets Skirmish. And then gets... Rapid Shot. Hmmm...Because who doesn't want to skirmish undead, constructs and oozes at a near full BAB?

Personally, I think that the Barbarian's trap sense makes no sense. I mean, in an RL game, the barbarian in the party is our trap checker, so it does definitely help, but thematically, it makes little sense

Caelestion
2007-01-26, 07:35 PM
Someone in the design team is a Conan fan, methinks. Then again, the trap sense is supposed to represent intuition and sixth-sense-style survival skills.

Mewtarthio
2007-01-26, 07:42 PM
This isn't about making sense or even about having an utterly obscure use: This is about being outright useless. Like the Metamind. If you add up the bonus power points you save from the class features (cognizance psicrystal--11 points, one fifth-level power--9 points, one fourth-level power--7 points, one third-level power--5 points, three second-level powers--9 points, three first-level powers--3 points), you save 44 points per day. Those five levels of psion you sacrificed would have given you 148 points per day. Seriously, am I miscalculating something?

Caelestion
2007-01-26, 07:43 PM
No you're not. Metamind sounds cool and is thematically fun, but mechanically it blows.

Fualkner Asiniti
2007-01-26, 07:44 PM
Shurikan. Every thing about it. It is utterly useless. Woo! 1d2 damage, and I got to waste a feat on it! I'm so happy!

Khantalas
2007-01-26, 07:46 PM
Shurikan. Every thing about it. It is utterly useless. Woo! 1d2 damage, and I got to waste a feat on it! I'm so happy!

Hey, be glad 3.5 came around. 3.0 shurikens sucked my socks.

OK, that just sounds wrong.


This isn't about making sense or even about having an utterly obscure use: This is about being outright useless. Like the Metamind. If you add up the bonus power points you save from the class features (cognizance psicrystal--11 points, one fifth-level power--9 points, one fourth-level power--7 points, one third-level power--5 points, three second-level powers--9 points, three first-level powers--3 points), you save 44 points per day. Those five levels of psion you sacrificed would have given you 148 points per day. Seriously, am I miscalculating something?

Until 10th level, I gain nothing. And even then, the slight advantage I get once per day isn't enough to make me forget the loss of 9th level powers and the disadvantage I get through the rest of the day.

If the class is about power to burn, why doesn't it get that power?

Caelestion
2007-01-26, 07:50 PM
It did, Khantalas. It burnt all its power when you entered. :)

Shisumo
2007-01-26, 07:52 PM
I'm currently trying to figure out what the heck my duskblade is going to do with his brand-new ability to ignore spell failure from heavy shields, given that out of his 12 spells known, exactly 4 do not have somatic components, meaing there are 8 he cannot therefore cast without a hand free...

Caelestion
2007-01-26, 07:56 PM
He puts down his weapon! *g

Shisumo
2007-01-26, 08:09 PM
He puts down his weapon! *g


....Right. Because that's a good idea. :smallwink:

Thomas
2007-01-26, 08:20 PM
Somatic Weaponry.

Yuki Akuma
2007-01-26, 08:22 PM
Improved/Superior Unarmed Strike.

Caelestion
2007-01-26, 08:24 PM
....Right. Because that's a good idea. :smallwink:
Hence why I mentioned it :)

Count Chumleigh
2007-01-26, 09:05 PM
There is no way this isn't a stupid omission on a WotC writer's part, but it bears mentioning regardless. You know all those nifty unarmed powers a monk gets? Like, say, increased unarmed damage, flurry of blows--which eventually does means something other than "Wow, you just missed twice in one round thanks to your special class power"--and the ability to punch hard enough to overcome damage reduction x/magic or x/adamantine? Well, that doesn't mean SQUAT using the rules as written, because monks aren't proficient with unarmed strikes!

Cheers,
--Count Chumleigh

The Glyphstone
2007-01-26, 09:10 PM
Everyone's automatically proficient with unarmed strikes, they just take a -4 penalty to deal lethal damage instead of nonlethal damage. Monks have Imp. Unarmed Strike for free, which eliminates said penalty.

Shhalahr Windrider
2007-01-26, 09:18 PM
Actually, it's a pretty good ability; he can spend the other seven hours keeping watch.
I assume keeping watch—actively paying attention to every suspicious noise or motion in the shadows—would be just as, if not more, demanding than having a conversation. I mention this because it is noted in the rules (http://www.systemreferencedocuments.org/35/sovelior_sage/arcaneSpells.html#rest) that conversation is sufficently complex to interfere with the type of complete rest required for regaining spells. So, although he could help with watch in his own way, I would have to assume appropriate penalties on Spot and Listen checks.

Well, at least Spot is a class skill. :smallannoyed:

EDIT: Oh, and for the Shadowcaster, you only need rest to regain your arcane spell mysteries. Your spell-likes and supernaturals don't require you to rest, since they're now "per day" abilities instead of spontaneous magic.
Page reference? I find the rules for needing rest in two places on pg. 113—one in the "Mysteries and Paths" description, the other in the "Sustaining Shadow" section. Each one says you must rest to regain mysteries. Neither says spell-like and supernatural mysteries are excluded from this requirement.


If the class is about power to burn, why doesn't it get that power?
I think the 3.0 version did a better job of actually granting power points. The problem is that in 3.5, they reworked the abilities to be less about "power to burn" and "using power without burning it." All the abilities are now geared towards manifesting power without using any power points (a good thing since they don't get many actual power points). It's just that someone forgot to change the flavor text.

Fax Celestis
2007-01-26, 09:49 PM
Gah. Where's the Beholder when you need him?

Count Chumleigh
2007-01-26, 10:11 PM
Everyone's automatically proficient with unarmed strikes, they just take a -4 penalty to deal lethal damage instead of nonlethal damage. Monks have Imp. Unarmed Strike for free, which eliminates said penalty.

Really? Because I'm looking at the SRD (http://www.d20srd.org), and what I see under "Weapon and Armor Proficiencies" for the Monk is:


Monks are proficient with club, crossbow (light or heavy), dagger, handaxe, javelin, kama, nunchaku, quarterstaff, sai, shuriken, siangham, and sling.

Meanwhile, the listing for "Unarmed Strike" under "Weapons" says in its entirety that an unarmed strike is a simple weapon and:


A Medium character deals 1d3 points of nonlethal damage with an unarmed strike. A Small character deals 1d2 points of nonlethal damage. A monk or any character with the Improved Unarmed Strike feat can deal lethal or nonlethal damage with unarmed strikes, at her option. The damage from an unarmed strike is considered weapon damage for the purposes of effects that give you a bonus on weapon damage rolls.

An unarmed strike is always considered a light weapon. Therefore, you can use the Weapon Finesse feat to apply your Dexterity modifier instead of your Strength modifier to attack rolls with an unarmed strike.

So what we have is a laundry list of awesome powers a monk get with her unarmed strike, which she isn't even proficient with. Monks aren't proficient with their unarmed strikes because it's not one of the weapons they're listed as being proficient with, and nothing in the unarmed strike's listing says that everyone is automatically proficient with them. It's a stupid, stupid omission on WotC's part, and one that only makes sense to houserule away--so stupid is this omission, in fact, that you have to be paying extra-special attention to the strictest interpretation of the rules as written to even notice it--but there it is. And because of it, monks are technically worthless, as they aren't proficient with their own class.

I don't mean to sound argumentative, Glyphstone; I've been through a lengthy enough argument with a fellow player who tried for near on thirty minutes to convince me of this loophole that I can be quite ... snippy when pointing it out, is all.

Cheers,
--Count Chumleigh

Viscount Einstrauss
2007-01-26, 10:17 PM
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/monk.htm#unarmedStrike

That one says they do get US, though.

ADDENDUM: Actually, so does the other SRD from Wizards themselves. And quoth I-

Unarmed Strike: At 1st level, a monk gains Improved Unarmed Strike as a bonus feat.

Since this is directly from WotC, I'm inclined to believe that makes it absolutely RAW. Anything else is a bizarre and nonsensical homebrew ruling.

Mattarias, King.
2007-01-26, 10:21 PM
uhm.. well, useless abilities. let's look at bards, shall we? by the time inspire courage +2 rolls around, most parties really don't find it useful. also, what good are mind affecting abilities if you're in an undead campaign? not much.:smallconfused:

Count Chumleigh
2007-01-26, 10:21 PM
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/monk.htm#unarmedStrike

That one says they do get US, though.

Actually, that excerpt--which comes from the same SRD I referenced, by the by--only says that they do more damage with their unarmed strikes and that they can flurry with them. It says nothing about monks being proficient with their own unarmed strikes. It's a stupid omission that makes no sense at all given the fluff and crunch of the monk, but it's an omission all the same.

Cheers,
--Count Chumleigh

Viscount Einstrauss
2007-01-26, 10:24 PM
But proficiency is, by the definition, weapons proficiency, is it not?

And an unarmed strike clearly isn't an improvised weapon either, since there's still no weapon involved.

Thus, it doesn't require a weapons proficiency since it isn't a weapon to begin with.

But good catch on the Unarmed Strike thing, I didn't realize that they didn't directly clear it up there.

Count Chumleigh
2007-01-26, 10:35 PM
But proficiency is, by the definition, weapons proficiency, is it not?

And an unarmed strike clearly isn't an improvised weapon either, since there's still no weapon involved.

Thus, it doesn't require a weapons proficiency since it isn't a weapon to begin with.

Alas, this argument only works if we disregard the unarmed strike's explicit listing as a Simple Weapon on the weapons table. By the writers' reckoning, an unarmed strike is a simple weapon. According to the monk's weapon & armor proficiency listing, they are proficient with a short list of weapons--a list that does not include the unarmed strike, nor all simple weapons generally. Therefore, monks are not proficient with their most noticeable class feature, by the strictest reading of the rules as written. Stupid, innit?
Anyhow, I hereby unilaterally declare a truce on this matter, as I have research I ought to be doing right now :smalleek: and it doesn't do for two counts such as ourselves to be arguing over something as stupid as this.

