As has been mentioned before, permanently being enlarged and temporarily growing wings are two entirely different things. An appropriate comparison would be permanently being enlarged and permanently growing wings. Both of which would be seen as freakish by the majority of people.
What about permanently growing extra arms (which an alchemist can do)? or simply being a dragon disciple? Half dragon is fine but possibly being half giant is shunned? PC's regularly permanently grow claws, rangers with aspect of the beast for instance, how a bout a half-orc with big gnarly tusks (bite attack feat), all available options but it is the really tall guy that's burned at the stake.
I never said that being permanently enlarged is against the rules of the game, just that there would be consequences. What is cheesy is a PC expecting to not have to pay those consequences.
What I consider unfair is that it is an auto bad reaction, there are consequences and benefits to being any size in a social situation. The PC isn't ignoring the bad reactions he is just dealing with like anyone else has to deal with a bad reaction to their person. Halflings are small, are they freaks in your campaign?
I was permanently enlarged near the end of the Age of Worms campaign. It really worked out for me, as I was much closer to my giant-kin after that. Running through Kongen-Thulnir as a giant worked to my advantage, socially.
|
What I consider unfair is that it is an auto bad reaction, there are consequences and benefits to being any size in a social situation. The PC isn't ignoring the bad reactions he is just dealing with like anyone else has to deal with a bad reaction to their person. Halflings are small, are they freaks in your campaign?
They're halflings, of course they are shunned freaks! :)
They're halflings, of course they are shunned freaks! :)
And elves are prissy weaklings, half-anythings are emo's, dwarfs are scottish with short man syndrome, and humans wont stop killing the goddamn rain forest! wait that last one got away from DND tropes...
Aren't there enough monk-bashing threads in this forum yet?
Do we need one per week?Most of them aren't monk bashing so much as "won't somebody please help the monk?"
Hopefully Ultimate Combat will ease that pain.
It always pains me that the people who fight tooth and nail for the Monk to not get better do not get this.
We love Monks. We want to play them. We do not like looking weak next to any other melee class while doing so.
|
Strange builds are considered strange in my games, yes. And I can't think of an AP where being large at 3rd level wouldn't be a problem.
Like I said, YMMV, but in our group it would be vetoed as a cheese build to 1) have to recruit a 9th level NPC to do something for you at 3rd level and 2) Put a permanent enlarge effect on a PC outside of a monster game.
Why have enlarge under permanency if you weren't meant to use it? Any example of a couple AP instances where being large would cause issue?
No wonder the monk shines in your games, he is the only character the gods don't smite for being weird. I am not sure how being large is cheesy either, no rules were twisted in any way to achieve it.
An assassin attacks the mayor your talking to and the dragon sorcerer grows claws and breaths fire to kill him, mayor shouts "he's a demon!! Kill him!!" no dragon sorcerers then. Just about everything the alchemist does is freaky juju stuff so obviously those get punished. Poor edilions are stuck being huge.... I suppose no one plays a frontline summoner in your games either... See now this is just getting too restricting, in a game where adventures are excepted for being weird (there's lots of them, you'd think people would be use to it) monks aren't as useful because everyone else isn't being burned at the stake.
Oh yeah and No high level caster needed just like buying any other magic item.
You can have it, at the appropriate level. If a 9th level Barbarian wanted to be permanantly enlarged by his 9th level Wizard buddy, and carry around shrink potions situationally, that would be fine.
You just spent most of your WBL to get a character three times your level to do you a favor.
|
|
Aren't there enough monk-bashing threads in this forum yet?
Do we need one per week?Most of them aren't monk bashing so much as "won't somebody please help the monk?"
Hopefully Ultimate Combat will ease that pain.
It always pains me that the people who fight tooth and nail for the Monk to not get better do not get this.
We love Monks. We want to play them. We do not like looking weak next to any other melee class while doing so.
But you are supposed to look weak next to primary melee classes in melee. Because it isn't a primary melee class.
If they want to create a variant that is a primary melee class that gains full BaB and other bonuses while losing mystical abilities, that would be fine with me.
But a monk shouldn't outshine a fighter or barbarian in melee any more than a fighter should outshine a paladin fighting demons.
But you are supposed to look weak next to primary melee classes in melee. Because it isn't a primary melee class.
If they want to create a variant that is a primary melee class that gains full BaB and other bonuses while losing mystical abilities, that would be fine with me.
But a monk shouldn't outshine a fighter or barbarian in melee any more than a fighter should outshine a paladin fighting demons.
