LostWormOnItsWayHome's page

I think the primary problem you're having in reconciling the existence of evil souls being rewarded is that you assume that good and neutral factions/planes are universally aligned evil factions/planes.

As an example, you stated, "Neutral gods of nature would oppose the needless creation of unnatural beings such as fiends. And chaotic neutral gods would oppose the creation of the infernal bureaucracy and its capacity to elevate souls to positions of diabolical power from which to exert further control over the multiverse." This is possibly true, but if the nature gods are opposed to the creation of unnatural creatures, would they not also be opposed to the creation of angels? If chaotic neutral gods oppose the existence of the infernal bureaucracy because of the restrictions it creates, would they not also oppose the celestial bureaucracy? The same goes for the chaotic good gods in relation to any lawful gods, even lawful good. They may not align due purely to their view that their good is the only right good.

So, if you're dividing lines by alignment then it's not really one large faction (good + neutral) versus another large but smaller faction (evil). It's more like a nine way free-for-all with all the sides keeping each other in balance. Additionally, there is likely infighting (to varying degrees) within each alignment group due to differences in philosophies of the various groups and individuals within the alignment group. This infighting is probably not going to occur as frequently when lawful gods/planes/organizations are concerned, but they will likely still exist in at least a few cases. So now there are more than nine factions all keeping each other in check.

And then the PCs come in and upset the balance. Bastards.

Eh, sounds chaotic neutral to me, though treading the line as many have stated. If this type of behaviour continued eternally I would still label them chaotic neutral. If they took things just a little further in their actions I would begin labelling them chaotic evil. Of course, what you believe to be chaotic evil is chaotic evil in the game that you run.

However, as Mikaze said, if the PC's actions in game are making you and the other players uncomfortable then it shouldn't be happening and alignment of the PC is really a not the issue in such circumstances. If it makes even one player uncomfortable it shouldn't be happening... unless it's the sort of welcome uncomfortable that people go to scary movies for, I guess.

I would also advise against treating alignment shifts as punishment. I'm not sure if that's how you're treating this, and the advice itself is just personal opinion. I don't think I can properly express why I believe it shouldn't be treated as a punishment which means it's probably just an irrational bias of mine. On further consideration I think it's that if treated like a punishment it seems more like a passive-aggressive way of a DM telling the player that they don't like how the player plays their character rather than addressing any issues openly in an attempt to resolve the problem.

Whatever you decide to do, I'd let the player know if their current actions are leading their character towards evil or make sure they're aware that their character is walking the line. Shocking them with a sudden alignment probably wouldn't work too nicely. Obviously that depends on the nature of the player, but I know that myself and pretty much everyone I play with would appreciate the heads-up if we found ourselves in a similar situation.

Charisma as an ability score.

I don't really understand why so many people (or maybe it's one person over and over again? I wasn't paying attention to names) think that parity between two options inherently means that the two options are the same and thus are not really options; two things can be different and equally effective.

I think the easiest solution in most situations is to just ignore the flavour associated with the offender, so long as the DM is fine with it and I don't think there's any good reason they shouldn't be. Pay for a longbow, use longbow stats, say it's a crossbow. I'm not really sure how that would fly in PFS.

Of course, that doesn't address the existence of dead-end feats, spells, items, etc. I don't believe they should exist in a perfectly designed game, but in a system with so many parts I also don't think it's possible to avoid them altogether. Also, there's always the possibility of dead-end feats becoming useful for some obscure build that will exist in the future due to new material.

If I were designing a system all on my own I would probably design it such that options that are weaker by default have a relatively cheap entry requirement in order to make it reach parity. Using the crossbow versus longbow as an example:

Give the crossbow a feat that's the equivalent of rapid shot and rapid reload. This overcomes one of the crossbow's inherent limitation and feat equality between the crossbow user and the longbow user still exists. Of course, that doesn't address the lack of strength bonus to crossbows or the still poor action economy of heavy crossbows, but that could be overcome with similar two-in-one feats.

Further, balancing could be achieved by making a poor choice (the crossbow) that requires high investment have each investment have greater dividend even past parity so that the investment pays off in the long run but the early game will still be tougher.

From a simulation standpoint, the roles of the crossbow and longbow should be reversed if a person were to develop a solution using my overly complicated method, since historically it was the longbow that was the superior weapon but only if one trained with it extensively.

