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

[Artoomis]

Yes. Some purposes. You listed all of them here.

Unarmed Strikes is not one of those. An unarmed strike is not a weapon designed for a creature one size larger.

Once again, though, how do we know that's not just an oversight and no one even considered it?

We don't.

You need to read it and decide for yourself

Personally, I think it is an oversight.

 

[Fieari]

Can we at least agree that the rules, as they are written, do not expressly allow INA to be a size category larger?

 

[ThirdWizard]

Personally, I think it is an oversight.

An oversight still makes it not in the RAW. There has to be errata to change it, then it can be RAW.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

That's an even more bizarre exercise in semantics than the "official" interpretation. The full-round action of charging incorporates an attack action into it.

You are adopting the curt, peremptory tone of someone who has ultimate authority on the topic at hand.

Truly, the mind boggles.

When something says "attack action," it must certainly refer to the attack action, and not some other thing, right?

 

[Artoomis]

Can we at least agree that the rules, as they are written, do not expressly allow INA to be a size category larger?

Maybe.

It all depends upon what you think "effects" means in the monk class description.

It's getting confusing. I'm assuming you are refering to INA allowing a monk to have damage one size category larger, or, in other words, monks having natural weapons as far as INA is concerned.

 

[Artoomis]

An oversight still makes it not in the RAW. There has to be errata to change it, then it can be RAW.

Nope. Not necessarily. For whatever the heck it's worth, intent is part of RAW. For handy reference:

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.

This can be summed up as:

Characters with Powerful Build are like giants in these ways and not like giants in these other ways.

Now, if the thing you want to know about is on either list (the "like" or "not like") you know the answer, of course. There is NO RULE on what to do if the property you want to know about is not on the list.

edit (added): What muddies the waters here is that BOTH granted "properties" and NOT-granted "properties" of a large size are listed, leaving open the question of WHICH of those lists is incomplete.

You can be hyper-technical and claim that since it is not on the granted list you don't get it

You can be hyper-technical and claim that since it is not on the not-granted list you get it

Or (my preference), think for yourself and apply some common sense reasoning to either allow it or not.

 

[FireLance]

The Ordered Chaos feat in Fiendish Codex I specifically mentions feats--and their prerequisites--under the header of 'effects'.

Spells and effects that are keyed to alignment affect you as if you were chaotic, as well as your actual alignment. For example, ... you could take the Primordial Scion feat despite its chaotic alignment prerequisite.

This point appears to have been missed in the debate.

So, apart from the "it's not in the core rules" argument, does anyone arguing that feats are not effects have a counter to this?

 

[Dracandross]

Unarmed Strikes is not one of those. An unarmed strike is not a weapon designed for a creature one size larger.

But I can see why it would be Ok to allow large sized damage. Specially its balancing factor if you can make fighter with large axe, monk with 'large' fists is just same. If you disallow that monk will be subpar compared to weapons.

-Dracandross

 

[Tyler Durden]

What if the character in question is using gauntlets for a large sized character? Would that make a difference?

More importantly, maybe you should be thankful that the player hasn't decided to pull out all the stops and make a ridiculous unarmed attacker out of his monk.

 

[Hypersmurf]

What if the character in question is using gauntlets for a large sized character? Would that make a difference?

Sure... he'd deal 1d4 damage, like anyone else using Large gauntlets...

-Hyp.