Sorry, but what else is the Monk, if not a melee class? Being a "Slight annoyance" class doesn't cut it.
The Monk primarily deals damage by getting into melee and beating up opponents with his fists and feet, hence it is a melee class.
And, hell yeah, I've been wanting a martial artist class which gets away from all the supernatural stuff the Monk has and which doesn't have to be lawful and trained in a monastery. But that still would leave the Monk as a class which 99% of the times has to get into melee and beat up on people, ergo sum a melee class.
|
|
But you are supposed to look weak next to primary melee classes in melee. Because it isn't a primary melee class.
If they want to create a variant that is a primary melee class that gains full BaB and other bonuses while losing mystical abilities, that would be fine with me.
But a monk shouldn't outshine a fighter or barbarian in melee any more than a fighter should outshine a paladin fighting demons.
Sorry, but what else is the Monk, if not a melee class? Being a "Slight annoyance" class doesn't cut it.
The Monk primarily deals damage by getting into melee and beating up opponents with his fists and feet, hence it is a melee class.
And, hell yeah, I've been wanting a martial artist class which gets away from all the supernatural stuff the Monk has and which doesn't have to be lawful and trained in a monastery. But that still would leave the Monk as a class which 99% of the times has to get into melee and beat up on people, ergo sum a melee class.
The monk is a utility class that uses high saves, mobility, and supernatural abilities in the same way that a bard is a utility class that uses buff mechanics, mediocre spells, and high knowledge to aid the party.
No one is saying Bards should cast as well as wizards or fight as well as fighters.
They have come part of the way with some of the monk archtypes. I fully expect a full combat focuses monk in ultimate combat who foregos a lot of the supernatural abilities to focus on damage.
But it isn't a tank class, and it isn't supposed to be a tank class. What is the point of having all that mobility and all those good saves, and all of those abilities if you are just running up to something and trading punches?
The monk is a utility class that uses high saves, mobility, and supernatural abilities in the same way that a bard is a utility class that uses buff mechanics, mediocre spells, and high knowledge to aid the party.
No one is saying Bards should cast as well as wizards or fight as well as fighters.
They have come part of the way with some of the monk archtypes. I fully expect a full combat focuses monk in ultimate combat who foregos a lot of the supernatural abilities to focus on damage.
But it isn't a tank class, and it isn't supposed to be a tank class. What is the point of having all that mobility and all those good saves, and all of those abilities if you are just running up to something and trading punches?
But that's silly. Bard utility is obvious, they help the party through buffs ( and some debuffs ), which they are very well equipped to do through their class abilities and spells.
Monks barely have any such class abilities, since most of their abilities work only for themselves. Monk abilities mainly go into two directions, making Monks hard to kill and ( at least in theory ) helping Monks be good in melee. The problem here being that Monks are not very good at melee.
One could argue that they are at least good at combat maneuvers, but nonwithstanding the fact that many monsters are almost immune to those, due to their high CMD, Monks are not better at combat maneuvers than other classes.
Supposedly Monks are very problematic for casters, but once again that is mostly negated by most casters having excellent defenses against melee, be it now armor or defense spells designed to make melee miss their attacks ( Mirror Image/ Displacement / etc. ).
And let's not forget that the Monk has contradictory design features, i.e. high mobility and Flurry of Blows.
One of a row of possible fix for the Monk would be a sort of moving full attack, kinda like the Dervish Dance of the 3.5 Dervish PrC. That alone would solve about 33% of the problems with the Monk, the other 66% being how to make the class having enchantments for their attacks not being prohibitively expensive and solving the MAD problem.
the other 66% being how to make the class having enchantments for their attacks not being prohibitively expensive and solving the MAD problem.Brass knuckles :)
The MAD problem stands, tho.
Brass knuckles are quite fine, although they kind of go against the flavour I associate with an eastern martial artist... it's a full body contact kind of fighting, not boxing. :p
I'm still hoping for a better solution, like Mikaze does. For the nonce, brass knuckles are serviceable, though.
Brass knuckles :)
Nicely synergizing with medusa wrath. Wait, no.
I do agree that the real big problem is MADness only. Monks do quite fine in my games, I just think designers should have shown a little bit more of care in things like this, or Greater maneuvers and so on..
|
the other 66% being how to make the class having enchantments for their attacks not being prohibitively expensive and solving the MAD problem.Brass knuckles :)
The MAD problem stands, tho.