Cheers,
--Count Chumleigh

Woot Spitum
2007-01-26, 10:41 PM
Nobody is proficient with unarmed strike. On the other hand everyone can use it because everyone has hands and feet. Since no one is proficient with unarmed strike everyone takes the usual -4 to attacks made with it. Improved unarmed strike removes the -4 penalty. It's basically weapon proficiency (unarmed strike). It's kept seperate so that characters that are proficient with simple weapons aren't automatically proficient with it.

Mewtarthio
2007-01-26, 11:07 PM
Unarmed strikes are Natural Weapons. Surely you won't argue that every single monster that doesn't use natural weapons takes a -4 penalty to all attacks since it's not explicitly stated that they are proficient in teeth, claws, and talons?

Talya
2007-01-26, 11:13 PM
Here's one: Flurry of Blows. No, really. It sounds useful, but all it really does is make you miss more.



At low levels, it's free Two Weapon Fighting.

At mid-to-high levels, it's an extra two attacks at your maximum attack bonus without penalty. I don't see the downside there.

Everyman
2007-01-26, 11:22 PM
uhm.. well, useless abilities. let's look at bards, shall we? by the time inspire courage +2 rolls around, most parties really don't find it useful. also, what good are mind affecting abilities if you're in an undead campaign? not much.:smallconfused:

See, I totally disagree with this, as a +2 to attack, damage, and two different kinds of saves really makes a difference when you're trying to end a battle quicker. It can easily save you a round or two.

As far as undead go, I'll agree that a standard bard may have trouble. However, a beguiler would be just as screwed and an enchanter would find difficulties too. Just because an ability is not useful 100% of the time doesn't render it useless. (By the way, there is a feat that bards can take that allow their music to affect the undead.)

What I find a tad useless is the paladin's code (as written). It provides just enough guidelines to restrict one's actions, but is vague enough arguements can erupt over interpretation. This is why I just make paladin's write their own paladin code when they make a character. They still have to carry on what I believe is the spirit of the old code, but I want some specific regulations for them to follow.

grinner666
2007-01-26, 11:55 PM
Here's one: Flurry of Blows. No, really. It sounds useful, but all it really does is make you miss more.

Hooey.

At lower levels, it's two-weapon fighting without having to waste a feat on it. At higher levels, you lose all negatives to hit and it just gives you the extra attack with NO penalties.

But even at lower levels, all you've got to do is KNOW WHEN TO USE IT. Granted, you don't use it against the magic-platemail-encased fighter or cleric. But against normal-for-your-level encounters, even with the -2 modifier it allows the Monk to hit more often, not less.

grinner666
2007-01-27, 12:16 AM
There is no way this isn't a stupid omission on a WotC writer's part, but it bears mentioning regardless. You know all those nifty unarmed powers a monk gets? Like, say, increased unarmed damage, flurry of blows--which eventually does means something other than "Wow, you just missed twice in one round thanks to your special class power"--and the ability to punch hard enough to overcome damage reduction x/magic or x/adamantine? Well, that doesn't mean SQUAT using the rules as written, because monks aren't proficient with unarmed strikes!

[Scrubbed]

NEO|Phyte
2007-01-27, 12:18 AM
After all, nothing in the Monster Manual says that the ogre mage or the orc is proficient with the weapons it carries.


A giant possesses the following traits (unless otherwise noted in a creature’s entry).

* Low-light vision.
* Proficient with all simple and martial weapons, as well as any natural weapons.
* Proficient with whatever type of armor (light, medium or heavy) it is described as wearing, as well as all lighter types. Giants not described as wearing armor are not proficient with armor. Giants are proficient with shields if they are proficient with any form of armor.
* Giants eat, sleep, and breathe.

A humanoid possesses the following traits (unless otherwise noted in a creature’s entry).

* Proficient with all simple weapons, or by character class.
* Proficient with whatever type of armor (light, medium, or heavy) it is described as wearing, or by character class. If a humanoid does not have a class and wears armor, it is proficient with that type of armor and all lighter types. Humanoids not indicated as wearing armor are not proficient with armor. Humanoids are proficient with shields if they are proficient with any form of armor.
* Humanoids breathe, eat, and sleep.
Emphasis mine. Both can be found on page 310 of your MM.

mikeejimbo
2007-01-27, 12:22 AM
Emphasis mine.

Aw, I was going to rebuke him (or possibly turn him), but you did it more efficiently.

Anyway, while I believe that a monk should (and implied with Imp. Unarmed Strike, does) get proficiency in Unarmed Strike, that was rather unnecessarily rude. I respect Count Chumleigh, even while I disagree.

Roderick_BR
2007-01-27, 12:37 AM
Hierophant from DM's guide. Every level of hierophant you rise, you don't gain cleric spell levels, getting some power instead.
One of the powers is to... cast spells as if you were 1 caster level higher "for purposes of determining level dependent spell variables" ! Let's lose a whole spell level to cast spells as if we where that exact level :D

About monks: back in the 3.0, Flurry was just the Monk's "Two-Weapon Fighting" feature. In Sword and Fist, you could buy "Lightining Fist" that was practically the "Improved Two-Weapon Fighting" version.

As for the OP's post: Yeah, bummer. The only real benefit is that you can keep watch for most of the night, can heal the normal way with less time, and doesn't get fatigued if you wake up in the middle of the night. If you still needs to wait 8 hours, it does reduce the potential.

Viscount Einstrauss
2007-01-27, 12:37 AM
Yeah, this isn't some drag-out fight. He was just pointing out what he saw as a strange error in RAW, not explicitly stating that monks shouldn't be proficient. And even then, it wouldn't be insult-worthy.

NEO|Phyte
2007-01-27, 12:39 AM
Hierophant from DM's guide. Every level of hierophant you rise, you don't gain cleric spell levels, getting some power instead.
One of the powers is to... cast spells as if you were 1 caster level higher "for purposes of determining level dependent spell variables" ! Let's lose a whole spell level to cast spells as if we where that exact level :D

One should note that
Spells and Caster Level

Levels in the hierophant prestige class, even though they do not advance spell progression in the character’s base class, still stack with the character’s base spellcasting levels to determine caster level.

mikeejimbo
2007-01-27, 12:39 AM
Hierophant from DM's guide. Every level of hierophant you rise, you don't gain cleric spell levels, getting some power instead.
One of the powers is to... cast spells as if you were 1 caster level higher "for purposes of determining level dependent spell variables" ! Let's lose a whole spell level to cast spells as if we where that exact level :D

Yeah, we were comparing it to Archmage, and Archmage DOES get progression. I asked the DM if we could houserule that Hierophant does too, but he said no.

I'm still taking two levels of it, though, because I want the Divine Reach.

grinner666
2007-01-27, 12:40 AM
A humanoid possesses the following traits (unless otherwise noted in a creature’s entry).

* Proficient with all simple weapons, or by character class.
* Proficient with whatever type of armor (light, medium, or heavy) it is described as wearing, or by character class. If a humanoid does not have a class and wears armor, it is proficient with that type of armor and all lighter types. Humanoids not indicated as wearing armor are not proficient with armor. Humanoids are proficient with shields if they are proficient with any form of armor.
* Humanoids breathe, eat, and sleep.

Oooooohhhhh-KAY. So the orc wielding a battleaxe, scimitar or short bow isn't proficient with it. Because, after all, the Orcish race is known for its lack of martial proficiencies, and there's nothing saying they can use anything other than a mace, club, crossbow, dagger, spear or morningstar. And the Tarrasque ... of course IT isn't proficient with its natural weaponry. After all, the rules and its stats reflect a -4 nonproficiency penalty, right? Right? Same for all the creatures that use their own natural weapons, right?

[Scrubbed]

Shazzbaa
2007-01-27, 12:42 AM
Um, the Count himself said it's so stupid it doesn't even need a houserule -- he's not arguing that that's how it should be, merely that WotC made a stupid mistake.

NEO|Phyte
2007-01-27, 12:42 AM
Oooooohhhhh-KAY. So the orc wielding a battleaxe, scimitar or short bow isn't proficient with it. Because, after all, the Orcish race is known for its lack of martial proficiencies, and there's nothing saying they can use anything other than a mace, club, crossbow, dagger, spear or morningstar.
"Or by character class"
Tell me, what class does the sample Orc have, and what weapon proficiencies does that class have?


Orc, 1st-Level Warrior
Weapon and Armor Proficiency

The warrior is proficient in the use of all simple and martial weapons and all armor and shields.

grinner666
2007-01-27, 12:46 AM
"Or by character class"
Tell me, what class does the sample Orc have, and what weapon proficiencies does that class have?

*yawns* And once again a single sentence is taken from a two-paragraph argument and somebody here thinks something is proved thereby.

Roderick_BR
2007-01-27, 12:47 AM
One should note that
Still totally not worth it. A Cleric 15/Hierophant 2 casts spells as a 17 lvl cleric, but has access to spells as a 15th level cleric. So, as his 2nd power, he picks Spell Power. He can now cast at an effective level 18, having the spells of a 15th level cleric. I'd rater keep that cleric level, or getting something more useful.

Count Chumleigh
2007-01-27, 12:51 AM
[Scrubbed] So I assume, therefore, that YOU are assuming that, just because the rules don't SAY so, that the owlbear isn't proficient with its natural attacks? Nor the bear, eagle, dog, wolf, horse, lion, dragon, chimera, badger, giant scorpion, giant ant, etc, etc?

[Scrubbed] Every creature is automatically proficient with its own natural attacks, whether those attacks are considered "weapons" or not. Any other assumption cripples every monster without character classes. Even those that use weapons. After all, nothing in the Monster Manual says that the ogre mage or the orc is proficient with the weapons it carries.