Another thought: the feats that exist for the crossbow probably should have aimed to match the flavour of the crossbow rather than trying to overcome its limitations. Feats that add an abnormal amount of damage to the crossbow's; the vital strike of ranged weapons.

Actually, I'm having difficulty with this favoured class option. It reads:

"Add +1 to the caster level of any channeling feat used to affect undead"

However, on looking through all of the channeling feats, none of them actually make use of caster level as far as I can tell. Is there something I'm missing, or am I to make an assumption that they meant cleric level?

LostWormOnItsWayHome wrote:

If I were making a Dragnipur inspired item (which I've noted down as something I may do for a game one of these days)...

Okay I was about to write a ton of stuff and then I realised that I pretty much had similar thoughts as Kiinyan.

1) No instant kill
2) Sword brings creature down to HP=-con then character goes to demiplane
3) Some sort of quest possible to get out
4) Have the sword get heavier and do more damage with the strength of the soul captured (probably represented best by HD.)
5) 'Normal' magical weapon properties left to DM discretion.

Only read this if you've read Toll the Hounds:
** spoiler omitted **

I agree that instead of just amount of souls, HD would be the better call.

In response to your spoiler...
** spoiler omitted **

This is true. I hadn't considered that.

If I were making a Dragnipur inspired item (which I've noted down as something I may do for a game one of these days)...

Okay I was about to write a ton of stuff and then I realised that I pretty much had similar thoughts as Kiinyan.

1) No instant kill
2) Sword brings creature down to HP=-con then character goes to demiplane
3) Some sort of quest possible to get out
4) Have the sword get heavier and do more damage with the strength of the soul captured (probably represented best by HD.)
5) 'Normal' magical weapon properties left to DM discretion.

Only read this if you've read Toll the Hounds:

But why do we need to compare numbers? What's the point? To prove that one is going to out-blast the other?

Will players really be "forced" to play this way? If so, I think the DM would be doing it wrong.

If a character 'wants' to play a dastardly dervish rogue who mystical is renown for dealing devastating blows via his speed, and a feat exists that lets him, do it!

If a character 'wants' to be the power-house beast-blasting strengh man who can carry oxen and carriages in his hands, and a feat exists that lets him, do it! (even if the feat doesn't exist, I'm sure he could pump STR enough to make it viable)

If a STR character wants to be Dexterous as well, he'll pick the stats to do so.

But why would he do that if he could just take a feat to bypass it? Like Improved Initiative (Mythic)? Like Dodge(Mythic)?

So, we're left with those who really want to min/max. Have a Min/Max dungeon. I'd love to see them handle a nearly completely underwater cave situation. Or a chase up a cliff wall.

Fundamentally I agree with you; I'm all for options. I do enjoy examining things and debating, so to a certain degree that's what this is.

Not every player is as happy and free about -options- as you are (I realise that may have seemed condescending, but it is not meant to be; I'm just having trouble articulating what I mean in a more neutral manner). They may see suboptimal options as not an option at all (in some cases I also feel this way; why take +2 when you can have +3). Also, a player may have multiple desires that conflict with one another due to constraints of the system.

Using pre-mythic as an example:
A player wants a character who is agile and lethal; perhaps by careful examination or just intuitively over time they come to realise that their character can't be as lethal as a STR character due to the limitations the system places on DEX. By comparison, the character is no longer 'lethal'.

Now post-mythic:
A player wants a character who is strong, lethal, and fairly resilient. Once again, perhaps by careful examination or just intuitively over time they come to realise that while their character is as lethal and stronger than other characters, their resilience is lesser than that of a DEX character due to the limitations the system places on STR. By comparison, the character is no longer 'resilient'.

Much like someone with an IQ of 100 is awfully smart when they're surrounded by people with IQs less than 80, or a person who can lift 1000lbs looks weak if they're in a city of people who can mostly lift 2000lbs.

Also, if

When the players start complaining that the dungeon is obviously tailoring to their weaknesses, confirm that every dungeon should be challenging, and that they have combat down pat.

Or odds are, they're CHR is crap. Make them deal with a social situation.

This is a balancing mechanism of DnD/Pathfinder that I don't agree with. It's inherent in the system, but it rationalises such things as "Class Y does not have to be as good in combat as class X because class X is better out of combat than class Y."

