Advice on 9th level Monk doing 6d6 damage per strike...

[WinnipegDragon]

First of all, I'm the DM. I can over rule any of this, but I wanted to throw it out there.

I have a player who submitted a Goliath Monk 8 for a campaign.

His argument is that Goliaths can use large weapons without penalty and thus their unarmed damage should also be considered large. Add to this a monk's belt (+5 monk levels for determinining unarmed damage), a Fanged Ring (increase unarmed damage one size category, Dragon Magazine #308), and Improved Natural Attack (increase on more size category for unarmed damage).

As a result of this, his submitted monk hits like 3 greatswords at character level 9.

I'm considering vetoing INA regardless of what the FAQ says, and I think he's out to lunch on the Goliath's base damage, which reduces his unarmed strikes to 3d6 damage. Still significant, but not uber-munchkin either.

Where would you draw the line?

 

[Thanee]

I would allow INA, but also not count the goliath's unarmed strikes to be the same as from a large creature.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Where would you draw the line?

On players making up wholly unsupported rules and using that as the basis for massive munchkinism.

 

[IcyCool]

1. No, goliaths don't get a bigger unarmed damage die.

2. Do you regularly allow stuff from Dragon magazine? If not, disallow the ring (although that's not too bad).

3. Decide whether or not you want to allow the improved natural attack feat to work with a monk's unarmed attacks.

 

[Thanee]

Oh yeah, and I might actually disallow the ring stacking with INA... because they are both pretty much the same effect, and INA only works once on a particular natural attack.

Bye
Thanee

 

[DanMcS]

First of all, I'm the DM. I can over rule any of this, but I wanted to throw it out there.

I have a player who submitted a Goliath Monk 8 for a campaign.

His argument is that Goliaths can use large weapons without penalty and thus their unarmed damage should also be considered large. Add to this a monk's belt (+5 monk levels for determinining unarmed damage), a Fanged Ring (increase unarmed damage one size category, Dragon Magazine #308), and Improved Natural Attack (increase on more size category for unarmed damage).

As a result of this, his submitted monk hits like 3 greatswords at character level 9.

I'm considering vetoing INA regardless of what the FAQ says, and I think he's out to lunch on the Goliath's base damage, which reduces his unarmed strikes to 3d6 damage. Still significant, but not uber-munchkin either.

Where would you draw the line?

Simply saying no to the "goliaths are large" thing (they aren't) drops his damage to 4d6. At 9th level, your average greatsword/greataxe wielder will be doing more than that with a bit of power attack, a magical weapon, 2-handed bonus to damage, etc. And have a higher bonus to hit, to boot (since monks get 3/4 BAB). 4d6 damage and his medium BAB will make him an effective mook-killer, but he probably won't outshine a dedicated fighter against serious opponents.

 

[Rackhir]

The rules for the Goliath's specify what advantages they get from their build. A stronger NA is not one of them. You can't extrapolate like that.

 

[werk]

I'd disallow all three, personally. The monk belt is cheeze enough.

Edit: How much does the Fanged Ring cost? Out of curiosity...

 

[Bad Paper]

I would allow only the monk's belt.

Goliaths are not Large. Dragon magazine is stupid. IMC, INA overlaps/no-stack-with the monk's unarmed strikes, which are absurd enough as it is.

 

[Cedric]

Goliath's have Powerful Build...from the SRD

Powerful Build (Ex)

The physical stature of half-giants lets them function in many ways as if they were one size category larger. Whenever a half-giant is subject to a size modifier or special size modifier for an opposed check (such as during grapple checks, bull rush attempts, and trip attempts), the half-giant is treated as one size larger if doing so is advantageous to him. A half-giant is also considered to be one size larger when determining whether a creature’s special attacks based on size (such as improved grab or swallow whole) can affect him. A half-giant can use weapons designed for a creature one size larger without penalty. However, his space and reach remain those of a creature of his actual size. The benefits of this racial trait stack with the effects of powers, abilities, and spells that change the subject’s size category.

If the Goliath can use a Large Greataxe, then I think they should be able to use the Large damage table for monk's unarmed damage. It seems completely reasonable to me, and I think it is implied in the wording for Powerful Build.

Additionally, the rules (and FAQ), clearly allow INA to stack....and the Monk's Belt is in the rules as well and perfectly reasonable.

However, there is nothing that states (to my knowledge) that the ability from the Fanged Ring has to stack with INA. If you take INA multiple times, it applies to different attacks. And "Monk's unarmed strike" is considered one attack form.

So I would disallow the Fanged Ring from stacking with INA. This should reduce the player to a much more manageable 4d6 damage. Is that a lot of damage? Yes...but broken? In the 'new' game of power builds, prestige classes, oneupsmanship and the like, I don't think it's broken at all.

Cedric

EDIT: I just wanted to add, you can house rule anything you want obviously, I just addressed my post to the rules as I understand them.