Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Corwin" data-source="post: 240444" data-attributes="member: 1560">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... 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 You just said yourself that you knew the two points weren't the same, yet you originally made that very assertion.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? 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. 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. 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. 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.  It's not. 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. No. What upsets me is that you came here and posted trash and claimed it was gospel. But you will indulge in being condescending and arrogant, as you did, when you responded to me request to back up your baseless statement.  I've been calm. I will, thanx.Your prerogative.</blockquote>

Verification