Brass knuckles are quite fine, although they kind of go against the flavour I associate with an eastern martial artist... it's a full body contact kind of fighting, not boxing. :p
I'm still hoping for a better solution, like Mikaze does. For the nonce, brass knuckles are serviceable, though.
Yeah, as it is it funnels monks away from the flavor a lot of people would like for their monks and funnels flurry of blows away from the joy of being able to describe all of your chops, palm strikes, kicks, headbutts, elbow jabs, etc towards punchpunchpunchpunch.
I'm still hoping for an alternative that offers more freedom and works with barehanded monks, like the numerous proposed fixes posters came up with in the Brass Knuckle thread(especially if said option is empowered by the monk himself, even if he has to pour money into it, like buying research material about ancient martial arts or meditative incense and so forth).
Still keeping all of those fixes on tap for my players though, and if need be to ask GMs for clearance to use.
Anything posted on the message boards can be used by Paizo. I'm hoping that, as I develop and polish the "Secret Techniques" feat, it will be something te game designers will use.
This being one of the fixes referred to above.
I do agree that the real big problem is MADness only. Monks do quite fine in my games, I just think designers should have shown a little bit more of care in things like this, or Greater maneuvers and so on..
Curbing MAD(possibly through Martial Arts options?) would certainly go a long way towards making monks easier to build under the standard 15 point buy, which would be one hell of a boon in and of itself. Hell, it might allow more players to actually develop their monks more organically rather than feeling forced to need to "build" it. Surely that can't be so bad a thing.
And +1 on Greater maneuvers, especially if that's supposed to be the monk's bread and butter.
Oh yeah, and good-aligned Qinggong ki powers and good-flavored feats plz. :)
All in all, I'm actually really hopeful for Ultimate Combat.
Exploration of the monk could be used to improve theorycrafting. But that't hindered by the presence of several posters who have no substantial experience running a Pathfinder monk, but keep telling those of us who have that we can't do the things we've done (contribute to the party).
Well, I've seen PF Monks in action for a whole campaign ( and it seems I am going to see another one, since the player decided away from becoming a Ninja later on, after I've told him that being a Ninja was not a work-around for him to play an evil assassin without actually being one, heh ).
And while there have been some fixes to the Monk in PF, like Flurry of Blows, they didn't fix some of the more glaring issues, like Flurry of Blows being incompatible with the whole high mobility aspect.
As I said, a 3.5 Dervish Dance-like system would probably the solution to that.
So, tell us how that monk was being played. What classes were the other characters in that game? Was the Monk played like a tank?I've seen PF Monks in action for a whole campaign ..
And while there have been some fixes to the Monk in PF, like Flurry of Blows, they didn't fix some of the more glaring issues, like Flurry of Blows being incompatible with the whole high mobility aspect.
.
It was a Pathfinder Monk, combined with the 3.5 VoP. Mostly played as an indestructible character with tons of attacks.
The problem for him was that a.) he could not pump up his attacks enough to reliably hit after his primary and secondary attacks ; b.) his damage output was pretty mediocre and c.) he had to get to the enemy first.
The rest of the group consisted of a Fighter archer, Wizard, Druid and Rogue. The Rogue was played by the player whose character building techniques are the worst in the group, so he had even more problems than the Monk.
A typical combat would later on in the campaign consist of the Monk using Abundant Step to get to the enemy, while the fighter archer absolutely destroyed whatever he was shooting at. The next round, the Rogue would try to close with the enemy, while the Monk would mostly not hit the opponent ( although the enemy could not hit the Monk either ). Meanwhile the archer typically finished off said opponent, the end.
That's pretty simplified, but it's what happened often enough for the Monk player to complain extensively about how little he was doing for the group, besides not being hit.
When I upgraded enemy tactics to ignore the Monk and go after the group members who were actually putting out some damage, at least the fights became more interesting for the rest of the group.
All in all the campaign combat suffered from different factors, them being a.) the archer ripping through everything; b.) the Monk being so unhittable that I either had to pull out enemies who would automatically hit everybody else or completely ignore the Monk and c.) the Monk still not doing much besides being unhittable. The times I had to his complaints about Stunning Fist doing absolutely nothing were remarkable. Oh, and he was focused on Wisdom, since had that exalted feat which allowed Wisdom to serve as his to-hit stat.
Lillith are you a Scotsman by any chance?
Just wondering~
VoP? So, you're not talking about a Pathfinder monk? (adding 3X VoP makes it stop being a Pathfinder Monk - you're limited in getting the stat boosters you need as part of your gear)
Functionally the 3.5 VoP works mostly like having appropiate gear. Otherwise it was a PF Monk. If that is not pure enough for your lofty principles, then it's not my problem.
