Stacking on variants

[Renen]

Got a question for everyone: I saw someone playing a character that has the following classes:Martial Monk/Fighter (Exoticist, Kensai, Thug), Shiba Protector, Fist of the Forest, War Mind
Anyone see any... Problems there?

[Curmudgeon]

Apart from the obvious, pretty much any time someone attempts to use Fist of the Forest (Complete Champion, pages 80-81) they get the Unarmed Damage wrong because they don't read carefully and work through the consequences of how this class feature is detailed. Successive Fist of the Forest levels don't keep incrementing on the Monk unarmed damage table; "If your unarmed attack already deals this amount of damage" refers to non-FotF unarmed damage. Otherwise, a level 2 FotF character with no higher previous unarmed damage would increment on the Monk damage table from 1d8 to 1d10 because the Fist of the Forest Unarmed Damage table value is the same for FotF 1 and FotF 2. However, that disagrees with the text which states: "When you attain 3rd level, this damage increases to 1d10 points."

[sideswipe]

I don't really understand the progression you have said, has he taken levels of fighter with all those variants or has he taken separate levels for each variant?

e.g. fighter 2/thug fighter 2/ exoticist 2?
or exoticist thug fighter 2?

if its the first that is illegal by the rules, if it is the second then as long as both variants do not replace the same class features then you can take all of them.

[Renen]

It's the second. His 2 fighter levels are Exoticist, Kensai, and Thug!

[sideswipe]

my google fu failed me when trying to find the other two i only know thug. i'm pretty sure they are both in dr 310.

like i said, if its fine its fine. and i don't believe there is anything inherently wrong with the build he has done. but i'm not an expert on a couple of those classes.

[Renen]

Now I wonder If Curmudgeon meant the fact that those 3 are technically separate classes or not...

[MilesTiden]

All three of those variants alter the Fighter's weapon and armor proficiency, both Kensai and Thug replace the first Fighter bonus feat, and all three change the acceptable feats to pick up with the Fighter's bonus feats. They are not even remotely compatible.

Also, I have never heard of anyone reading FotF like Curmudgeon says, hell, it took me reading his message 3 times to even get what he meant.

[Curmudgeon]

Also, I have never heard of anyone reading FotF like Curmudgeon says, hell, it took me reading his message 3 times to even get what he meant.
Which is exactly why nearly everyone fails to implement this FotF class feature correctly. It took me several readings through before I figured out how it had to work, and I'm generally pretty good at sussing out rules issues.

[Vertharrad]

Which is exactly why nearly everyone fails to implement this FotF class feature correctly. It took me several readings through before I figured out how it had to work, and I'm generally pretty good at sussing out rules issues.

You forgot to keep reading...If your unarmed attack already deals this amount of damage, increase the base damage to the next step indicated on the monk class table. It's obvious it progresses unarmed strike damage.

[Curmudgeon]

You forgot to keep reading...If your unarmed attack already deals this amount of damage, increase the base damage to the next step indicated on the monk class table. It's obvious it progresses unarmed strike damage.
Yes, it does exactly that based on all your non-FotF levels: that's what the word "already" means.

[Sir Chuckles]

It's the second. His 2 fighter levels are Exoticist, Kensai, and Thug!

Which is fully illegal.

All three of those are Class Variants. Sideswipe is correct in that you can take multiple variants that do not replace or modify the same thing, but it's not actually variants. Variant Classes are different from Alternate Class Features, which often are stackable. Variants Classes, such Exoticist, Kensai, Targeteer, and all those frankly wonderful Dragon Fighter Variants, cannot be stacked with each other.

As for the FotF discussion...
Well let's not get into a RAW debate with Curmudgeon. It won't end.

[DarkSonic1337]

Along these lines, can variants be combined with alternative class features? For example, can an Kensai fighter (which removes your bonus feat at level 1 and modifies what feats you can pick from) be combined with Dungeon Crasher (which removes your bonus feat at levels 2 and 6)?

[OldTrees1]

Along these lines, can variants be combined with alternative class features? For example, can an Kensai fighter (which removes your bonus feat at level 1 and modifies what feats you can pick from) be combined with Dungeon Crasher (which removes your bonus feat at levels 2 and 6)?