[Scrubbed]

Actually, all of those creatures you mentioned are explicitly said to be proficient with their own natural weapons, plus any manufactured weapons their statblocks describe them as wielding and/or class features allow.
Granted, the text of the SRD, when stating that, say, an owlbear is proficient with its natural weapons, says it is proficient with its natural weapons "only," which suggests to me a basic assumption on the writers' part that natural weapons are something every creature--of which the monk certainly is an example--ought to be proficient with. Furthermore, a monk's unarmed strike:


is treated both as a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon for the purpose of spells and effects that enhance or improve either manufactured weapons or natural weapons.

So, by this logic--to say nothing of common frakking sense--a monk ought to be proficient with her own unarmed strike, as it is a natural weapon, the "Fallback" proficiency.
The problem, however, is that the unarmed strike's description in the Weapons section lists it as a simple weapon rather than a natural weapon. And monks are only proficient with the special monk weapons listed under their weapon and armor proficiency list, which pointedly mentions neither the unarmed strike nor all simple weapons. Hence, by the strictest reading of the rules as written, monks are not proficient with their most prominent class feature: the unarmed strike.
Frankly, I think it's stupid that the rules leave out this kind of thing. And no sane DM is going to rule that monks aren't proficient with unarmed strikes. But, as written, and until explicitly said otherwise monks are not technically proficient with unarmed strikes due to an oversight on WotC's part.
And if you think I'm being petty here, you should see the kind of parsing and hidebound by-the-bookery that goes on in the judicial opinions I have to sort through every day. As my Civil Procedure professor put it, "Complex litigation is a lot like driving for NASCAR: It'll wreck your home, drive you to drink, and leave you a burnt-out shell of a human being in twenty years, but you just can't stop doing it."

Cheers,
--Count Chumleigh

Roderick_BR
2007-01-27, 12:52 AM
*yawns* And once again a single sentence is taken from a two-paragraph argument and somebody here thinks something is proved thereby.
Wait, did you agree or disagree with him? :smalleek: He did say on his post that most humanoids are warriors (npc class)

grinner666
2007-01-27, 12:54 AM
Still totally not worth it. A Cleric 15/Hierophant 2 casts spells as a 17 lvl cleric, but has access to spells as a 15th level cleric. So, as his 2nd power, he picks Spell Power. He can now cast at an effective level 18, having the spells of a 15th level cleric. I'd rater keep that cleric level, or getting something more useful.

Yeah, pretty worthless ... unless you're playing a divine spellcaster with a hit die lower than a d8 and want the (possible) hit points THAT badly. A possibility, I suppose, but a pretty lame one.

NEO|Phyte
2007-01-27, 12:58 AM
*yawns* And once again a single sentence is taken from a two-paragraph argument and somebody here thinks something is proved thereby.

Well, maybe I'm reading your argument wrong, but
What utterly stupid crap. So I assume, therefore, that YOU are assuming that, just because the rules don't SAY so, that the owlbear isn't proficient with its natural attacks? Nor the bear, eagle, dog, wolf, horse, lion, dragon, chimera, badger, giant scorpion, giant ant, etc, etc?

Again: what stupid, nonsensical crap. Every creature is automatically proficient with its own natural attacks, whether those attacks are considered "weapons" or not. Any other assumption cripples every monster without character classes. Even those that use weapons. After all, nothing in the Monster Manual says that the ogre mage or the orc is proficient with the weapons it carries. Sounds an awful lot like you saying there aren't any rules stating that X creature type is proficient with Y, W, and X, when, in fact, there are (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/typesSubtypes.htm).

Proven_Paradox
2007-01-27, 01:12 AM
I'd say a level in Heirophant would be worth-while for Divine Reach for a healing focused cleric. I mean, touch is rather restricting, and even a little reach can make a cleric a more effective healer, even if they lose a few spells per day.

Now, Spell Power is rather stupid. But that's not what I'd take the class for.

Plus, I think many DMs would look at the closest related class--the archmage--see that spellcasting progression occurs, and reasonably conclude that heirophant should be houseruled to include at least partial spell progression.

mikeejimbo
2007-01-27, 01:17 AM
I'd say a level in Heirophant would be worth-while for Divine Reach for a healing focused cleric. I mean, touch is rather restricting, and even a little reach can make a cleric a more effective healer, even if they lose a few spells per day.

Now, Spell Power is rather stupid. But that's not what I'd take the class for.

Plus, I think many DMs would look at the closest related class--the archmage--see that spellcasting progression occurs, and reasonably conclude that heirophant should be houseruled to include at least partial spell progression.

Sadly, mine doesn't. He's Lawful Neutral and goes by the books.

Actually, I kid, he has some good houserules. But still, he won't let me get levels.

That isn't going to prevent me from taking two levels of Hierophant for the 60ft Divine Reach. Then I can hang in the back with the other caster.

Rigeld2
2007-01-27, 01:29 AM
Losing 2 spell levels isnt a total loss. Losing 4 is.

Feralgeist
2007-01-27, 01:46 AM
Improved Unarmed Strike [General]
Benefit

You are considered to be armed even when unarmed —that is, you do not provoke attacks or opportunity from armed opponents when you attack them while unarmed. However, you still get an attack of opportunity against any opponent who makes an unarmed attack on you.

In addition, your unarmed strikes can deal lethal or nonlethal damage, at your option.
Normal

Without this feat, you are considered unarmed when attacking with an unarmed strike, and you can deal only nonlethal damage with such an attack.
Special

A monk automatically gains Improved Unarmed Strike as a bonus feat at 1st level. She need not select it.


Unarmed Strike

At 1st level, a monk gains Improved Unarmed Strike as a bonus feat. A monk’s attacks may be with either fist interchangeably or even from elbows, knees, and feet. This means that a monk may even make unarmed strikes with her hands full. There is no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed. A monk may thus apply her full Strength bonus on damage rolls for all her unarmed strikes.

Usually a monk’s unarmed strikes deal lethal damage, but she can choose to deal nonlethal damage instead with no penalty on her attack roll. She has the same choice to deal lethal or nonlethal damage while grappling.

A monk’s unarmed strike is treated both as a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon for the purpose of spells and effects that enhance or improve either manufactured weapons or natural weapons



[Scrubbed], they can use it either way. It clearly says they can, as if it were a proficiency, but BETTER.
who the hell wants 1d3 damage when you get kickass monk damage.... [Scrubbed]

Stephen_E
2007-01-27, 01:52 AM
Actually, it's a pretty good ability; he can spend the other seven hours keeping watch.

My useless abilities? The Frenzied Berserker's Deathless Frenzy. When he frenzies, he takes 2 points of nonlethal damage per round. With deathless frenzy, he can't die if reduced to lower than -10 hit points when he's frenzying.

The kicker? As soon as his nonlethal damage exceeds his hit point total, he falls unconcious... so if he's ever reduced to below -10 hp he goes unconcious, stops frenzying, and dies anyway.

Great.

Unless there is some errata I've missed, Deathless frenzy stops you dying OR falling unconcious from dropping to -10 hps or lower.

Also can you tell me where you get the rule that you stop raging or frenzing when you fall unconcious? I've never seen such a rule myself.

Stephen

oriong
2007-01-27, 01:56 AM
Unless there is some errata I've missed, Deathless frenzy stops you dying OR falling unconcious from dropping to -10 hps or lower.

Also can you tell me where you get the rule that you stop raging or frenzing when you fall unconcious? I've never seen such a rule myself.

Stephen

Deathless frenzy does not stop you from dying or falling unconcious in general. What it does do is prevents you from falling unconcious when reduced to zero or fewer hit points, or dying when reduced to negative 10 or fewer hit points.

However, nonlethal damage does not do either of these, it merely forces you to fall unconcious when your nonlethal damage (tracked seperately) exceeds your current hit points. So, deathless frenzy does not stop it.

Indon
2007-01-27, 01:56 AM
You know, I actually can't think of any humorously worthless-due-to-their-own-design class abilities offhand.

As for monks, no monk actually uses the 'unarmed strike' listed under the weapons section of the SRD. Note the damage. Since there is no 1d6 "Unarmed Strike" on the chart, by the same strict-and-unintuitive interpretation, we can only treat the ability the same as touch attacks are treated; as non-weapons to which proficiency simply does not apply.

Darkshade
2007-01-27, 02:30 AM
Hierophant from DM's guide. Every level of hierophant you rise, you don't gain cleric spell levels, getting some power instead.
One of the powers is to... cast spells as if you were 1 caster level higher "for purposes of determining level dependent spell variables" ! Let's lose a whole spell level to cast spells as if we where that exact level :D


taken from Heirophant pg 188 DMG 3.5
Spells and caster Level: Levels in the Heirophant Prestige class, even though they do not advance spell progression in the character's base class, still stack with the character's base spellcasting levels to determine caster level.


its not completley useless...
just mostly useless

missed where someone already said that, by the way the descriptive text for the deathless frenzy says they scorn death and unconsciousness, i think its just an error

Darkshade
2007-01-27, 02:49 AM
Really? Because I'm looking at the SRD (http://www.d20srd.org), and what I see under "Weapon and Armor Proficiencies" for the Monk is:



Meanwhile, the listing for "Unarmed Strike" under "Weapons" says in its entirety that an unarmed strike is a simple weapon and:



So what we have is a laundry list of awesome powers a monk get with her unarmed strike, which she isn't even proficient with. Monks aren't proficient with their unarmed strikes because it's not one of the weapons they're listed as being proficient with, and nothing in the unarmed strike's listing says that everyone is automatically proficient with them. It's a stupid, stupid omission on WotC's part, and one that only makes sense to houserule away--so stupid is this omission, in fact, that you have to be paying extra-special attention to the strictest interpretation of the rules as written to even notice it--but there it is. And because of it, monks are technically worthless, as they aren't proficient with their own class.

I don't mean to sound argumentative, Glyphstone; I've been through a lengthy enough argument with a fellow player who tried for near on thirty minutes to convince me of this loophole that I can be quite ... snippy when pointing it out, is all.