VoP? So, you're not talking about a Pathfinder monk? (adding 3X VoP makes it stop being a Pathfinder Monk - you're limited in getting the stat boosters you need as part of your gear)
Yes, he wasn't limited and he was weaker... ergo pure Pathfinder would be weaker.
You can have it, at the appropriate level. If a 9th level Barbarian wanted to be permanantly enlarged by his 9th level Wizard buddy, and carry around shrink potions situationally, that would be fine.
You just spent most of your WBL to get a character three times your level to do you a favor.
Actually i spent it on scrolls, no 9th level caster needed.
If this thread hits 1000 posts I'm gonna be proud of myself. And of Paizo for making the Monk like they did.
How about, Monks add 1/2 of their Dexterity modifier to melee damage rolls instead of Strength.
Racism against Halflings happens. But people ordinarily know what a Halfling is. What's a really big man? A troll? An Ogre? Some sort os Wizard's creation? Or a curse? In a world where species ordinarily do have a default alignment, judging others on sight is how the world works. As for comparing someone who permanently has four arms to someone who is permanently enlarged, you've chosen to put words in my mouth that claim one of these is acceptable and the other isn't - that I'm playing favories. This, despite the fact that I've pretty clearly beeb talkin about freaks - boh of which qualify. It is at this point, if I was GMing at your table, that I'd become irritated and tell you, in sarcasm, that I am singling you out to ensure...
Ogre? Troll? Try half giant, which is treated the same as any half race. And I didnt put words in your mouth unless you dont allow amything but monks and rogues in your games, every other class ends up being a twisted freak. If thats true then im sorry for putting words in your mouth, if it isnt, then that is what you said.
Bottom line, adventuerers are freaks. You either deal or you play a monk/rogue
Explain how a Commoner walking down the street, casually looking over to see a 20th level Fighter munching on a turkey leg is going to immediately have grounds to think "freak!" as they would if they were walking down the street, casually looked over, and saw a 10 foot tall human (likely even bigger), munching on a turkey.Racism against Halflings happens. But people ordinarily know what a Halfling is. What's a really big man? A troll? An Ogre? Some sort os Wizard's creation? Or a curse? In a world where species ordinarily do have a default alignment, judging others on sight is how the world works. As for comparing someone who permanently has four arms to someone who is permanently enlarged, you've chosen to put words in my mouth that claim one of these is acceptable and the other isn't - that I'm playing favories. This, despite the fact that I've pretty clearly beeb talkin about freaks - boh of which qualify. It is at this point, if I was GMing at your table, that I'd become irritated and tell you, in sarcasm, that I am singling you out to ensure...
Ogre? Troll? Try half giant, which is treated the same as any half race. And I didnt put words in your mouth unless you dont allow amything but monks and rogues in your games, every other class ends up being a twisted freak. If thats true then im sorry for putting words in your mouth, if it isnt, then that is what you said.
Bottom line, adventuerers are freaks. You either deal or you play a monk/rogue
Commoners are aware that Magic exists!!! Are you kidding me?
Every commoner that lives anywhere near a city that isn't just a farming community either has been to a temple or has heard of one nearby. Ya know, those places that people can be raised from the dead at.The way I view Commoners perception of PC classes is how IRL, a regular average joe decides to walk to the market, and on his way there see's a professional football player. Woah, a freak! Or an NBA player. Oh my god what is that?!
Just imagine this life exactly how it is with one small difference. Lets say that ants and other insects are a billion times bigger than normal. Some are the size of cars. In a world where there are terrible horrible things just walkin around the outskirts of town, do you really think the townsfolk are going to look at the Large size dude and hate him or have whatever emotion you're claiming? Maybe if you took someone from Earth in the year 1400 they'd react that way because its like nothing theyve ever seen before.
Ridiculous creatures and adventurers are commonplace in Pathfinder. It's a fantasy game. FANTASY GAME. Hell, the commoner's son that he had with his newly wed wife from a distant village could end up being a Sorcerer.
Commoners are aware that Magic exists!!! Are you kidding me?
Every commoner that lives anywhere near a city that isn't just a farming community either has been to a temple or has heard of one nearby. Ya know, those places that people can be raised from the dead at.Yes, because getting a "Raise Dead" cast is no more difficult or unusual for them than running out to the corner drugstore to buy cough drops is for us!
