James Walley's page

Keep in mind what the end result of the story would be also. If there is a continuance after this major engagement, plot out how the different factions would behave after victory or defeat. Obviously, if the PCs die horribly, the campaign could well be over unless the dragon patrons win and decide to bring their chosen back to life to continue to serve.
It may serve better to have the PC group involved in much smaller battles and have the rest depend on win/lose/draw senarios of those battles.
Do the sewer dwellers attack all comers, rather like the bugs from Starship Troopers? Or is there actually a highly placed member of the city's governing body that has some ultimate control? What exactly are they Bugs' motivations?
What does each faction gain by winning, other than the home territory gets to stay that way for the denizens of the city?
Can the PC faction lose and survive to come back later to do battle against a different controlling faction?
Lots of ways to settle the big picture without dice-rolling everything.
Do the players want to sit and watch the GM roll dice a few dozen times to see what happens among the other three factions? Keeping them involved should be a high priority, too.

Edit: Ninja'd by MC Templar on a solid point.

I R Monster Sponge. Insatiable appetite. Give Moar!!!

Absolutely not when it comes to fighters. Their abilities do nothing to the magic enhancement of a weapon, they just give them additional bonuses to hit and damage. They don't let them bypass DR/magic (or DR/adamantine with +4 weapon training), or anything else of the sort.

Magus abilities on the other hand, *yes*, many of them would add to the weapon's total effective enhancement bonus and be subject to the +10 cap.

So the fighter's bonuses, being untyped, are not lumped into the "character abilities", and the phrase refers specifically to Enhancement (and equivalent) bonuses. Is this correct?

I was recently thumbing through the rules for a bit of research and ran across this paragraph in regards to magic weapons:

“Some magic weapons have special abilities. Special abilities count as additional bonuses for determining the market value of the item, but do not modify attack or damage bonuses (except where specifically noted). A single weapon cannot have a modified bonus (enhancement bonus plus special ability bonus equivalents, including those from character abilities and spells) higher than +10. A weapon with a special ability must also have at least a +1 enhancement bonus. Weapons cannot possess the same special ability more than once.”

(Bold emphasis is mine.)

Does this statement mean that a level 17 fighter with four levels of Weapon Training in heavy Blades (+4 to attack and damage rolls), Weapon Focus (longsword) (+1 to attack), Greater Weapon Focus (longword) (additional +1 to attack), Weapon Specialization (longsword) (+2 to damage) and Greater Weapon Specialization (longsword) (additional +2 to damage) for a total of +6 to attack and +8 to damage , not counting at the moment his +17 BAB, get yanked right out of using a +3 Holy Vorpal Longsword (a +10 total bonus weapon)?

I understand immediately what spells wouldn’t affect the above mentioned weapon, but do the fighter’s class abilities, and for that matter, the Magus class abilities, fall into the emboldened character abilities and spells category? If not, what character abilities do come under this rule? I am certain there are at least three or four people who want to know.

Even discounting BAB in the calculation, would that mean there would be diminishing returns on using the more powerful weapons once a fighter reaches about 9th level?

Certainly seems harsh and thoroughly vexing considering this would presumably carry over into those as-yet-unwritten "mythic" rules I would enjoy playing with.

As Mr. Salvatore said when he was told that he would have to do away with Artemis Entreri in his stories when Assassin was removed as a class back in the day "[paraphrased, mind you]But he's not an assassin, he's a fighter-theif who takes money to kill people!"

Even then, he new the Assassin was rather gimped.

I don't understand why you feel you can't make potions of spells with that have "Personal" or "targets you".

The Brew Potion feat's first sentence reads:
"You can create a potion of any 3rd-level or lower
spell that you know and that targets one or more creatures."

Last I checked, you are "a creature," which is defined in the "common terms" portion of the core rulebook as:
Creature: A creature is an active participant in the story or world. This includes PCs, NPCs, and monsters.

There is no real reason to have to reverse engineer items for spells fitting the conditions noted in that first sentence, simply brew the potion.

While the feat itself doesn't mention it, the text under Potions in the magic items section spells out over several passages that oils are essentially potions that are used "externally, rather than imbibed."

I guess that would come down to a flavor aspect; such as whether a cleric wanted to brew a potion or oil of cure light wounds. I could see story-telling scenes where an oil of cure monir wounds would be applied directly to a wound and then the wound would knit itself together, leaving no indication it was there other than the glistening pink of new skin. Though, honestly, many of my games in the past have simply been the "swallow the brew and get more hit points, damn the wounds" kind of play.

And Bob_Loblaw has illustrated a point I made earlier that I rather like about Pathfinder. It takes what used to be a very clouded issue and very explicitly states it in unequivocal terms. Now if they will explicitly state that unarmed strike is indeed an attack with a natural
weapon, things will be even more clear.