Cheers,
--Count Chumleigh

hmmm interesting point but there is one thing you may have overlooked.
all creatures are automatically proficient with their natural weapons.
i know your thinking, :but monk doesnt say you are proficient with your natural weapons/unarmed strike" and I wish to respond to that specific argument.
It doesn't tell you, because it doesn't have too.
You already have the proficiency simply by existing.
Classes, from Fighter to Archmage only tell you what proficiencies you GAIN by taking the first level of that class. No class bothers to tell you that you are proficient with something that you are already proficient with.
that would be like complaining that the Monk class doesnt say you are proficient in wearing your natural armor if you are a creature with natural armor.

Stephen_E
2007-01-27, 02:56 AM
Deathless frenzy does not stop you from dying or falling unconcious in general. What it does do is prevents you from falling unconcious when reduced to zero or fewer hit points, or dying when reduced to negative 10 or fewer hit points.

However, nonlethal damage does not do either of these, it merely forces you to fall unconcious when your nonlethal damage (tracked seperately) exceeds your current hit points. So, deathless frenzy does not stop it.

Hmmm, the rules of Deathless Frenzy doesn't specifically cover unconciousness from non-leathal damage, but the flavour text does say shes scorns Death and unconciousness (except form massive damage and spells) which would suggest (but not prove) unconciousness from subdual damage is also ignored.

Nonetheless it still rocks since, at 2 pts subdual a round, you're going to run out of Frenzy rounds well before the subdual damage would equal your hit points.

If you do rule that non-lethal damage > total hit points, knocks out a Deathless Frenzy you'll see the classic party attacked by a Frenzied Berseker going "No, no, don't hurt her. Just do non-leathal damage and she'll be down in a flash". :smallbiggrin:

Stephen

oriong
2007-01-27, 03:03 AM
Hmmm, the rules of Deathless Frenzy doesn't specifically cover unconciousness from non-leathal damage, but the flavour text does say shes scorns Death and unconciousness (except form massive damage and spells) which would suggest (but not prove) unconciousness from subdual damage is also ignored.

It certainly should, after it completely renders the ability meaningless. However, the ability does not render you immune to death or unconciousness, since there are ways other than damage (subdual or otherwise) to render someone dead or unconcious.


Nonetheless it still rocks since, at 2 pts subdual a round, you're going to run out of Frenzy rounds well before the subdual damage would equal your hit points.

If you do rule that non-lethal damage > total hit points, knocks out a Deathless Frenzy you'll see the classic party attacked by a Frenzied Berseker going "No, no, don't hurt her. Just do non-leathal damage and she'll be down in a flash". :smallbiggrin:

No, that's not how nonelethal damage works.

Unconciousness comes when non-lethal damage > current hit points. So the party doesn't need to do nonelethal damage: the berserker is taking some already. The moment his hit points are at 0 he's already exceeded his current hit points with his non-lethal damage (because he's taken at least two points of subdual damage)

Druid
2007-01-27, 03:11 AM
If you make it to epic levels the hierophant is pretty cool. You stop getting new spell levels and spells per day when you hit epic, so you miss out on nothing. Over the five levels of cleric you'd miss there's one bonus feat. One of the things a hierophant can take as a special ability is a bonus meta magic feat (I think). Five feats vs one, which should I choose?

Monk's flurry of blows isn't worthless, but it and the speed enhancement make for a stupid pairing. With their insane speeds monks should be spring attacking (even with flurry they're a bad choice for a stand up fight) which doesn't let them flurry. STUPID.


Hey, be glad 3.5 came around. 3.0 shurikens sucked my socks.

In 3.0 you could throw three of them as one attack. Unless I missed a rule somewhere a rogue could use that for 90d6 sneak attack damage a round.

oriong
2007-01-27, 03:17 AM
No, the rogue's sneak attack only applies to the first.

The benefit of the shuriken is actually really big, it's just limited to monks. Shuriken's are thrown weapon treated as ammunition, meaning that that a monk can draw them without taking the quick draw feat and flurry with them. The same goes for a ninja since it's much better to just bust out a full attack that way rather than taking the feat Quick Draw.

The_Pope
2007-01-27, 05:53 AM
The paladin's remove disease per week. What the hell was that about? Was it just to give a really stupid person a reason to continue to level up as a paladin? I'd understand per day, but per week? Thats retarded.

Why couldn't they have just, I don't know, added it to their spell list? Gee, wow, what a concept.

JaronK
2007-01-27, 06:04 AM
Hey, be glad 3.5 came around. 3.0 shurikens sucked my socks.

Are you kidding? They were awesome in 3.0! You just need to add some extra damage per hit, such as with the flaming enchantment, and suddenly they rocked...

JaronK

clericwithnogod
2007-01-27, 06:18 AM
Turn Undead... It's ineffective at high levels and gets nerfed at any point it would actually be useful by environmental/setting modifiers. Most times when it does work, it's more trouble than it's worth...

e.g. With a party of Dwarf Fighter, Human Cleric, Halfling Rogue, Gnome Wizard (because of the CON bonus of course)

"You approach the graveyard where the town elders have told you there are skeletons rising from the ground. You see six skeletons wandering aimlessly among the tombstones. They haven't seen you yet...roll initiative, but you'll get to act first with surprise."

Cleric, having won initiative: "I Turn Undead"
Fighter, giggling: "*insert inappropriate comment about cleric's virility here*"
Cleric: Taking the high road, ignores the fighter and makes his rolls.
Skeletons are all Turned
Fighter: Runs up to close and makes a single attack.
Rogue: Runs up to close, tumbles into a flanking position, and makes a single attack with his small rapier, which is completely ineffective due to DR, despite the fact that he's flanking as the skeletons are immune to his sneak attack.
Wizard: Casts magic missile at a skeleton other than the one the fighter attacked, wanting the glory of the kill all to hmself, and does some damage to one of the skeletons.

Next round...

Skeletons move away at their best speed...scattering off into the countryside.
Party, none of whom move faster than 20': "Wow look at them go!"
Fighter, to wizard: "Can you cast Expeditious Retreat on me?"
Wizard: "Yeah, I memmed that...in your dreams meat puppet."

Back in town...

Elders: "I take it you have eliminated the threat in the graveyard?"
Rogue, bluffing as if his reward depended on it: "Yes, there is nothing to worry about in the graveyard any longer."

Closet_Skeleton
2007-01-27, 06:52 AM
Apparently taking 5 levels of Hierophant and taking spell power at each level is actually Supreme Cheese since at level 20 anyone with 15 HD or lower dies instantly whenver you cast Dictum/Holy Word/Word of Chaos/Blasphemy. You only lose out of 9th level spells as well.

Personally I wouldn't bother with it though. As for Archmage and Hierophant although the Archmage does get more spells he has to sacrifice spell slots to get his abilities so in some wierd way it's supposed to be balanced. Archmage and Hierophant are like Exotic Weaponmaster, you're supposed to dip it just to get a certain ability. The book even states that it's legitimate to call yourself an Archmage even if you don't have levels in the class as long as you could in theory meet the prerequisites.

clericwithnogod
2007-01-27, 07:05 AM
The paladin's remove disease per week. What the hell was that about? Was it just to give a really stupid person a reason to continue to level up as a paladin? I'd understand per day, but per week? Thats retarded.

Why couldn't they have just, I don't know, added it to their spell list? Gee, wow, what a concept.

Yeah, this one's pretty hard to beat...especially since as it's not on their class list, they can't use a wand to supplement their *weekly* uses.

Similar to this would be the prestige classes that give you the high-level ability to use one spell once per day as a spell-like ability making it not only weak, but draw AOOs as well.

Saph
2007-01-27, 07:41 AM
As has already been noted, simply needing to rest means you can be on watch if necessary. Elf mages get to read lots of books at night when the others are asleep!

Yup, definitely not useless!

Means you're much more likely to be awake on watch when the monsters come. Which you can spot early with your low-light vision and familiar . . . allowing you to buff up the party, or to just cast a defensive spell like invisibility and be safe!

The second (non-elf) wizard in our party failed several Listen checks to hear me shouting and woke up with a hybrid-form werewolf standing over him. That is NOT the first thing you want to see in the morning.

- Saph

Fizban
2007-01-27, 07:49 AM
Okay, I'm going to end this:
SRD:

To prepare her daily spells, a wizard (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/sorcererWizard.htm#wizard) must first sleep for 8 hours. The wizard does not have to slumber for every minute of the time, but she must refrain from movement, combat, spellcasting, skill use, conversation, or any other fairly demanding physical or mental task during the rest period. If her rest is interrupted, each interruption adds 1 hour to the total amount of time she has to rest in order to clear her mind, and she must have at least 1 hour of uninterrupted rest immediately prior to preparing her spells. If the character does not need to sleep for some reason, she still must have 8 hours of restful calm before preparing any spells.
Emphasis mine.

Now, if you can't move, or even use the spot/listen skills without breaking your rest, then you most certainly cannot keep watch or read books all night.

Khantalas
2007-01-27, 08:29 AM
Weren't the shuriken considered thrown weapons, rather than ammunition, at 3.0?

It's been so long, I may have forgotten.

Dark
2007-01-27, 08:51 AM
Oooooohhhhh-KAY. So the orc wielding a battleaxe, scimitar or short bow isn't proficient with it. Because, after all, the Orcish race is known for its lack of martial proficiencies, and there's nothing saying they can use anything other than a mace, club, crossbow, dagger, spear or morningstar. And the Tarrasque ... of course IT isn't proficient with its natural weaponry. After all, the rules and its stats reflect a -4 nonproficiency penalty, right? Right? Same for all the creatures that use their own natural weapons, right?

[Rudeness Scrubbed]
What reason do you have for being this rude? It's extremely unpleasant.

You're also wrong on every single point. Please go to your nearest Monster Manual and look up the stats for Orc, Tarrasque, Humanoid, and Magical Beast. You will see their proficiencies, including natural weapon proficiency, explicitly listed.