The way I view Commoners perception of PC classes is how IRL, a regular average joe decides to walk to the market, and on his way there see's a professional football player. Woah, a freak! Or an NBA player. Oh my god what is that?!Most adventurers - nearly all - aren't freaks, though. In our world, before tv and modern medicine, we used to put these people in carnivals where people could come and stare at them. Now, we put them in reality tv shows.
The difference between our world and this fantasy world is that monsters go rampaging through the country side in that world.
My point is that Magic isnt uncommon. At all. There's probably a local Shaman in every little village. Maybe some villages have Druid farmers that grow the crops. It's not that weird to see people practicing their talents. Yes, they were in the circus because they had no use other than to entertain. In that world, having beefy melee dudes and magic practitioners around comes in handy when there are terrible magical beasts around all the time as well.
Aww man, I think my post got eaten.
tl;dr - The permanency discussion is interesting if only from the point that different play groups will respond positively or negatively to certain player actions. This however doesn't mean that simple applicatiosn of RAW should be banned from consideration, especially since there's a good shot for it to be allowed.
ALSO
@LilithsThrall's comment about theory crafting: I've been chugging away at some of the literature provided by folks on building CR based encounters just so I can better improve theory crafting. Combat Damage and DPR has been my focus initially, with an attempt to synergy it with mobility. Combat survivability will be next, and I'll eventually synthesize the two.
It's a fun little puzzle.
Freaks were in freak shows because they were discriminated against and kept from working elsewhere - even if they had the talents.Shamans might be in every village, but they are casting relatively minor magic. High level Shamans won't be all that common. People walking around with combat magic - even if they say it's just to protect against monsters - are going to be seen with suspicion, particularly if they aren't government employees. Don't believe me? Try walking downtown with an M-16.
Do you actually believe you're own arguments?
If someone has a talent for a completely unnecessary skill (Sword Swallowing, Fire Juggling, the Bearded Lady) then of course they're weird and discriminated against. Societal norms sadly. However, what if there were monsters that could only be taken care of by a spell that requires a dude to swallow a Sword, someone to juggle fire and a component of facial hair from a female, they would heroes! Loved by all!
Sure people would still think they're weird at first but they serve a very useful and necessary function. Eventually, that's the way this new world would work.
Now for the situation dropped on me with the M-16. There are laws against automatic weapons. And there is no practical use for me to carry one. Insert Zombie Apocalypse, and tadaa, no one is caring that I have this weapon. If anything, people would feel safer with me around. Perhaps on edge because bullets dont leave much leeway for life when they hit you in the face, but better a dude with a gun than zombies.
Aren't there enough monk-bashing threads in this forum yet?
Do we need one per week?Most of them aren't monk bashing so much as "won't somebody please help the monk?"
Hopefully Ultimate Combat will ease that pain.
It always pains me that the people who fight tooth and nail for the Monk to not get better do not get this.
We love Monks. We want to play them. We do not like looking weak next to any other melee class while doing so.
My OP said Help, not haha monks suck
sigh
Seriously?
We're conjecturing about how theoretical, fictional societies might respond to something?
And now real-world situations are being used to justify those conjectures.
Why? This is one of those strange instances in which both people arguing are correct. Not because the things being argued are not mutually exclusive (prejudice and acceptance definably are) but because the infinite variance in settings (whether pathfinder or otherwise) means that the reactions argued by one are reasonable concerns, while at the same time the rebutles made by another hold equal sway.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I should ask you the same question. Do you actually believe your own argument? Does someone need to be a freak in order to handle the monsters in Pathfinder? No. A fighter, for example, can be quite competent and not be a freak. So, when the choice has to be made between whether to have a freak or a non-freak handle the job, the non-freak is going to be preferred. Don't believe me? How are gays coming along in the real world military? Or in many local police forces? Soon after the monster army isn't literally tearing down the city walls, the freaks who fought that monster army off are going to be cast out too.
You heard it hear first: LilithsThrall said gays are freaks.
Gays are excluded from forces for a number of reasons. They're also shunned in public most notably because the Bible said it's wrong. The Bible also said that women are unclean and that slavery is just.
But I'm done with you and your nonsensical uneducated uninformed scenarios. Wait, you're a republican too arent you? (had to take the shot)
Back to why the Monk got the shaft and what brainstorming can be done with possibilities we have at our disposal now to fix the problem.
Simply stating that Monks aren't bad and using the reasoning of, well you're obviously playing Monk wrong isn't a real argument.
Maybe the Monk just has to be the 5th man. (until UC i hope)
Seriously?