I just don't think that's great game design. What it does is creates a scenario where it is okay for a player(s)/character(s) to be useless/less useful in one scene because they will be useful in another scene. I believe this detracts from the enjoyment and involvement in the game. Ideally the game should be balanced around each character receiving various opportunities to shine WITHIN a scene at different junctions, rather than different character shining in different scenes. I believe this would be more exciting and hold the attention of players better than what is currently provided.

That's just my own philosophy, of course.

You should compare the paths and the Special Tier attacks to mythic feats for one reason it is setting the precedent as to what mythic abilities are and can accomplish. So yes they should stand up to the power level being thrown around using mythic rules otherwise just make them regular feats not Mythic ones.

Many people are assuming that mythic is going to be the new core so they compare Mythic Feats to Regular Feats and they seem over powered, but when you put them in context with what mythic characters can accomplish using their "mythic" abilities they seem much less overpowered.

I agree with you in that you mean you need to look at mythic as a whole, rather than individual components (that can be said of any system) to get a sense of what's possible in mythic. I disagree in that path abilities are essentially mythic class abilities and mythic feats are... well.. mythic feats.

Path abilities and feats are not (as far as I know) interchangable. Which is more valuable? I don't know, but my point is that a mythic feat choice does not come at the expense of a path choice and vice versa, so once we start looking at specific numbers and details, it makes the most sense to compare within each category rather than between them.

I think there is something that a lot of people are missing when they make the argument that the dex to damage build does not allow for 1.5X damage from dex and from power attack:

Curve Blade, Elven
Essentially a longer version of a scimitar, but with a thinner blade, the elven curve blade is exceptionally rare.

Benefit: You receive a +2 circumstance bonus to your Combat Maneuver Defense whenever a foe attempts to sunder your elven curve blade due to its flexible metal.

You can use the Weapon Finesse feat to apply your Dexterity modifier instead of your Strength modifier to attack rolls with an elven curve blade sized for you, even though it isn't a light weapon.

Weapon Feature(s): finesse

It is an exotic two-handed melee weapon with a critical range of 18-20 and 1D10 damage for medium creatures.

Notice that the description of elven curve blade specifies that it is finessable, but it is also a two-handed (not light) weapon. This means that it can be used to power attack. Further, the power attack is multiplied by 1.5 because it is two-handed.

As for dexterity adding 1.5X dexterity to the damage of an attack made by a mythic weapon finesse fighter wielding this weapon: my -gut- reaction is to say that the dexterity mod added to damage is not multiplied, BUT,

Weapon Finesse (Mythic)
You are an expert with weapons that rely on your agility.
Prerequisite: Weapon Finesse, 1st mythic tier.
Benefit: You can use your Dexterity score on all melee
attack rolls and damage rolls instead of your Strength
score.

It states that you use your dexterity score instead of your strength score. It does not specify whether or not the damage is multiplied when using a two-handed weapon. If I were interpreting strictly from the way the rules are written, I would end up giving the 1.5X dex mod damage because it states, "...instead of your strength score." This leads me to believe that once this feat is taken, dexterity just functions as strength once did in relation to damage.

On the other side of things, if mythic weapon finesse does not get the 1.5X damage bonus from the dex mod, would that mean that a two-weapon wielder would do full dex mod damage with the off-hand?

Regardless of whether or not this feat is unbalanced, its final version definitely needs to have its wording tightened up.

Something else that people are doing that I perceive as a mistake is comparing the power of this feat to the power of path abilities to create a benchmark. I don't believe that this should be done, as they are different currencies. For examples, I would not say the dodge feat is underpowered because it only gives +1 to AC while the monk gets +5+wis mod to AC.

Likewise, saying that a powerful feat is not a problem because casters are more powerful than melee characters anyway does not actually address anything. Due to the difference in roles and playstyles of the two varieties of classes (casty vs melee) it makes the most sense to find benchmarks for a melee character by comparing it to another melee character. The disparity between casters and non-casters actually makes this even more true. It makes the most sense to compare within a category to bring things 'in line' and once things are 'in line' (if ever) to work on bringing the categories in line with one another.

Personally, I like the concept of the swift and deadly character, but I don't see this feat as being balanced. As Foofer said, if a strength based character was given the option of a line of feats to add strength mod instead of dex mod to initiative, reflex, AC I would have difficulty imagining them not doing it. I mean, compare those benefits to lightning reflexes, improved initiative, and dodge (okay, I realise those are not mythic feats, but if it suits you better you could instead compare weapon finesse to weapon focus). If such a feat line did exist, would this character also qualify for the swift and deadly concept?