Stephen_E
2007-01-27, 09:03 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen_E http://www.giantitp.com/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1901974#post1901974)
Hmmm, the rules of Deathless Frenzy doesn't specifically cover unconciousness from non-leathal damage, but the flavour text does say shes scorns Death and unconciousness (except form massive damage and spells) which would suggest (but not prove) unconciousness from subdual damage is also ignored.



It certainly should, after it completely renders the ability meaningless. However, the ability does not render you immune to death or unconciousness, since there are ways other than damage (subdual or otherwise) to render someone dead or unconcious.


You're correct - I misread the non-lethal damage rule.

You misread the "flavour" text. It doesn't say "Scorns Death and Unconciousness from damage", it's "Scorns Death and Unconciousness" period. It then later puts some qualifications on Death, namely "does not prevent death from massive damage or spell effects such as "slay livung" and "disintegrate", but no such qualification for unconciousness is mentioned.

Given that I think you have to take the "flavour" text as not been flavour text, but been meant literally. While in frenzy they're immune to Death and Unconciousness except as specified.

Stephen

Caelestion
2007-01-27, 09:40 AM
Well Hierophants don't get spell progression because they don't need to forfeit spell slots just to take the ability like Archmages do.

I don't believe that you need a skill check to read a good book in a comfy armchair by the fire. Come to that, if I'm relaxing and something comes near and prompts a Spot check, yes my Elf wizard is interrupted. Chances are though, that I've seen the attack and can warn my friends, rather than getting moshed like the sleeping human wizard would otherwise.

Everyone is proficient with their natural weapons - just because most humanoids can only deal nonlethal damage and provoke AoOs when attacking with theirs does not mean that they also suffer -4 to thump people with their fists.

Khantalas
2007-01-27, 09:47 AM
Not to be annoying or anything, but isn't an unarmed strike not considered to be natural weapons for anyone but people with monk levels?

Worse yet, does that sentence makes sense?

What I'm trying to say is, somewhere in the description of monk, it specifically states that a monk's unarmed strikes count as natural and manufactured weapons for effects and stuff. If it was already a natural weapon, why would it say that?

Caelestion
2007-01-27, 09:55 AM
Because when people see "natural weapons", they assume all sorts of game things like attacking unarmed with them without provoking AoOs, dealing lethal damage, imbuing them with magic etc.

People are still proficient with their fists, even if it takes a feat to act as a normal 1d3 bludgeoning weapon.

Rigeld2
2007-01-27, 09:58 AM
What I'm trying to say is, somewhere in the description of monk, it specifically states that a monk's unarmed strikes count as natural and manufactured weapons for effects and stuff. If it was already a natural weapon, why would it say that?
Because they wanted them to count as manufactured weapons. Saying:

A Monk's Unarmed Strike also counts as a manufactured weapon for etc etc...
looks tacky. Also with what? Its easier 99% of the time to include all of the options in the list.

Dark
2007-01-27, 09:58 AM
What I'm trying to say is, somewhere in the description of monk, it specifically states that a monk's unarmed strikes count as natural and manufactured weapons for effects and stuff. If it was already a natural weapon, why would it say that?
If it was a natural weapon, you would not get iterative attacks with it from high BAB :) The rules for natural weapons are quite specific, and mostly geared towards proper adjucation of bite/claw/claw damage. The Dire Bear should not get iterative bites!

The monk text is careful to say that their unarmed strike counts as a natural weapon for spells and effects that enhance it. It wouldn't be affected by anything that penalizes natural weapons.

Khantalas
2007-01-27, 10:03 AM
Hey, people are arguing that monks are proficient with their unarmed strikes because they are natural weapons. I just wanted that crystal clear.

Ain't saying that monks are not proficient with their unarmed strikes, though.

Shhalahr Windrider
2007-01-27, 10:24 AM
hmmm interesting point but there is one thing you may have overlooked.
all creatures are automatically proficient with their natural weapons.
SRD reference link, please? As has been pointed out, there is an explicit statemen when a particular creature type is proficient. Unfortunately for many monks, humanoids (http://www.systemreferencedocuments.org/35/sovelior_sage/monsterTypes.html#humanoid) do not carry that explicit statement.

In any case, the Unarmed Strike is really considered something between a Natural Weapon and a Manufactured Weapon. Although it fits the technical definition of Natural Weapon—a weapon that is physically part of a creature, it follows the rules for manufactured weapons where making attacks is concerned. There are certain spells and effects that can affect even non-monk unarmed strikes as if they were natural weapons, but in almost every other case, an Unarmed Strike is treated as a Manufactured Weapon or neither type of weapon.

Also note that Natural Weapons have no designation of Martial or Simple, whereas an Unarmed Strike is clearly labeled as Simple.



The paladin's remove disease per week. What the hell was that about? Was it just to give a really stupid person a reason to continue to level up as a paladin? I'd understand per day, but per week? Thats retarded.
Well, they had it in second edition, so they get it in third. Yay! :smalltongue:

Compare the 2e Barbarian to the 3e version and the 2e Thief to the 3e Rogue. They bear only a passing resemblance to each other. Yet the paladin comes in and there's almost no change except for terminology. Kinda funny, really.


Turn Undead... It's ineffective at high levels and gets nerfed at any point it would actually be useful by environmental/setting modifiers. Most times when it does work, it's more trouble than it's worth...
My favorite aspect is that mindless minion-type undead earn their CR through an ungodly number of HD, whereas the boss mastermind-types get their CR through special abilities. The result? It's easier to turn the Vampire BBEG than it is his Skeletal Minions! :smallyuk:

Roderick_BR
2007-01-27, 12:43 PM
Well Hierophants don't get spell progression because they don't need to forfeit spell slots just to take the ability like Archmages do.
Instead he automatically loses one whole level of spell advancement. If he does gain only one "slot" when he levels up that level, then it technically lost a spell like an archmage did, alright. But your whole spell progression gets messed up.

Count Chumleigh
2007-01-27, 02:21 PM
Windrider's pretty much on the money here:


As has been pointed out, there is an explicit statemen when a particular creature type is proficient. Unfortunately for many monks, humanoids (http://www.systemreferencedocuments.org/35/sovelior_sage/monsterTypes.html#humanoid) do not carry that explicit statement.

In any case, the Unarmed Strike is really considered something between a Natural Weapon and a Manufactured Weapon. Although it fits the technical definition of Natural Weapon—a weapon that is physically part of a creature, it follows the rules for manufactured weapons where making attacks is concerned. There are certain spells and effects that can affect even non-monk unarmed strikes as if they were natural weapons, but in almost every other case, an Unarmed Strike is treated as a Manufactured Weapon or neither type of weapon.

Also note that Natural Weapons have no designation of Martial or Simple, whereas an Unarmed Strike is clearly labeled as Simple.

For what it's worth, I think monks ought to be proficient with their unarmed strikes. I think the writers thought monks ought to be proficient with their unarmed strikes. But because the writers treated unarmed strikes as simple weapons, and because the writers decided to make monks proficient only with a list of weapons that neither includes all simple weapons generally nor the unarmed strike specifically, and because the writers said that humanoids (which the vast majority of monks will be) are not proficient with their own natural weapons (which might not even work for unarmed strikes, as they are simple weapons), they aren't. House-ruling this away is so basic, so straightforward that most DMs do it without even realizing it, but there you go.
Wow. Who'd have thought a throwaway joke about editorial oversight would have sparked this much argument?

Cheers,
--Count Chumleigh

Yuki Akuma
2007-01-27, 02:25 PM
My favorite aspect is that mindless minion-type undead earn their CR through an ungodly number of HD, whereas the boss mastermind-types get their CR through special abilities. The result? It's easier to turn the Vampire BBEG than it is his Skeletal Minions! :smallyuk:

Except old vampsy has turning resistance. :smallwink:

Khantalas
2007-01-27, 02:27 PM
Though for some reason, the skeleton (or whatever) is often still harder to turn.

Roderick_BR
2007-01-27, 02:36 PM
Monk/[b]
Class features:
Weapons and Armor: blah blah blah
AC Bonuses: Blah blah blah
Flurry of blows: Blah blah blah
[b]Unarmed Strike: (...) At first level, the monk receives UNARMED STRIKE as a bonus feat (...)
The monk's unarmed strikes are considered SIMPLE WEAPONS or NATURAL WEAPONS for effects of SPELLS and ABILITIES that affect WEAPONS or NATURAL ATTACKS (like the spells MAGIC FANG and MAGIC WEAPONS)
Just read the damn PLAYER'S HANDBOOK and be done with it.
PS: Sorry any wrong text. My book is the Brazillian version, in Portuguese, but that's the basic text.

Yuki Akuma
2007-01-27, 02:46 PM
Yeah, uh, the feat the monk gets is called "Improved Unarmed Strike", and doesn't grant proficiency with unarmed strikes.

Khantalas
2007-01-27, 02:47 PM
^ What he said.

Viscount Einstrauss
2007-01-27, 02:57 PM
"A monk’s unarmed strike is treated both as a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon for the purpose of spells and effects that enhance or improve either manufactured weapons or natural weapons. "

Since a monk's unarmed strike is considered to have only benefits from natural and manufactured weaponry with his fists, we can assume that he doesn't take a -4 for wielding his own fists (being natural weapons), and that he gets to use additional attacks from them with a high BAB, as though they were manufactured weapons. It's sort of byzantine, yeah, but that seems to be the notion.

Count Chumleigh
2007-01-27, 03:26 PM
I'd like to know how you are making the logical jump from this:


"A monk’s unarmed strike is treated both as a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon for the purpose of spells and effects that enhance or improve either manufactured weapons or natural weapons. "

to this:


Since a monk's unarmed strike is considered to have only benefits from natural and manufactured weaponry with his fists, we can assume that he doesn't take a -4 for wielding his own fists (being natural weapons), and that he gets to use additional attacks from them with a high BAB, as though they were manufactured weapons.

