I tried to post this yesterday morning, but the boards went down in the middle of my drafting it. So, here it is, a day-and-a-half late...
Jeremy said:
Perhaps you are misunderstanding me, perhaps you just like taking shots at me.
Or maybe I don't like pompous, condescending busy-bodies who try correcting people who aren't wrong and dispense blatantly incorrect information seemingly knowing full-well that they are doing so.
You just said yourself that you knew the two points weren't the same, yet you originally made that very assertion. Are you back-pedaling now?
Jeremy said:
Regardless I'd appreciate it if you didn't simply call my opinions baseless.
Even when they are? Here was your original statement...
"Actually, Wizards of the Coast has rules that specifically apply to monks that have natural attacks or unarmed attacks that do more than a human's normal 1d3. And it works pretty much like gamecat said."
That looks pretty baseless to me. No supporting documentation. No evidence to back it up. Just a vague refernce to WotC. Worse, you now claim you knew all along that there wasn't any such ruling. You now claim you were simply saying that there were "similarities" (which there aren't, by the way). This doesn't seem to occur anywhere in the above statement.
Jeremy said:
I am capable of being wrong like everyone else.
Then just say so and don't get all condescending by posting a bunch of S&F junk that has nothing to do with your original comment.
Jeremy said:
Now if you'll allow me to repeat myself again, I said that WotC's system for dealing with monstrous monks is similar to gamecat's house rule.
No it isn't. WotC's larger monk system follows the other rules for making weapons larger (PH). Ands for scaling natural weapons for larger creatures (MM). Neither has to do with allowing monks with natural weapons to get extra damage. Otherwise, again, the troll monk in the book would do more damage for having both.
Jeremy said:
Yes, it does not factor in the claws and talons, bone ridges and dimensional hands that exist out there but if it did it would be precisely like gamecat's system which is not what I've said.
But it is. I just reposted your original comment which claimed, matter-of-factly, that gamecat's system was supported by the rules already. Incorrect.
Jeremy said:
It's not.
Jeremy said:
Meaning if you wanted to afford some advantage to medium sized natural weapon armed monks you could. Its foundations are in the rules and are expandable from there.
No foundations. I think I'll show you how dangerous and wrong your assumption can get when applied to a similar situation.
In the same book you use to support your claim (S&F), there is another section on Rules Variants (page 69). One of the most popular, is the Double-Handed Disarm. Basically it allows unarmed attackers the option of using both hands to grab an opponent's weapon. Normally human hands are tiny weapons so there are huge penalties to grabbing a sword. This variant allows the use of both hands to treat your unarmed disarm as a medium weapon. Follow so far? Good.
Using your "similar-equals-fair extrapolation" theory, I would like to ask if my monk could make a single attack with both hands. Doing so would change my unarmed attack from a tiny weapon to a medium weapon. My normal 18 Strength, 1st level monk damage is 1d6+4. By using both hands to attack, I should be allowed to do 2d6+6 (damage increased by 2 steps for going from Tiny to Medium and using 2 hands does x1.5 Strength). Sound fair? After all, I'm using my whole body to attack, right?
Preposterous. Just like your belief that one rule (bigger hands) equates to free extra damage for clawed punches.
Jeremy said:
I'm sorry this upsets you so but maybe you need to cut down on the caffeine a little.
No. What upsets me is that you came here and posted trash and claimed it was gospel.
Jeremy said:
Suffice it to say, I do not generally indulge in flame wars and generally apply to the following popular politically incorrect slogan.
But you will indulge in being condescending and arrogant, as you did, when you responded to me request to back up your baseless statement.
Jeremy said:
So that said, calm down if you like,
I've been calm.
Jeremy said:
I will, thanx.
Jeremy said:
but please, don't expect me to respond to your posts any further if you do.
Your prerogative.