Overall I think the problem is in the marriage of specific properties of a character to specific ability scores, rather than each property being independent of one another, but that's not going to change any time soon.

Okay, this got way too long. I'm looking forward to reading that playtest.

I wonder how things would change if there were over three candidates and every voter got two votes, each if which must be used on a different party.

Yeah, I know that choosing spell perfection for a level 9 spell is suboptimal, but I didn't think of that work around.

How about a 1 level dip into mind chymist for cognatogen for a further ("temporary") +2 to DCs?

I agree with Mort.

For hammer the gap to be really good, you need a lot of attacks. Like say a character with a natural bite and more than two arms. You'd generally be better off with power attack. Versus opponents with reasonably high AC (around 36 probably -- I don't want to do the specific maths) you'd want to use your regular, non-power attacks, unless there's DR.

I see that your build has both power attack and hammer the gap, but in general they don't have the best synergy.

I think the formula for hammer the gap damage, in case you're interested, is:

(Hits/2)*(Hits-1)

One thing I was wondering is:

Spell perfection doubles feat derived bonuses for the spell it applies to.

Eldritch heritage is a feat that gives a class feature.

Would the bonus from eldritch heritage:school power get doubled by spell perfection?

Err, yeah, I was working with the spell focus feats from memory and counted them as +2 because I was confusing the numbers with spell penetration numbers.

That actually brings it down quite a bit, but it's still pretty crazy.

It seems I made some arithmetic errors as well. For shame.

I'm just thinking that things are a little nuts, is all:

+10 BASE
+12 CHARISMA BONUS
+2 FEY BLOODLINE SORCEROR
+1 SPELL FOCUS (ENCHANTMENT)
+1 IMPROVED SPELL FOCUS (ENCHANTMENT)
+5 KITSUNE FAVOURED CLASS BONUS
+2 SPELL PERFECTION
+9 SPELL LEVEL
+1 KITSUNE RACIAL ABILITY

I haven't checked to see if it's possible within feat limitations, but one could also use eldritch heritage to get school power from the arcane bloodline for a further +2 to DCs.

I know that having spell perfection on a level 9 spell is sub-optimal, but even if it were for a a spell of a lower spell level the DC would be only be about 3 or 4 less.

There's probably at least one more way to boost this that I don't know about.

I know that mind-affecting and compulsion spells are not reliable due to the prevalence of mind-affecting immune creatures, but that doesn't make me feel any better.

I'm not sure this post has any point.

Edit: Corrections to modifiers and totals.

GrenMeera wrote:

Two things:

Furious wrote:

This ability can only be placed on a melee weapon.

The weapon enhancement specifically restricts it, so I believe you cannot place it on an amulet, despite the fact that an Amulet of Mighty Fists can allow most weapon enhancements.

My VC suggested it to me as an option for my PFS Character, I can't envision a natural weapon that is not a melee weapon and if one exists I would imagine that the property would not function on that natural attack. Additionally Herolab doesn't seem to have a problem with it, for what that's worth.

Just in case this is becoming a real concern for you, per the SRD, under unarmed strike for the monk:

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

LostWormOnItsWayHome wrote:

VS AC 40 USING RAPID SHOT FOR BOTH (Also disregarding crits)

Dayer Rann
hit chance per attack: 80%/80%/55%/30%
Average Damage: 25.5

80%+80%+55%+30% = 245%

(2.45)(25.5) = 62.475 DPR

Deacon Rann
hit chance per attack: 60%/60%/35%/10%
Average Damage: 17.5

60%+60%+35%+10% = 165%

(1.65)(17.5) = 28.875 DPR

Granted, that's a fairly high AC, but it doesn't get -much- better for Deacon Rann at different ACs.

Why AC 40? That's the AC of a CR 24 monster (give or take)! Why not do the math for AC 30, the expected AC of your traditional CR 15 monster, which is what these guys will most likely be facing.

** spoiler omitted **

I'm just used to looking at level 20 characters, so I use AC 40 out of habit. I didn't feel like redoing the calculations after I realised it didn't make too much sense to use AC 40 in this case (out of laziness). It was clear enough from the numbers that there was a significant advantage in the damage department for Dayer Rann.

It's nice to see the actual numbers that you produced though.