We're conjecturing about how theoretical, fictional societies might respond to something?
And now real-world situations are being used to justify those conjectures.
Why? This is one of those strange instances in which both people arguing are correct. Not because the things being argued are not mutually exclusive (prejudice and acceptance definably are) but because the infinite variance in settings (whether pathfinder or otherwise) means that the reactions argued by one are reasonable concerns, while at the same time the rebutles made by another hold equal sway.
Actually, being one who likes to argue, I'd say LT skewed logical arguments in her favor but not putting equal situations on the table.
It's kind of like saying that because both the Earth and Jupiter have gravity, that gravity is the same. Conveniently leaving out that Jupiter's gravity would instantly kill a person.
You may, for instance, hate rednecks bc you think theyre uncivilized, dirty, NRA-loving *#$@%s etc, whathave you... but if there were tons of monsters, rednecks would be your best friend because of all the aforementioned rifles.
@Hyperion-Sanctum: Name calling will get us no where, (I know your post was directed at LT, but I still think it needed to be said.)
I'm fully aware of how the argumentation was going, I was just getting exceptionally frustrated with how it was playing out.
@Hyperion-Sanctum: Name calling will get us no where, (I know your post was directed at LT, but I still think it needed to be said.)
I'm fully aware of how the argumentation was going, I was just getting exceptionally frustrated with how it was playing out.
Done and done.
Do we have any more builds of Monks to be looked at?
Explain how a Commoner walking down the street, casually looking over to see a 20th level Fighter munching on a turkey leg is going to immediately have grounds to think "freak!" as they would if they were walking down the street, casually looked over, and saw a 10 foot tall human (likely even bigger), munching on a turkey.
As for confusing it for a half giant, you're making my case for me. Half giants are going to have to deal with a lot of prejudice too. They are likely going to be thought of as big, dumb, clumsy oafs. Are you going to have sex outside your species or hope to find someone who liks to have sex with someone outside their's
As for where you put words in my mouth, I never said that a human with four arms permanently attached is going to be any more accepted.
A 20th level fighter would be bigger then the biggest football player and literally glowing with magical stuff on him. And is fighter all you've got? sure we can add fighter to the list so monk/rogue/fighter/maybe caviler. After that other classes almost turn you into a monster (especially alchemist and witch).
You mean like half-elves and half-orcs? Already playable races with the same prejudiced background (even says so in their race profile). About the sex outside your species, ummm do you know how a half-anything is made?
No large, no four arms (alchemist), no claws (barbarians, rangers, druids), no horns (barbarians), no half elves/orcs. no outward showing sorcerer bloodlines, etc. I wouldn't play in a game where these options are essentially banned.
I'd rather people who aren't going to nit-pick at every completely legal option in my build actually assess it. I don't even need enlarge to make a build, but I used it for this one and I don't have the time to stat up another build.
Explain how a Commoner walking down the street, casually looking over to see a 20th level Fighter munching on a turkey leg is going to immediately have grounds to think "freak!" as they would if they were walking down the street, casually looked over, and saw a 10 foot tall human (likely even bigger), munching on a turkey.
As for confusing it for a half giant, you're making my case for me. Half giants are going to have to deal with a lot of prejudice too. They are likely going to be thought of as big, dumb, clumsy oafs. Are you going to have sex outside your species or hope to find someone who liks to have sex with someone outside their's
As for where you put words in my mouth, I never said that a human with four arms permanently attached is going to be any more accepted.
A 20th level fighter would be bigger then the biggest football player and literally glowing with magical stuff on him. And is fighter all you've got? sure we can add fighter to the list so monk/rogue/fighter/maybe caviler. After that other classes almost turn you into a monster (especially alchemist and witch).
You mean like half-elves and half-orcs? Already playable races with the same prejudiced background (even says so in their race profile). About the sex outside your species, ummm do you know how a half-anything is made?
No large, no four arms (alchemist), no claws (barbarians, rangers, druids), no horns (barbarians), no half elves/orcs. no outward showing sorcerer bloodlines, etc. I wouldn't play in a game where these options are essentially banned.
I'd rather people who aren't going to nit-pick at every completely legal option in my build actually assess it. I don't even need enlarge to make a build, but I used it for this one and I don't have the time to stat up another build.
I myself don't mind showing stats for Enlarge person, but Permanency is a bit much i feel. Not because of societal issues, but just space issues.
Although our comparisons have been against CR=APL so I would be ok with just assuming Enlarge Person had been cast on you.
Makes no difference in the numbers