According to the rules, monks are proficient with:


the club, crossbow (light or heavy), dagger, handaxe, javelin, kama, nunchaku, quarterstaff, sai, shuriken, siangham, and sling.

Monks are not proficient with any armor or shields

When wearing armor, using a shield, or carrying a medium or heavy load, a monk loses her AC bonus, as well as her fast movement and flurry of blows abilities.

Curiously absent from this list of proficiencies is the unarmed strike. And under the "Unarmed Strike" heading, we see that:


At 1st level, a monk gains Improved Unarmed Strike as a bonus feat. A monk’s attacks may be with either fist interchangeably or even from elbows, knees, and feet. This means that a monk may even make unarmed strikes with her hands full. There is no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed. A monk may thus apply her full Strength bonus on damage rolls for all her unarmed strikes.

Usually a monk’s unarmed strikes deal lethal damage, but she can choose to deal nonlethal damage instead with no penalty on her attack roll. She has the same choice to deal lethal or nonlethal damage while grappling.

A monk’s unarmed strike is treated both as a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon for the purpose of spells and effects that enhance or improve either manufactured weapons or natural weapons.

A monk also deals more damage with her unarmed strikes than a normal person would, as shown on Table: The Monk. The unarmed damage on Table: The Monk is for Medium monks. A Small monk deals less damage than the amount given there with her unarmed attacks, while a Large monk deals more damage; see Table: Small or Large Monk Unarmed Damage.

Nowhere does it say in that series of paragraphs that monks are proficient with their unarmed strikes. Furthermore, looking at the description for the feat Improved Unarmed Strike reveals the following:


You are considered to be armed even when unarmed —that is, you do not provoke attacks or opportunity from armed opponents when you attack them while unarmed. However, you still get an attack of opportunity against any opponent who makes an unarmed attack on you.

In addition, your unarmed strikes can deal lethal or nonlethal damage, at your option.

Normal
Without this feat, you are considered unarmed when attacking with an unarmed strike, and you can deal only nonlethal damage with such an attack.

Special
A monk automatically gains Improved Unarmed Strike as a bonus feat at 1st level. She need not select it.

A fighter may select Improved Unarmed Strike as one of his fighter bonus feats.

Note how the feat does not grant proficiency with the unarmed strike itself; it merely allows you to threaten with it and deal lethal or nonlethal damage at no penalty.
However, this does not address the issue of proficiency with one's natural weapons. For this, we have to turn away from the monk and examine the Type and/or Subtype of the monk in question--i.e., its race. Since the vast majority of monks are humanoids, let's see if humanoids are proficient with their own natural weapons.


Traits
A humanoid possesses the following traits (unless otherwise noted in a creature’s entry).

Proficient with all simple weapons, or by character class.
Proficient with whatever type of armor (light, medium, or heavy) it is described as wearing, or by character class. If a humanoid does not have a class and wears armor, it is proficient with that type of armor and all lighter types. Humanoids not indicated as wearing armor are not proficient with armor. Humanoids are proficient with shields if they are proficient with any form of armor.
Humanoids breathe, eat, and sleep.

Here we see that humanoids are either proficient with all simple weapons or, if they have 1 or fewer racial Hit Dice, whatever weapons their class says they're proficient with. This means that a bugbear monk--who has three racial hit dice--would be proficient with its unarmed strike, since the unarmed strike is listed in the Equipment section as a simple weapon and not , despite what common sense seems to dictate, a natural weapon. However, a human, elf, dwarf, halfling, or other single-hit-dice humanoid monk is only proficient with its unarmed strike if: (1) its classes grant proficiency with it specifically; (2) its classes grant proficiency with simple weapons generally; or (3) it takes the feat Simple Weapon Proficiency. As stupid as this is, it's the rules, and any ruling otherwise is a (sensible) house-rule.
There, I honestly don't think I can say it any clearer than that.

Cheers,
--Count Chumleigh

Roderick_BR
2007-01-27, 03:36 PM
Oooookay.... The monk gains Improved Unarmed Strike (I noticed my book has a typo and says only Unarmed Strike. whatever). Buuuut... it doesn't make you proficient with Unarmed Strikes.... BRILLIANT! All those official NPCs from TSR that have Weapon Focus (Unarmed Strike) are completely wrong! Quickly! Someone call Wizards of the Coast and say they are wrong!

Seriously... that's past annoying and getting dumb. Bicker all you want. A monk is proficient with it. Period.

Woot Spitum
2007-01-27, 03:39 PM
Yeah, uh, the feat the monk gets is called "Improved Unarmed Strike", and doesn't grant proficiency with unarmed strikes.

Improved Unarmed strike removes the -4 penalty for attacking with unarmed strike. So, basically, a monk is not proficient with unarmed strike, but can still use it without penalties. What we have here is a rule that works, despite the fact that it doesn't make an ounce of sense.

Khantalas
2007-01-27, 03:42 PM
IUS removes the penalty of dealing lethal damage with unarmed strikes, not any other penalties. That penalty applies even if you're proficient with the weapon, another example of such a penalty being sap, and stacks with non-proficiency penalties.

Yuki Akuma
2007-01-27, 03:50 PM
Oooookay.... The monk gains Improved Unarmed Strike (I noticed my book has a typo and says only Unarmed Strike. whatever). Buuuut... it doesn't make you proficient with Unarmed Strikes.... BRILLIANT! All those official NPCs from TSR that have Weapon Focus (Unarmed Strike) are completely wrong! Quickly! Someone call Wizards of the Coast and say they are wrong!

Seriously... that's past annoying and getting dumb. Bicker all you want. A monk is proficient with it. Period.

No, they're not, but everyone (including Wizards, apparently) house rules otherwise.

The point is not that everyone should make monks either take the proficiency feat or take the -4 penalty to attack rolls. The point is that, even though everyone knows monks are proficient with unarmed strikes, it never actually says anywhere that they are.

Of course no one's going to impose the nonproficiency penalty. Monks suck enough as it is.

Also: What is this 'TSR' you speak of?

Woot Spitum
2007-01-27, 04:06 PM
I think a lot of the conflict on unarmed strike comes from the vagueness of its description. It isn't a natural attack, but it also isn't a weapon. It replaces natural attacks for humanoids, has its own special rules, and is never discussed when it comes to proficiency. I think the best fix WOTC could use would be to A:make it a natural attack, only with progression as if it were a weapon and B:include on the Improved Unarmed Strike description This feat also grants proficiency with natural attacks if you do not already posess it.

Shhalahr Windrider
2007-01-27, 05:30 PM
Except old vampsy has turning resistance. :smallwink:
Which isn't nearly enough. At least, at sufficiently high levels.

8th-level party squares off against a CR 10 human vampire necromancer and his two CR 8 skeleton minions in a big EL 11 encounter.

Vampire BBEG: With 8 HD and +4 turn resistance, he is turned as a 12 HD undead. He can be turned with results of 22 on the turning check and 12 on the turning damage.

Skeletal Minions: Let's be generous and assume these creatures are low-end CR 8. That means 18 HD. They are immune to turning by an 8th-level cleric. Even a phylactery of undead turning (http://www.systemreferencedocuments.org/35/sovelior_sage/magicItemsWI.html#phylactery-of-undead-turning) would be of no use, as an 8th-level cleric using it would be able to turn undead with up to 16-HD.

And that just shouldn't happen. :smallyuk:

Roderick_BR
2007-01-27, 05:38 PM
No, they're not, but everyone (including Wizards, apparently) house rules otherwise.

The point is not that everyone should make monks either take the proficiency feat or take the -4 penalty to attack rolls. The point is that, even though everyone knows monks are proficient with unarmed strikes, it never actually says anywhere that they are.

Of course no one's going to impose the nonproficiency penalty. Monks suck enough as it is.

Also: What is this 'TSR' you speak of?
Sorry for my outburst. It just sounds too silly people still is arguing it. I mean, how can he gains several Unarmed Strike related powers, qualify for several feats and PrCs, and people still claim they don't have it?

TSR was the name of the company that made D&D, before it was bought by Wizards of the Coast.

Shhalahr Windrider
2007-01-27, 05:47 PM
Sorry for my outburst. It just sounds too silly people still is arguing it. I mean, how can he gains several Unarmed Strike related powers, qualify for several feats and PrCs, and people still claim they don't have it?
Oh, he gets the abilities. He just has to take a –4 penalty on his attack rolls when using them.

And WotC is the one that wrote the rules and all the example 3.x NPCs.

Anyway, the problem is, an assumption was made somewhere by the people writing the rules, and they never bothered to write this assumption down. There's really no way to read the rules as saying monks are actually proficient with Unarmed Strikes unless you are aware of this assumption. Fortunately, all the special abilities you mentioned make that assumption glaringly obvious.

Yuki Akuma
2007-01-27, 05:47 PM
Sorry for my outburst. It just sounds too silly people still is arguing it. I mean, how can he gains several Unarmed Strike related powers, qualify for several feats and PrCs, and people still claim they don't have it?

TSR was the name of the company that made D&D, before it was bought by Wizards of the Coast.

I know what TSR is. I was being... actually, I'm, not sure what the word is, but I know I was being something!

>.>

Fizban
2007-01-27, 05:50 PM
I don't believe that you need a skill check to read a good book in a comfy armchair by the fire. Come to that, if I'm relaxing and something comes near and prompts a Spot check, yes my Elf wizard is interrupted. Chances are though, that I've seen the attack and can warn my friends, rather than getting moshed like the sleeping human wizard would otherwise.

Well, it depends on how keeping watch actually works. If you're just waiting to see/hear something, then it works. If you have to actively make your spot/listen checks, then it doesn't.