Here I have two 15th-level archers.

The first is Dayer Rann, built for the highest attack and damage rolls one can sensibly obtain with a fighter. The second is his brother, Deacon Rann, built for versatility and "special tricks." The latter does not have gloves of dueling. The former does.

I'm not seeing that much difference between the two. Perhaps someone can do the DPR calculations for me (I'm no good at math) and can numerically demonstrate for me the importance of gloves of dueling?

Feel free to compare their other attributes as well.

VS AC 40 USING RAPID SHOT FOR BOTH (Also disregarding crits)

Dayer Rann
hit chance per attack: 80%/80%/55%/30%
Average Damage: 25.5

80%+80%+55%+30% = 245%

(2.45)(25.5) = 62.475 DPR

Deacon Rann
hit chance per attack: 60%/60%/35%/10%
Average Damage: 17.5

60%+60%+35%+10% = 165%

(1.65)(17.5) = 28.875 DPR

Granted, that's a fairly high AC, but it doesn't get -much- better for Deacon Rann at different ACs.

Slightly related:

Could the cleric take the familiar option, plant the familiar on someone's shoulder, and then cast their cure spells on that person from any distance by channeling them through the familiar?

The feat line I am referring to (Dimensional Agility, Dimensional Assault, Dimensional Dervish, and Dimensional Savant) is found in Ultimate Combat.

Normally Dimension Door allows the caster to bring one companion with them for every three caster levels. The feats don't specify that the caster can't still do this, but for the latter three feats I could easily see them being considered special options that are 'not actually dimension door' but that still expend uses of and need dimension door to trigger.

Can anyone shine some light on this?

I understand there's some sort of level cap that's less than 20 in PFS play and I'm not sure what treasure ends up looking like in PFS, but for a game at level 20 that uses the wealth by level tables, the boost to AC from monk is greater than any armour (that I am aware of) you could wear. This depends entirely on where you spend your gold, of course.

AT LEVEL 20 WEALTH:
WITH MONK:
Assuming you do not raise your wis mod or dex mod past +4 from levels, you could be getting +9 to your AC from wisdom and +9 to your AC from dex, in addition to the +8 from bracers of armor.

For a total of +26 AC (+27 with monk's robes)

WITHOUT MONK:
This is opposed to +5 Mithral Breastplate which allows +11 from armor, +6 for dex

For a total of +17 AC

Of course, one of the bigger drawbacks about the monk is that shields can't be used in conjunction with their AC boost.

With a shield, the non-monk could be up to +24 AC
With a tower shield, the non-monk could reach +26 AC

The monk would miss out on special armour abilities that could be provided by shields and armour.

I also believe that improving the AC of unarmoured characters is more expensive and unarmoured AC does not reach its true potential until later levels (neither of these beliefs have been examined very closely).

The wayfinder costs 500gp and is a magical compass. You can find it in Seekers of Secrets.

A dusty rose prism provides a +1 insight bonus to AC, but when slotted into a wayfinder also gives a +2 to CMB and CMD. Of course, it costs 5000gp, so it may be difficult to acquire for several levels.

That's fine. It's the higher levels I'm worried about anyway. I'm considering just exchanging improved and greater grapple for some feats with broader application unless there's some way to make this grappling thing work better at higher levels.

The synthesist's grab ability only works on smaller creatures, though, and it isn't clear that Enlarge Person works on a transformed synthesist. Also, dipping a level of synthesist is almost never a good idea, since it will usually penalize your key physical abilities.

The Lockjaw spell grants a natural weapon the grab ability, functioning on creatures your size or smaller. You can put that on your unarmed strike. That would also probably let you apply any Magic Fang / Mighty Fists enhancement bonus.

I think the Resinous Skin spell also gives a small grapple bonus.

Depending on your build and gear, adopting animal forms with Beast Form might be good or might be bad.

Otherwise, yeah, best to just focus on improving your attack bonus.

Cool, I'll take a look at those spells.

A dusty rose prism ioun stone placed in a wayfinder grants a +2 bonus to both CMB and CMD. Also, certain Pathfinder Society Organized Play scenarios can grant boons to CMB or CMD. My 12th level monk currently adds 26 to his grapple CMB rolls and has a 48 CMD vs. grapple.

I'm not familiar with this wayfinder thing. I'm guessing it is a magic item?