And TOZ, I must ask you to clarify: how do you justify unarmed strike ignoring the context surrounding your assertion that an unarmed attack is a light simple weapon, which is only considered one for the purposes of using an unarmed attack as an off-hand attack using the Two-Weapon Fighting rules in the SRD, especially in light of the clear and concise statement in the Monk Class Features that "There is no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed."

Seeing how the Unarmed Strike class feature and the Weapon and Armor Proficiencies both fall under the heading of Class Feature, I am abashed that you would not give equal weight to both entries when determining attack rolls in regards to proficiency.

Is it that you don't view "...is proficient with..." and "...trained in the use of..." to mean the same thing? Please keep in mind that "... is considered as.." and "...is..." are not synonymous even though "is" makes a part of both.

I am stating that to not have any character, let alone monks automatically be proficient in unarmed strike, thereby avoiding the -4 penalty for nonproficient weapon use makes a great deal less sense than anything several stripped of context references you've made.

I usually find much of you input insightful and remarkable, but this one, not so much.

I must ask though, because I am extremely curious, what is it that makes you specifically feel that the (3.5)RAW proves that monks should have their unarmed strikes penalized for non-proficiency? I am curious how the evolution of that sentiment came about, becasue while not explicitly stated for against the subject, there is by far more information in the text of the SRD granting the unarmed strike ability to every single character, while all text concerning the monk seems to indicate they are not only proficient but quite excellent at delivering damage while not using an actual weapon (generally accepted as an object created or grown for the express purpose to inflict some form of damage, which, with the exception of the monks abilites and the application of the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, the appendage most often referred to as hand most definitely isn't).

Unfortuanetly, the SRD doesn't have a glossary, but the hardcopy does and it says a Natural Weapon is "a creature's body part that deals damage in combat. Natural Weapons include teeth, claws, horns, tails, and other appendages." I am quite certain that other appendages certainly covers the fists, feet, knees, etc. mentioned in the Monk's choices of Unarmed Strike Class Feature and means they are indeed natural weapons.

You have already stated agreement with Zmar (and myself) that all creatures are automatically proficient with natural weapons.
In light of the definitions given, which I invite someone else to verify for you and any other like-minded individual, does this not mean that a monk's various body parts that can be used to inflict damage per its unarmed attack class feature are indeed natural weapons and therefore the monk, and everyone else, is automatically proficient in them?

Still with 3.5, but I haven't sifted the details out of Pathfinder yet, though preliminary searching of the Monk Class Features seems to create the same vaguery. Little help on that note developers?

Well, I must admit, you are most adamant on this particualr matter.

So I ask you this: What happened to your assertion that an unarmed strike is a Simple Weapon, not on the list for Monk's to use, and therefor subject to a -4 penalty?

The rule for Unarmed attacks being treated as Light Weapons is specific to an off-hand attack while two-weapon fighting, not unarmed strike as a rule.

You are again trying to ignore that explicit fact that monks do indeed have several Simple Weapons on their Weapon Proficiency list, so repaetedly referencing this specific passage ", with out the context of the remaining sentences in the same paragraph ("Barbarians, fighters, paladins, and rangers are proficient with all simple and all martial weapons. Characters of other classes are proficient with an assortment of mainly simple weapons and possibly also some martial or even exotic weapons. A character who uses a weapon with which he or she is not proficient takes a –4 penalty on attack rolls." is a blatant attempt to cut out information that is quite obviously countering or embellishing upon the first sentence in the form a list of exceptions.

I again point out that the RAW most definitely states that Monks are highly trained in unarmed attacks. Why you are so insistent that this does not infact mean that Monks are capable of using unarmed attacks with proficiency is a point of bafflement for me. Does this mean that the Fighter who has proficiency in all simple and martial weapons had never trained one single instant in any of them?

To sum up: Monks are trained to use unarmed attacks (trained means "been granted proficiency with [item/concept trained in]"), Unarmed strikes are indeed treated as Light weapons, for the purposes of two-weapon fighting's off hand attacks.
You have mysteriously backed away from your previous grip on Unarmed Strikes being Simple Weapons, and you have yet to show any proof that an unarmed strike is a weapon rather than treated like any number of weapon types for specific purposes such as off-hand attacks, natural weapon attacks, and effects that create damage modifers based on size alteration, magical enhancement, etc.

I have yet to see any textual assertion directly quoted from a Rulebook stating that monks' unarmed attacks do indeed incur a -4 non-proficiency penalty, primarily because there is no proficiency to acquire. It is a basic ability every being is born with (as long as they have a corresponding form to strike with). The monkis given a tremendously ability to enhance a rather blase standard ability and transform it into the things legends are made of. Any DM, Gm or PathMaster (can I coin that phrase now?) that would assert otherwise would very quickly be without many of the players I have had the experience of playing with, including myself.