Yes provided the cost of the ACF is still around to be paid, or gets a special exemption(SA Fighter + Thug).

[Zaq]

You're going to need to break that down for me, Curmudgeon, because I'm not following what your concern is.

So if we have a simple (Medium) Barbarian 4 / FotF 1, their unarmed damage does 1d8, right? And then at Barb 4 / FotF 3, it increases to 1d10, right?

And if we have a (Medium) Monk 6 (for BAB) / FotF 1, their unarmed damage was 1d8 before taking FotF, so FotF increases it to 1d10, because that's the next step on the Monk table, right?

I don't see what the issue is.

[Ruethgar]

You're going to need to break that down for me, Curmudgeon, because I'm not following what your concern is.

So if we have a simple (Medium) Barbarian 4 / FotF 1, their unarmed damage does 1d8, right? And then at Barb 4 / FotF 3, it increases to 1d10, right?

And if we have a (Medium) Monk 6 (for BAB) / FotF 1, their unarmed damage was 1d8 before taking FotF, so FotF increases it to 1d10, because that's the next step on the Monk table, right?

I don't see what the issue is.

The issue comes in if you try to advance the unarmed damage further or if you enter FotF with more unarmed damage than 1d8.

Edit: If you have unarmed damage of 10d100 and take a level of FotF, you now have unarmed damage of 1d8, if you enter with monk and advance your unarmed damage through lets say a Tash build. You would have to surpass 1d10 on the monk table to advance. What people often don't realize is that FotF and Frostrager don't advance your monk unarmed damage, only your unarmed damage.

[Zaq]

The issue comes in if you try to advance the unarmed damage further or if you enter FotF with more or less unarmed damage than 1d8.

Well, my first example (Medium Barb 4 / FotF 1) entered FotF with unarmed damage of 1d3, as is typical for characters with Improved Unarmed Strike but no levels in Monk/Unarmed Swordsage/whatever. But then FotF gives you 1d8 unarmed damage, because that's what it says it does. And I don't see where Curmudgeon's quibble comes in.

[Urpriest]

Which is fully illegal.

All three of those are Class Variants. Sideswipe is correct in that you can take multiple variants that do not replace or modify the same thing, but it's not actually variants. Variant Classes are different from Alternate Class Features, which often are stackable. Variants Classes, such Exoticist, Kensai, Targeteer, and all those frankly wonderful Dragon Fighter Variants, cannot be stacked with each other.

As for the FotF discussion...
Well let's not get into a RAW debate with Curmudgeon. It won't end.

I don't think that's actually true. You can't stack substitution levels because they totally replace the normal level in the class table, but class variants should be fair game depending on how they're presented. If they're given a full class writeup then they don't stack, but if they're described as "as Fighter but X" then since the variant classes are also Fighters they can be substituted in for Fighter in any "as Fighter but X" sentences.

[Greenish]

Got a question for everyone: I saw someone playing a character that has the following classes:Martial Monk/Fighter (Exoticist, Kensai, Thug), Shiba Protector, Fist of the Forest, War Mind
Anyone see any... Problems there?Martial Monk (if it's the one I'm thinking of) is kinda borked by RAW, though exercising proper restrain handles that. Stacking the class variants that alter the same things is tricky, especially with the Dragon Mag in question specifying how "these classes are to the fighter what specialist wizards are to the core wizard class". Qualifying for Shiba Protector, FotF, and War Mind (without psionic classes, even) also takes a whole bunch of feats and cross class skills.

I feel what he's trying to accomplish could be done cleaner and easier (for example, with Tashatalora), though the concept is solid.

[Curmudgeon]

Well, my first example (Medium Barb 4 / FotF 1) entered FotF with unarmed damage of 1d3, as is typical for characters with Improved Unarmed Strike but no levels in Monk/Unarmed Swordsage/whatever. But then FotF gives you 1d8 unarmed damage, because that's what it says it does. And I don't see where Curmudgeon's quibble comes in.
There's no problem with your example; you get the value on the FotF table. My complaint was about erroneous numbers for successive FotF levels. Let's say you've got 4 levels of Medium Monk instead of Barbarian. You enter with 1d8 damage, and you already deal the amount on the table at FotF 1; accordingly, you increment on the Monk table to the next damage value: 1d10. There's no problem here, either. But when you get to FotF 2, that's when most people screw up. They think that they're already dealing 1d10 damage, so they need to increment again to 2d6. However, that's wrong; the "already" number is for non-FotF levels (Monk 4), not all previous levels (Monk 4/FotF 1). The FotF unarmed damage table entry remains the same, and so does the non-FotF "already" number; consequently, the result is the same: you stay at 1d10 damage, with just a single increment on the Monk table. It's erroneous logic to look at a table which shows the unarmed damage doesn't increase from FotF 1 to FotF 2, but then boost your unarmed damage anyway just because your entry into this prestige class was from Monk rather than Barbarian.

