Hulking Hurler Stone Giant question

[pawsplay]

Yes, lets see how this is done. Because I'm looking over the hurler and while it can throw some really heavy rocks, there is a great deal of haze in the hitting foe with said rock department.

Were folks just assuming the HH could chuch the rock more or less strait up to fall back down into the targets space?

You have two choices. You can either use the trick that lets you aim for a space using a large object, or you can use various obscenities combining True Strike with Brutal thrower (Str for to hit with thrown objects) and such.

Linkie:

http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=142565

 

[frankthedm]

Edit. Ok. I see. Squeezing damage out of the encumberance rules for high STR. 1d6 per 200 pounds is bad when an ability lets one attack with their medium load.

 

[IanB]

The carrying capacity was incorrectly calculated for his strength of 62 it looks like.

The SRD says:

"For Strength scores not shown on Table: Carrying Capacity, find the Strength score between 20 and 29 that has the same number in the "ones" digit as the creature’s Strength score does and multiply the numbers in that for by 4 for every ten points the creature’s strength is above the score for that row."

It appears that the OP in that thread decided that means that he multiplies all those 4s together, instead of adding them, which is what he should actually have done. In addition Large creatures only get x2 carrying capacity instead of the x3 he lists (unless he's getting an extra multiplier in there somewhere from a class ability or feat I'm unaware of.) Instead of

"This makes his medium load 346 (medium load for a strength 22 character) x 256 (4 x 4 x 4 x 4 - +40 strength from the encumberance rules on extending the table) x 3 (because he's large) = 265728."

It should be:

"This makes his medium load 346 (medium load for a strength 22 character) x 16 (4 + 4 + 4 + 4 - +40 strength from the encumberance rules on extending the table) x 2 (because he's large) = 11,072."

So yeah, some serious fuzzy math going on there. Note that the class is probably still broken even if the guy did his math right.

 

[frankthedm]

60d6+mods, yeah. Broken one shot pony.

Trimming out some of the worst offending abilties can help balance the PRC, though really, just drop the PRC and give it the Brutal throw feat and Maybe power throw. You might want to up it's CR a point or two given how much those feats change the dynamic of a giants CR.

 

[pawsplay]

So yeah, some serious fuzzy math going on there. Note that the class is probably still broken even if the guy did his math right.

Yeah... later posts have improved math, plus a Tauric template, feats that increase carrying capacity, higher Str, more Str boosts.... millions of d6s, all quite legal.

 

[moritheil]

To be fair to me, moritheil, I think it should be mentioned that I was one of the helpers who helped push the Warhulking Hurler past the one million d6 mark on wizards.com. The Hulking Hurler is simply the most broken thing I can think of that works as intended by the rules (but with unintended consequences). The War Hulk is only an accessory to his crime.

Fair enough. To be fair to everyone else, I don't really think it's pertinent to the issue at hand whether you were there or not; it's an established fact that it can be done, and who did it first is wholly irrelevant. I was simply explaining the predilictions of another board regular.

I maintain that a hulking hurler isn't going to be as broken as a truly optimized caster no matter how much damage it theoretically does. In any case, I see that this thread lasted all of 21 posts before a link to the CO boards. Eh, that's more than some.

 

[jontherev]

Wow, I had no idea about a lot of this, and frankly don't care. I'm not out to kill the pcs, just teach them a lesson, and have them come back more prepared to kill him later. I'm not going to give him True Strike, but Power Throw and Brutal Throw make a lot of sense. I just don't know how many feats I'll have to spare. Thanks for the clarifications and stuff.

 

[pawsplay]

Fair enough. To be fair to everyone else, I don't really think it's pertinent to the issue at hand whether you were there or not; it's an established fact that it can be done, and who did it first is wholly irrelevant. I was simply explaining the predilictions of another board regular.

I'll be happy to explain my own predilictions, thank you.