I reply again with a question "Where does it state in the text of the rulebooks that unarmed strike is indeed a simple weapon.

I reference again the definition on page 314 specifically desiganting unarmed strike as being "without a weapon", therefor implying in the Rules As Written that unarmed strike is not a weapon at all, and refuting the tabled listing of Unarmed strike as a weapon.

This is a classic example of 3.X having anyone trying to find a clear rule having to leap through several sections of a book (or even several books) to bring several bits of information into a cohesive rule.

The fact that the Monk Class features explicitly states that "Monks are highly trained in fighting unarmed..." is apparently not sufficient enough for some individuals to draw the simple conclusion that comes form equating completion of training with gaining proficiency.

To stand resolutely by the entry on the Weapon damage table as the only point of reference for unarmed strike being a Simple Weapon, coupled with monks being unable to use Simple Weapons not specifically noted as a weapon proficiency class feature, tells me that someone may be extrapolating too much on page 139's rule stating "Dealing Lethal Damage: You can specify that your unarmed strike will deal lethal damage before you make your attack roll, but you take a –4 penalty on your attack roll." and page 112's "Simple, Martial, and Exotic Weapons: Anybody but a druid, monk, rogue, or wizard is proficient with all simple weapons. Barbarians, fighters, paladins, and rangers are proficient with all simple and all martial weapons. Characters of other classes are proficient with an assortment of mainly simple weapons and possibly also some martial or even exotic weapons. A character who uses a weapon with which he or she is not proficient takes a –4 penalty on attack rolls."

With a Judicial perusal of the rules, a fair minded individual will note that:
1) unarmed strikes may be performed by a character simply by not using a weapon (Refer to defintion in Glossary),
2) The monk is specifically allowed as a class, due to the referenced training in their class features, to use an unarmed attack as an attack form, exactly as a fighter is trained to use his weapons, thereby conferring proficiency, and that such an unarmed attack is treated as both a natural and manufactured weapon for certain purposes.
3) The monk is allowed a specific list of weapons, several of which are indeed are Simple Weapons.

I have shown my knowledge of the Rules As Written and provided page references so that anyone may check my information.

Give me a page reference and I will quietly bow out and and defer to your heightened ability to find information in the most obscure places.
I may go so far as to beg you to give me an physiacal reference point so that I may humble myself to the altar of RAW.

As we have read many times on these boards and elsewhere, text trumps table, so please show me where in text format, not listed on a table it references these items:
1) Unarmed strike is a weapon. There is no text whatsoever in the descriptive text portion of the Weapons section stating Unarmed Strike even exists. The table is the only place in that portion of the PHB that shows it.
2) Training does not indeed grant proficiency. I honestly cannot find a specific statement proving or disproving this assumption, but proficiencies were something you trained to do back when I started pla in 1989 and, as far as I know, haven't been changed yet.
3) Refute that Improvised Weapon specifically refers to an object picked up and used to make an attack and makes any reference whatsoever to any form of natural weapon (which the monk's unarmed attacks most definitely are described as).

I am more than willing to be gracious if I am proven to be incorrect. I often agree with you on many things TOZ, but this is absolutely not one of them. Convince me otherwise, and I will most humble and public in my apologies.

As a GM, I would question how th character would be aware of the numerical statistics on the definitely out of game character sheet. There is no fathomable in-game reason for any charcater to be aware he or she even has BAB or HD.

Definitely wouldn't allow anything of the sort until the wish could be expressed well with in-game terms.

Wishing for the abilty to physically cause as much damage as the fighter in the party that he has been adventuring with for the last several months or years might be a good start, but this is where the capriciousness of the powers-that-be drools at the opportunity to twist the wizards world into uncomfortable knots.

Unless there is a really awesome story-plot item involving the wizard laying the smack down on some unsuspecting BBEG in a surprise Pimp-Slap moment of the game.

But as to Why I like Pathfinder over 3.5?

Fighters don't turn into gear obsessive snivelling whine bags at level 11 anymore. They also finally have something approaching use outside of the party leader pointing and giving a "kill that" command.

Class ability acquisition across the board is much better.

I find myself actually wanting to play many more character classes than I ever did,even since the the early '90s when I actually started playing the game. Except Bard. I just can't find myself wanting to play Bard.

And since TOZ wants to quote the SRD for Improvised weapons, I refer again back to the Monk Class features stating:

"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 there you go as a textual reference to Fists being a type of weapon, whetehr or not it is an explicit definition is a rather moot point.

deinol wrote:

TriOmegaZero wrote:

So your monks took the -4 nonproficiency penalty to their attack rolls? 8)

I'm sorry, but where in the rules is that from?

PHB wrote:

A character who uses a weapon with which he or she is not proficient takes a –4 penalty on attack rolls.