[Lans]

I don't really understand the progression you have said, has he taken levels of fighter with all those variants or has he taken separate levels for each variant?

e.g. fighter 2/thug fighter 2/ exoticist 2?
or exoticist thug fighter 2?

if its the first that is illegal by the rules, if it is the second then as long as both variants do not replace the same class features then you can take all of them.

Actually,the first being banned isn't clear as far as the rules are concerned. See unearthed arcana pg 48


Multiclassing between variants of the same class is a tricky
subject, and the DM has to make rulings based on what is
ap propriate for his campaign. In cases where a single class
offers a variety of paths (such as the totem barbarian or the
monk fi ghting styles), the easiest solution is simply to bar multiclassing
between different versions of the same class (just as
a character can’t multiclass between different versions of specialist
wizards). For variants that are wholly separate from the
character class—such as the bardic sage or the urban ranger—
multiclassing, even into multiple variants of the same class, is
probably okay. Identical class features should stack if gained
from multiple versions of the same class (except for spellcasting,
which is always separate).


Yes provided the cost of the ACF is still around to be paid, or gets a special exemption(SA Fighter + Thug).

Source?

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

Exoticist (Dragon 310 p35) and Kensai (Dragon 310 p36) cannot be combined. Both replace the standard list of possible Fighter bonus feats for a more limited list unique to that variant. Basically, one of the costs of using either of those is trading in the general Fighter bonus feat list, and once you have one of those you can no longer trade in the general Fighter bonus feat list to gain the other. You're paying the cost twice, but you can only afford to pay it once. That's not the only thing that would need to be paid multiple times:

Exiticist:
Lose: Martial weapon proficiency, Ride and Handle Animal as class skills, Fighter bonus feat list.
Gain: Proficiency in four exotic weapons, Tumble as a class skill, Exoticist bonus feat list or Exiticist abilities.

Kensai:
Lose: Martial weapon proficiency, medium and heavy armor and shield proficiency, Ride, Handle Animal, and Intimidate as class skills, Fighter bonus feat list, Fighter 1 bonus feat.
Gain: Proficiency in one martial or exotic weapon (your chosen weapon), Balance, Tumble, and Concentration as class skills, Kensai bonus feat list or Kensai abilities, chosen weapon bonus at 1st level.

Thug (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/variantCharacterClasses.htm#fighterVariantThug):
Lose: Medium and heavy armor and shield proficiency, Fighter 1 bonus feat.
Gain: Bluff, Gather Information, Knowledge (Local), and Slight of Hand as class skills, four base skill points/level, Urban Tracking added to the Fighter bonus feat list.


To combine all of those things:
You would have to lose proficiency in all martial weapons twice, but Fighter only grants it once.
You would have to lose proficiency in medium and heavy armor and shields twice, but Fighter only grants it once.
You would have to lose your Fighter 1 bonus feat twice, but you only get that once.
You would have to lose the Fighter bonus feat list twice, but you only get it once.

If you take Kensai out of the mix, then it works fine. Kensai and Thug cannot be combined as you have to pay some of the same class features for both. Exiticist and Kensai cannot be combined as you have to pay some of the same class features for both. Exiticist and Thug both pay different class features, so a character is able to pay the price for both and combine them.

[OldTrees1]

Source?

For which?

The statement about design theory of ACFs? or

Fighter
Some fighters prefer stealth and cunning over martial skill. This variant can also be combined with the thug variant.

Gain
Sneak attack (as rogue).

Lose
Bonus feats.

[Lans]

For which?