This also depends on how they define "moving". Probably movement as in "I move 5' that way", but you can't honestly think that reading a book takes less brainpower than moving. Arcane casters have to rest to clear their minds, and there is no way reading a book is going to clear your mind. At the risk of lessening my argument, I know from experience, reading != sleep.

Umbral_Arcanist
2007-01-27, 05:55 PM
I know what TSR is. I was being... actually, I'm, not sure what the word is, but I know I was being something!

>.>
Sarcastic? oh, wait, were you being sarcastic there too?


I've found the wu-jen's taboo's to do basically nothing but add useless flavor that only gets in the way of playing your character (because he needs to be sure not to sit facing the west or something like that)

Shhalahr Windrider
2007-01-27, 05:57 PM
Well, it depends on how keeping watch actually works. If you're just waiting to see/hear something, then it works. If you have to actively make your spot/listen checks, then it doesn't.
Oh, even the passive Spot and Listen checks assume a certain amount of active observation. People that can't commit to that level of activity for whatever reason take a –5 penalty to spot and face a Listen DC +5 for being distracted.

Given the amount of extreme inactivity required, I'd consider applying a –8 penalty to a resting spellcaster's checks, so it's somewhere between "distracted" and sleeping.

Khantalas
2007-01-27, 05:58 PM
Hey, think of self-inflicted taboos for a non-lawful character.

Fax Celestis
2007-01-27, 06:01 PM
Armor Class
The Armor Class line gives the creature’s AC for normal combat and includes a parenthetical mention of the modifiers contributing to it (usually size, Dexterity, and natural armor). The creature’s touch and flat-footed ACs follow the combat-ready AC.

A creature’s armor proficiencies (if it has any) depend on its type, but in general a creature is automatically proficient with any kind of armor it is described as wearing (light, medium, or heavy), and with all lighter kinds of armor.

Monsters also gain weapon proficiencies based on type.

Woot Spitum
2007-01-27, 06:55 PM
Hey, think of self-inflicted taboos for a non-lawful character.

Hilarious.:smallamused: I think it's mainly there to give the DM buttons to press that let him strip the arcane caster in the group of his power whenever he feels that said caster is overpowering things. It's less aggravating than taking away a wizard's spellbook because it doesn't cost a bunch of gold and time to regain your powers.

The_Snark
2007-01-27, 08:46 PM
Hey, think of self-inflicted taboos for a non-lawful character.

I think it's more of a supernatural thing. Not self-inflicted taboos. It's just a little flavor thing, like the suggestions in the PHBII for playing a warlock... except that breaking it has actual consequences.

We should stop arguing about the whole unarmed strike issue, too. I think everybody has agreed that whether they're proficient by RAW or not, it doesn't matter. Three pages is a bit much to argue about something that has no actual consequences.

Hmmm. I just ended two unrelated paragraphs with the words 'actual consequences', completely unintentionally.

Shhalahr Windrider
2007-01-27, 09:06 PM
Fortunately, ending paragraphs like that on this forum has no actual consequences.

Darkshade
2007-01-27, 09:36 PM
bah turning is not useless I took an Eye of Horus Re all the way up to epic with it and then got planar turning, really worked well, and you can get about 10 levels of boost to your turn undead level, there is a +4 piece of equipment which i believe is the phylactery, and there is also a +6 one... i believe its in forgotten realms players guide, and also there's the greater holy symbol, add on the sun domain stuff, instead of turning you i just destroy you and your pretty well set

Dausuul
2007-01-27, 10:33 PM
Druids: Resist Nature's Lure - WOW. +4 to save against the spell-like abilities of Fey. How many Fey do you fight on a regular basis? Not too many, if your game is anything like the ones I've been in. Not that I'm suggesting that the druid get more stuff, mind, but still. Useless, useless feature.

Actually, in the game I'm running right now, the BBEG is a fey overlord who's trying to reclaim the world from the pesky mortals. So my PCs encounter quite a lot of hostile fey.

...but then, I'm running Iron Heroes, so there are no druids.

Shhalahr Windrider
2007-01-27, 10:39 PM
bah turning is not useless I took an Eye of Horus Re all the way up to epic with it and then got planar turning, really worked well, and you can get about 10 levels of boost to your turn undead level, there is a +4 piece of equipment which i believe is the phylactery, and there is also a +6 one...
I'd say if you need two magic items to get any use out of a class feature, that feature's in pretty bad shape.

Darkshade
2007-01-27, 11:02 PM
well its not to get ANY use out of it, but it is to turn a "get rid of jobbers" power into a "get rid of the BBEG" power.
turning is not useless, but its not generally your main attack form, its meant to be used on jobbers.

Wehrkind
2007-01-27, 11:07 PM
Yuki, the word you are looking for is "facetious", which means that it wasn't to be taken literally or seriously. Sarcastic is when what you are saying is more cutting or intended to make fun of someone. Facetious is more friendly joke or silliness, sarcastic is when you want to make someone feel badly.


I sort of remember, and this is probably from 2ed, but somewhere it says that everyone is considered proficient with grappling and unarmed strikes due to rough housing growing up (not proficiency type). It was just lethal damage without penalty and not provoking AoO that the feat added. Again, probably thinking 2ed PHB.

Shhalahr Windrider
2007-01-27, 11:25 PM
well its not to get ANY use out of it, but it is to turn a "get rid of jobbers" power into a "get rid of the BBEG" power. turning is not useless, but its not generally your main attack form, its meant to be used on jobbers.
As I mentioned earlier, it can't get rid of jobbers and can only just barely do anything to the BBEG.


I sort of remember, and this is probably from 2ed, but somewhere it says that everyone is considered proficient with grappling and unarmed strikes due to rough housing growing up (not proficiency type). It was just lethal damage without penalty and not provoking AoO that the feat added. Again, probably thinking 2ed PHB.
That is definitely in the 2e PHB (p. 128 of the revised edition).

If anyone can find it in the 3.5, be sure to let us know. :smallamused:

Darkshade
2007-01-27, 11:44 PM
that kind of depends on what level you are at. it does not suck under 5th level and you do get it at 1st level. some abilities are meant tobe outgrown.

Darkshade
2007-01-27, 11:55 PM
I think the Samurais two swords as one is pretty useless
a virtual two weapon fighting feat
both your weapons are chosen for you
and who wields a bastard sword in less than two hands?

tbarrie
2007-01-28, 12:01 AM
You should see it like this: either you get one attack at BAB x. OR you get two attacks at BAB x-2. This is on average almost always better, unless you need to roll an 18 or higher to hit (Without flurrying). I could do the math, but I am lazy and tired.

The math's not hard. The following columns in order are the difference between the target's AC and your attack bonus, the probability of hitting with a single attack, the probability of hitting with each attack in a flurry, and the probability of hitting at least once in a flurry:

20 0.05 0.05 0.0975
19 0.10 0.05 0.0975
18 0.15 0.05 0.0975
17 0.20 0.10 0.19
16 0.25 0.15 0.2775
15 0.30 0.20 0.36
14 0.35 0.25 0.4375
13 0.40 0.30 0.51
12 0.45 0.35 0.5775
11 0.50 0.40 0.64
10 0.55 0.45 0.6975
09 0.60 0.50 0.75
08 0.65 0.55 0.7975
07 0.70 0.60 0.84
06 0.75 0.65 0.8775
05 0.80 0.70 0.91
04 0.85 0.75 0.9375
03 0.90 0.80 0.96
02 0.95 0.85 0.9775
01 0.95 0.90 0.99
00 0.95 0.95 0.9975

Your chance of hitting at least once is almost always higher when flurrying. There's only a 3-value range of ACs where that isn't the case, and the only time your expected number of hits is lower with a flurry is, as squishycube said, when you need an 18 to hit. (If you need a 17 or 19, the expected value is the same in both cases.) Enemies in that range are going to be rare; if we metagame and assume the DM is providing challenges appropriate to the PCs' level, I think you'll find they're extremely rare.

In other words, "Use flurry whenever you can afford to take a full action" is probably a safe rule of thumb.

(Disclaimer: the chart above only applies to a monk with Base Attack Bonus +0 to +5. Once you get iterative attacks, the math gets slightly trickier; of course, a pure monk gains iterative attacks at the same levels that the penalty for flurrying drops, so I suspect flurrying retains its usefulness just fine.)

Wehrkind
2007-01-28, 12:25 AM
Ahhh ok. I bet they figured that line was included in 3ed, but it got cut.
Poor editing for the win :)

Darkshade
2007-01-28, 12:27 AM
The math's not hard. The following columns in order are the difference between the target's AC and your attack bonus, the probability of hitting with a single attack, the probability of hitting with each attack in a flurry, and the probability of hitting at least once in a flurry:

20 0.05 0.05 0.0975
19 0.10 0.05 0.0975
18 0.15 0.05 0.0975
17 0.20 0.10 0.19
16 0.25 0.15 0.2775
15 0.30 0.20 0.36
14 0.35 0.25 0.4375
13 0.40 0.30 0.51
12 0.45 0.35 0.5775
11 0.50 0.40 0.64
10 0.55 0.45 0.6975
09 0.60 0.50 0.75
08 0.65 0.55 0.7975
07 0.70 0.60 0.84
06 0.75 0.65 0.8775
05 0.80 0.70 0.91
04 0.85 0.75 0.9375
03 0.90 0.80 0.96
02 0.95 0.85 0.9775
01 0.95 0.90 0.99
00 0.95 0.95 0.9975

Your chance of hitting at least once is almost always higher when flurrying. There's only a 3-value range of ACs where that isn't the case, and the only time your expected number of hits is lower with a flurry is, as squishycube said, when you need an 18 to hit. (If you need a 17 or 19, the expected value is the same in both cases.) Enemies in that range are going to be rare; if we metagame and assume the DM is providing challenges appropriate to the PCs' level, I think you'll find they're extremely rare.

In other words, "Use flurry whenever you can afford to take a full action" is probably a safe rule of thumb.