Most every spell or other buff that gives an attack bonus (e.g. Haste, Good Hope, bard song, etc) will also increase your grapple CMB.

I believe Paizo printed a garrotte in some book or another (I do not remember where, exactly), and an enchanted garrote ought to add its bonus as well.

I'll have to see if I can find the garrote. I didn't know that effects that give you bonuses to attack also improved CMB. That's quite helpful.

How about Weapon Focus: Grapple? Any character with +1 BAB can take that.

And then you could go with Greater Weapon Focus, though that requires certain levels of Fighter.

Hmm, I wasn't aware you could do that. I'll have to look into it, thanks.

No you pretty much excluded anyone listing anything for you except for maybe an odd feat or magic item.

Yeah, that's pretty much what I was looking for. I'm just finding that grapple doesn't seem to scale very well since creatures at higher levels tend to be quite big, and as a result get big bonuses to CMB and CMD.

Any way to do it beyond specific class abilities, improved and greater grapple, increasing strength, and increasing size?

Also, I'm currently playing in a game in which I am playing a character who will become a mystic theurge. Currently at 4 oracle (lore)/3 sorceror (fey bloodline) and his effectiveness is somewhat lacking (to be expected) except for when the group is combating anything with a mind.

I'm hoping things will be picking up for him once he's got a few MT levels under his belt, but I doubt he would be as effective as a pure caster of another class, which is probably how things should be. My main gripe is with the mid levels not being very friendly.

I had previously considered the idea of:

Magus 9/Fighter 1/Eldritch Knight 10

It seemed pretty nice at the time that I was conceptualizing it, but I never got around to looking at it in more depth.

(Emphasis is mine.) If that's correct, then Elemental Fist takes the place of Stunning Fist as the bonus feat you get at level 1, and you'd have to take Stunning Fist as a regular feat with the regular prerequisites, unless there's some other way you can get it as a Bonus feat.

Ah, I missed that, though the end result is what I was leaning towards anyway. I was just holding on to hope.

Thanks guys!

I initially assumed that a monk of the four winds would need to wait until he meets all the regular requirements to take stunning fist as a feat, but I was looking through the core rule book and there is a special clause in stunning fist:

"Special: A monk may select Stunning Fist as a bonus feat at 1st level, even if he does not meet the prerequisites. A monk who selects this feat..."

Actually, on checking the SRD, I see that this section of the clause has been removed, which I'm thinking supersedes the core book.

I guess my question is: Can a monk of the four winds only get stunning fist once they've met all the normal prerequisites (Dex 13, Wis 13, Improved Unarmed Strike, base attack bonus +8)?

I don't know, it always seemed to me that summoning good creatures and forcing them to do your bidding which will potentially cause them pain and get them banished from the prime material plane is a lot more evil than doing the same to an evil creature.

It makes sense in order to maintain theme so that evil guys are always found with evil creatures and good guy are always found with good creatures. In my mind it falls apart upon any further thought.

Clearly, to be sure that everyone is behaving appropriately, we need someone to create WikiLeaks WikiLeaks. Once that has been done we will need another person to create WikiLeaks WikiLeaks WikiLeaks, and so on. This will ensure that everyone leaks their information objectively, and all organizations (including the ones that keep the others transparent) are transparent, fair, and just.

Wait.

I'm not sure because I'm uneducated in these matters. Did I just describe what politics is all about?

Clearly, to be sure that everyone is behaving appropriately, we need someone to create WikiLeaks WikiLeaks. Once that has been done we will need another person to create WikiLeaks WikiLeaks WikiLeaks, and so on. This will ensure that everyone leaks their information objectively, and all organizations (including the ones that keep the others transparent) are transparent, fair, and just.

I should probably avoid that one then. Rant almost put me off, but I was able to get past my revulsion to finish it.

I found Rant to be much more 'explicit' than Choke. I think Chuck kind of has this reputation of being an 'edgy' author, but the beginning of Rant just seems like an exercise in him trying to outdo himself, which resulted in me rolling my eyes very vigorously. Once I got past the beginning sections of the book I found it much more enjoyable.

Choke ... didn't gross me out nearly as often or as much. Of Chuck's books that I have read I enjoyed Choke the most, though I haven't read Fight Club. I have to say that I did not enjoy Lullaby or Diary overly much. From watching the movie for Fight Club, I can see there are quite a few parallels between Choke and Fight Club.