The statement about design theory of ACFs? or

The former, as the latter isn't mentioned as an exemption


Exoticist (Dragon 310 p35) and Kensai (Dragon 310 p36) cannot be combined. Both replace the standard list of possible Fighter bonus feats for a more limited list unique to that variant. Basically, one of the costs of using either of those is trading in the general Fighter bonus feat list, and once you have one of those you can no longer trade in the general Fighter bonus feat list to gain the other. You're paying the cost twice, but you can only afford to pay it once. That's not the only thing that would need to be paid multiple times:

Exiticist:
Lose: Martial weapon proficiency, Ride and Handle Animal as class skills, Fighter bonus feat list.
Gain: Proficiency in four exotic weapons, Tumble as a class skill, Exoticist bonus feat list or Exiticist abilities.

Kensai:
Lose: Martial weapon proficiency, medium and heavy armor and shield proficiency, Ride, Handle Animal, and Intimidate as class skills, Fighter bonus feat list, Fighter 1 bonus feat.
Gain: Proficiency in one martial or exotic weapon (your chosen weapon), Balance, Tumble, and Concentration as class skills, Kensai bonus feat list or Kensai abilities, chosen weapon bonus at 1st level.

Thug (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/variantCharacterClasses.htm#fighterVariantThug):
Lose: Medium and heavy armor and shield proficiency, Fighter 1 bonus feat.
Gain: Bluff, Gather Information, Knowledge (Local), and Slight of Hand as class skills, four base skill points/level, Urban Tracking added to the Fighter bonus feat list.

.

You are mistaken, they don't say that they lose anything, only what they gain.

Exoticist and Kensai are incompatible due to the rulings in the dragon mag that they are in though

[OldTrees1]

The former, as the latter isn't mentioned as an exemption

Just checking, you want a source/citation for class variants not being prohibiting ACFs of the class they are provided the the character qualifies for the ACF?

It is not explicitly stated that Fighters do not stop qualifying for Fighter ACFs when they are _variant_ Fighter. However _variant_ Fighter is still a Fighter and thus still has access to any Fighter ACFs that they still qualify for.

[Lans]

Just checking, you want a source/citation for class variants not being prohibiting ACFs of the class they are provided the the character qualifies for the ACF?

It is not explicitly stated that Fighters do not stop qualifying for Fighter ACFs when they are _variant_ Fighter. However _variant_ Fighter is still a Fighter and thus still has access to any Fighter ACFs that they still qualify for.

More or less. From my perspective when a variant says a class does not gain, or looses ability X at level Y, or gains a different list of abilities, I am not seeing that as a clear trade.

For example the variants from the PH2 use gain and lose as their terminology, with no mention of trading so you could stack those.

However the spell less variants from Complete Warrior, use the word trade so you wouldn't be able to stack those.

Basically, I'm arguing that you can parse the language over multiple books to do a two for one.

[OldTrees1]

Basically, I'm arguing that you can parse the language over multiple books to do a two for one.

Oh. I am unable to convince you otherwise but an unintended two-for-one is not good design and thus would not be allowed at my table.

[Urpriest]

There's no problem with your example; you get the value on the FotF table. My complaint was about erroneous numbers for successive FotF levels. Let's say you've got 4 levels of Medium Monk instead of Barbarian. You enter with 1d8 damage, and you already deal the amount on the table at FotF 1; accordingly, you increment on the Monk table to the next damage value: 1d10. There's no problem here, either. But when you get to FotF 2, that's when most people screw up. They think that they're already dealing 1d10 damage, so they need to increment again to 2d6. However, that's wrong; the "already" number is for non-FotF levels (Monk 4), not all previous levels (Monk 4/FotF 1). The FotF unarmed damage table entry remains the same, and so does the non-FotF "already" number; consequently, the result is the same: you stay at 1d10 damage, with just a single increment on the Monk table. It's erroneous logic to look at a table which shows the unarmed damage doesn't increase from FotF 1 to FotF 2, but then boost your unarmed damage anyway just because your entry into this prestige class was from Monk rather than Barbarian.

Do you have a source for this? Thinking that there is any circumstance where unarmed damage goes up at FotF 2 seems like a pretty implausible mistake, I would have to see pretty good evidence that there are people who habitually make that argument.

Now, I do think most people believe that your example character would increment to 2d6 at FotF 3. Are you arguing that that is not the case?