(Disclaimer: the chart above only applies to a monk with Base Attack Bonus +0 to +5. Once you get iterative attacks, the math gets slightly trickier; of course, a pure monk gains iterative attacks at the same levels that the penalty for flurrying drops, so I suspect flurrying retains its usefulness just fine.)

I do believe that the old Sword and Fist has a bigger better version of your chart that includes high level monks with iterative attacks and i believe that it proved that if you need less than an 18 to hit flurrying is always better, even in 3.0 when you always suffered a -2.

Yuki Akuma
2007-01-28, 07:56 AM
Yuki, the word you are looking for is "facetious", which means that it wasn't to be taken literally or seriously. Sarcastic is when what you are saying is more cutting or intended to make fun of someone. Facetious is more friendly joke or silliness, sarcastic is when you want to make someone feel badly.

Ah, yes, that's the word.

Meta-sarcasm isn't my only shtick, you know.

Starbuck_II
2007-01-28, 02:24 PM
Actually, it's a pretty good ability; he can spend the other seven hours keeping watch.

My useless abilities? The Frenzied Berserker's Deathless Frenzy. When he frenzies, he takes 2 points of nonlethal damage per round. With deathless frenzy, he can't die if reduced to lower than -10 hit points when he's frenzying.

The kicker? As soon as his nonlethal damage exceeds his hit point total, he falls unconcious... so if he's ever reduced to below -10 hp he goes unconcious, stops frenzying, and dies anyway.

Great.
Unconsciousness doesn't stop Frenzy por rage, etc. Nothing but time will do that.

Rigeld2
2007-01-28, 05:24 PM
Unconsciousness doesn't stop Frenzy por rage, etc. Nothing but time will do that.
Youre right - the rounds continue to count down while your unconcious. The problem is Deathless Frenzy is supposed to keep a Frenzied Barbarian fighting until his Frenzy wears off. Except it doesnt, due to the fact that he takes 2 non leathal damage every round. And as soon as his non letal damage is higher than his current hit points, he passes out, since nothing in any Rage or Frenzy or Deathless Frenzy stops that from happening.

TheThan
2007-01-28, 10:12 PM
This isn’t really useless but still it doesn’t make sense,


A centaur character that wishes to take the mounted combat feat tree (for spirited charge, ride-by attack and trample obviously) needs at least 1 rank in ride to qualify for these feats. Yet centaurs are half horses… just doesn’t make sense. You’d think the rank in ride requirement would be ignored for them.

Shhalahr Windrider
2007-01-28, 10:15 PM
The centaurs have to actually be riding something to use those feats anyway.

Scorpina
2007-01-28, 10:17 PM
I believe in Races of the Wild it says that Centaurs can take those feats without having ranks in ride.

Centaur Paladins have trouble with Special Mounts though.

Speaking of Paladins, my Paladin has never, ever used Remove Disease.

Woot Spitum
2007-01-28, 10:21 PM
Are there even any restrictions in the RAW that prevent you from taking cross-class ranks in a skill? If not you could theoretically have zombies taking ranks in Knowledge:Arcana, oozes taking ranks in use rope, and barbarians taking ranks in spellcraft.

Scorpina
2007-01-28, 10:22 PM
It's not that they couldn't take those ranks, it's that they wouldn't be able to use the skill that would be the problem.

mikeejimbo
2007-01-28, 10:23 PM
Are there even any restrictions in the RAW that prevent you from taking cross-class ranks in a skill? If not you could theoretically have zombies taking ranks in Knowledge:Arcana, oozes taking ranks in use rope, and barbarians taking ranks in spellcraft.

Isn't there one for Use Magic Device, at least? So that only Rogues and Bards can get it?

Fizban
2007-01-28, 10:23 PM
Are there even any restrictions in the RAW that prevent you from taking cross-class ranks in a skill? If not you could theoretically have zombies taking ranks in Knowledge:Arcana, oozes taking ranks in use rope, and barbarians taking ranks in spellcraft.

Well, you need an int score first, so no zombies or oozes for you. Melee types should take ranks in spellcraft anyway, it's quite handy to know what spell the mage is slinging.


Isn't there one for Use Magic Device, at least? So that only Rogues and Bards can get it?
No, they removed that, since it was stupid.

TheThan
2007-01-28, 10:26 PM
The centaurs have to actually be riding something to use those feats anyway.

This truly boggles my mind...
And I don’t have races of the wild so I didn’t know about any such variant rules about that…

Anyway to answer your question, some ranks can’t be used without proper training so quoteth the SRD:


Untrained Skill Checks

Generally, if your character attempts to use a skill he or she does not possess, you make a skill check as normal. The skill modifier doesn’t have a skill rank added in because the character has no ranks in the skill. Any other applicable modifiers, such as the modifier for the skill’s key ability, are applied to the check.

Many skills can be used only by someone who is trained in them.

the_tick_rules
2007-01-28, 11:10 PM
also if you don't have improved unarmed strike you provoke an AOO whenever you make an unarmed attack.

Kesnit
2007-01-29, 09:30 AM
The paladin's remove disease per week. What the hell was that about? Was it just to give a really stupid person a reason to continue to level up as a paladin? I'd understand per day, but per week? Thats retarded.

Why couldn't they have just, I don't know, added it to their spell list? Gee, wow, what a concept.

I once used it when the Bard decided to prove his high CHA by visiting every brothel in the city. The DM declared he got an STD. Well, he HAD an STD...


Okay, I'm going to end this:
SRD:

Emphasis mine.

Now, if you can't move, or even use the spot/listen skills without breaking your rest, then you most certainly cannot keep watch or read books all night.

Can't move, eh? What if you are a restless sleeper? :)

Malek
2007-01-30, 05:31 PM
No, the rogue's sneak attack only applies to the first.
*Bzzzzt!* Wrong. The FAQ states that you can deal as much Sneak Attacks as you wish, as long as the target is flanked/denied Dex bonus to AC:


If a rogue gets multiple attacks in a round (such as from
a high base attack bonus or the Rapid Shot feat), can she
make sneak attacks for all of them?
Yes, but only if each attack meets a requirement to be a
sneak attack. For instance, a rogue who flanks an enemy can
deliver a sneak attack with every melee attack she makes. A
rogue under the effect of a greater invisibility spell treats every
attack as a sneak attack, since she remains invisible despite
attacking.
If later attacks in a round no longer meet any requirement
to be a sneak attack, they aren’t sneak attacks. For example, a
rogue under the effect of an invisibility spell would deal sneak
attack damage only with her first attack in a round, because she
turns visible as soon as she makes the attack.So yes, 3.0 rogue could deal 90d6 SA with shurikens in round. (not to mention applying 9 doeses of poision on top of that)

Beleriphon
2007-01-30, 06:05 PM
So yes, 3.0 rogue could deal 90d6 SA with shurikens in round. (not to mention applying 9 doeses of poision on top of that)

Or having a stack of 50 shuriken ehanced as ammunition, making that much worse. Stack of +5 Holy Adamatine Shocking shuriken. With sneak attacks it was pretty entertaining.

Arceliar
2007-01-30, 06:22 PM
Even in 3.5, shuriken can be quite useful. Especially with the Master Thrower* class and 2 weapon fighting. Maybe a level of monk as well..

*Especially if you take the ability that lets you throw 2 with 1 attack, and the other ability that lets you make them all as touch attacks.

oriong
2007-01-30, 06:38 PM
*Bzzzzt!* Wrong. The FAQ states that you can deal as much Sneak Attacks as you wish, as long as the target is flanked/denied Dex bonus to AC:

So yes, 3.0 rogue could deal 90d6 SA with shurikens in round. (not to mention applying 9 doeses of poision on top of that)

I think you're misunderstanding what I was saying. I'm referring to the rule that when you make multiple attacks without actually getting an extra attack (such as manyshot, spell effects with multiple possible targets, and I believe the 3.0 shuriken) you only add precision based damage to one of the attacks. I think that this rule was around in 3.0 and applied to the shuriken.

Of course, I could be imagining that, it's been quite a while.

Fax Celestis
2007-01-30, 06:43 PM
I think you're misunderstanding what I was saying. I'm referring to the rule that when you make multiple attacks without actually getting an extra attack (such as manyshot, spell effects with multiple possible targets, and I believe the 3.0 shuriken) you only add precision based damage to one of the attacks. I think that this rule was around in 3.0 and applied to the shuriken.

Of course, I could be imagining that, it's been quite a while.

Manyshot, yes. Spell effects with multiple targets, yes. Shuriken, no. Greater Manyshot and Rapid Shot are no's as well.

oriong
2007-01-30, 06:46 PM
Yes, that's because Rapid Shot and Greater Manyshot both give you extra attacks, Manyshot does not and neither does the 3.0 shuriken.

Fax Celestis
2007-01-30, 06:49 PM
Shuriken, however, don't use an ability. Attacking with shuriken (regardless of the quantity) is using an attack action (unlike Manyshot or spells, which use standard actions), and therefore makes each throw eligible for Sneak Attack. An attack action is a standard action; the reverse is not always true.

NullAshton
2007-01-30, 06:54 PM
You can get a 3.5 version of that shuriken flurry. With monk. 15 levels in monk, 5 levels in master thrower, entire two weapon fighting tree. You get enough BAB for four attacks, +2 from flurry, +1 from wizard hasting you, +3 from two weapon fighting, +1 from rapid shot, for a total of 11 'regular' attacks. The master thrower special abilities let you throw two shuriken with every attack and hit two enemies with each shuriken, so a total of 44 hits across two enemies.

Mr._Blinky
2007-01-30, 08:43 PM
While I haven't read the entire thread and may be a couple of days late on the whole Archmage and Hierophant issue, but the Hierophant does not gain spell levels like the Archmage because Archmage is required to sacrifice spell slots to use his abilities, whereas Hierophant is not.

Mewtarthio
2007-01-30, 10:14 PM
But the Hierophant does sacrifice spell slots for his abilities: Five level's worth, to be precise.