Unless I missed the part where the rules declare "fists" a weapon, everyone can strike unarmed without penalty.

Edit: Not that it would have mattered in my games. I can't remember the last time I saw someone playing a monk.

An unarmed strike is a simple weapon. Monks were not proficient with simple weapons, and there is not rule listing unarmed strikes as an exception. It is an oversight, but it is still RAW.

I would like to challenge wraithstrike to find and provide actual page and title reference for Monks being non-proficient in Unarmed Strike.

It seems fairly striaghtforward and absolutely clear in the text under the Monk Class Features subsection titled Unarmed Strike (Player's Handbook, page 41) that unequivocally states : "Monks are highly trained in fighting unarmed, giving them considerable advantage when doing so. 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."

The definition of Unarmed Strike (appearing on page 314 of the Player's Handbook) states: A successful blow, typically dealing nonlethal damage, from a character attacking without weapons. A monk can deal lethal damage with an unarmed strike, but other deal nonlethal damage.

Despite the listing on Table 7-5 showing unarmed strike falling under the subheading Unarmed Attacks, also under the Category of Simple Weapons, there is no text anywhere relative to said table that defines Unarmed strike as any form of weapon at all.

Page 139 Further explains Unarmed Attack as: Striking for damage with punches, kicks and headbutts is much like attacking with a melee weapon except for the following: ... (a few paragraphs omitted for some semblence of brevity) ... Unarmed Strike Damage: An unarmed strike from a Medium character deals 1d3 points of damage (plus your Strength modifier, as normal). A Small character’s unarmed strike deals 1d2 points of damage, while a Large character’s unarmed strike deals 1d4 points of damage. All damage from unarmed strikes is nonlethal damage. Unarmed strikes count as light weapons (for purposes of two-weapon attack penalties and so on).

So where does it say in the rules that so many RAW groups are using does it say that monks are not proficient in unarmed strike because it is a simple weapon? I really would like to know.

It got here yesterday and I am still eyeballing all the art in the books. I am quite impressed with what I see graphically as well as what I read while perusing the adventures. I hope I can convince my accountant ( my soon to be new wife) to let me have more money to buy more stuff.

Actually my question is abouit EM Vol. 2...
Where is it? Just a curiousity as to why the others are PDF'd and its missing. If somebody kind find one, I'll buy the set. I have the books, but I'd like to have the PDF's too.

I was attempting to give an in-depth analysis of my reading of the Wizards Presents: Races and Classes book when it got dropped off the face of the planet when I tried to preview it before posting it. There was over 300 words to that particular report. I am too tired now to re-write it and I just want to know why the dern thing dropped it. This has happened several time before with other posts I was making.

Thanks for the shipping on order 473143. I am looking forward to sifting through these and giving the presents out to my friends.
Thanks for the good work.

I just had a whimsical thought to ask who the next company will be to authorize a "blowout" sale. I want to start a list early...

Does that mean I can expect to see alot more books than the new order is showing? Are we simply waiting on Green Ronin to resupply you? Should I send in scarlet ninjas to extract what I need?

I have been thoroughly unable to prove there is a file beyond the icon for a zipped file. I am still getting "blocked" messages when trying to open the file directly from the website. After downloading it, my machine doesn't even register that there is anything beyond the frame of the file. I am stumped because all attempts, even with WinRAR are not working. I am coming to the conclusion that I should try to write something better myself, since anything I write must be better than the nothing I seem to have purchased. :[

James

Order nujmber- 473143, placed on Nov 15, 2007 seems to be severaly delayed in an effort to fill it entirely. Umm, how to put it delicately... stop that!! Please send what is accounted for to me so that I might divy it up for Yuletide presents as I intended. The two products still delaying the other 49 are by no means that important. I do still want them, but I'd rather have the majority of the order rather than a large number of friends looking at me crossly because I told them a bird whispered a hint of what they shouldn't by at the FLGS last weekend. If neccessary, strike the remaining two items and send the rest. I'll put an order infor them later.

Thank you,

James Walley

Loja Windcutter
~Don't ask... there is more than one reason.~

I am less than familiar with what is available as far as another unzipping utility goes. Any suggestions?

On order number 683617, made Saturday, I fouond a great deal of trouble downloading "A Touch of Evil Volume 2: Hobgoblins (d20) PDF". I saved a copy of the .zip file to my machine only to find that Windows refuses to open it. It is "Blocked". I followed the instructions given in the Help database and found them ineffective. I then tried to open the file for direct viewing and found that the file created 0 objects to view. What's the deal there? I was under the impression that an 8.7 mb download would have a bit more than the .zip file icon to it.

Help the computer idiot in me figure this out please.

Thank you.

James Walley

extremely complex rules for what really IMO grants little benefit over clerical and arcane magics.

Nifty. That will get one of minor dilemmas brought to an end.
Thanks