The Gaming Den

When I wrote up the monk the first time, the animated ability hadn't been rewritten to give out as per dancing, which means that if you played with shield bonuses (and we did), then a shield was negligible AC as well, because there was no reason for a monk to not have one.

I also don't understand - and have never understood - why you include Expertise as something a Monk can't include in his AC. A monk could take expertise if he wanted to - it's not a [special] feat. I mean, if we're talking about a 20th level character whose goal is AC, why not? I mean, at that point I can start saying that AC during Total Defense actions bump the monk up again because they have Tumble as a skill and blah, blah... I would assume, though I might be incorrect, the the proper responses to that would be to either give the fighter five ranks in tumble cross class or throw out the argument.

You are correct, though, when you imply that it varies based on the power level of the game. Since the games I play in are higher powered than yours (evidently), and I take epic into account, then there is no question that two stats to AC is better than wearing armor.

I think Frank's assumption is that with his lower BAB and the nessessity to concentrate on Dex and Wisdom over other stats like Strength, Expertise is not a practical choice for monks because their attacks are already signifigantly lower than the primary fighter-types.

-Desdan

I also don't understand - and have never understood - why you include Expertise as something a Monk can't include in his AC.

Because the limits on Expertise is your Base Attack Bonus. At 20th level, the Fighter has five more points of BAB than the Monk. Not only can he Expertise for +5 and have the same attack bonus as the Monk, but if the Monk Expertises for +5 the Fighter can Greater Expertise for +10 and retain parity.

No matter how low the Monk goes, the Fighter can always Greater Expertise for 5 more. Even if the Monk uses every single point of BAB into Expertise - the Fighter can still spend 5 more because he has 5 more BAB to go. The Monk's Greater Expertise limit is +15, the Fighter's is +20. That's a difference of +5.

You are correct, though, when you imply that it varies based on the power level of the game. Since the games I play in are higher powered than yours (evidently), and I take epic into account, then there is no question that two stats to AC is better than wearing armor.

That's still probably not true. While Epic scales indefinately, it is limited theoretically by extremely large piles of cash money. Short of that it's infinite - so I'm going to jolly well assume that some sorts of cash limits are on hand:

From the level 20 word Go, the Fighter can get bonus AC from Epic Rings of Protection and crap same as a Monk - the difference being that the Monk can go Epic indefinately on Wisdom Bonuses, Dexterity Bonuses, and Bracers of Armor bonuses. The Fighter is going to be going epic on Shield and Armor bonuses. The Fighter can stay abreadst of the Monk for a long time by getting Celestial Battalion Armor - but sooner or later the Monk's Dex Bonus is presumably going off the chart.

Every +2 AC the Fighter gets costs 40,000 gp more than the ones before.

Every +3 AC that the Monk gets costs 180,000 gp more than the previous did.

So... um... the Fighter's AC bonus from having 2 sources of cheap AC grows faster than the Monk's having 3 sources of AC where only 1 of them is cheap.

Shields are bigger than Gloves of Dex and Headbands of Wisdom together for the price.

Any price.

-Username17

Here's a simpler way of rendering it:

When you add +2 to your Armor or shield, this advances down the quadratic curve twice.

When you advance you add +2 to your Dexterity or Wisdom, this advances you down the quadratic cost curve twice, but only adds +1 to your AC.

When you add +2 to your Bracers of Armor - you advance down the quadratic cost curve twice.

So at a static cost start, if the Fighter and the Monk both advance two items down the quadratic cost curve twice, the Monk gets +3 AC and the Fighter gets +4.

Now, when they do it again, the Monk can advance the other stat modifier - which means that he's saving 80,000 gp - and still getting a +3 AC.

And the next round of increases, he's going to the other other one again, and saving 80,000 gp, and then he's switching back and saving 160,000 gp, and so on.

Every time the Fighter gets +2 AC on the Monk after the initial round of increases, the Monk gets more 160,000 gp more than he got in the previous round - which is enough for the monk to um... not quite buy an extra +1 AC.

So for every +4 AC the Fighter gets, the Monk gets +3.3 AC, round about. And then the Monk can potentially gain an extra AC on top of that every 8 levels starting at about level 40.

-Username17

By that logic, Frank, I just don't see why the Monk doens't put +4 into his bracers each level and sit back collecting the bonuses for being a monk, the stat ups for being a PC, and taking a few stat upping feats every now and again.



Like I said before, in 3.0, the monk was able to use a shield. The problem is that I am not familiar with many of the changes made in 3.5 because I don't play it.

And while my assertion on Nifty that the monk and the fighter's AC are inversely proportional in cost may not be true under 3.5 rules, the fact remains that the Monk has a higher AC potential if he's willing to pay for it.

And while my assertion on Nifty that the monk and the fighter's AC are inversely proportional in cost may not be true under 3.5 rules, the fact remains that the Monk has a higher AC potential if he's willing to pay for it.

How much?

I have never seen a monk willing to play the AC game on anything less than double 18s. I have also never seen a monk willing to play the AC game without inherent bonuses, which means that you are waiting at character level 17+.

These things are goddamn expensive/unlikely, BTW.

No, but, seriously, the monk gets a source of AC from two sources. Class features and the wisdom bonus to AC. Considering that there is an item which gives you an always-on bonus wis bonus to AC and an extra +1, this means that with the exact same stats and the exact same money, the monk is only going to be three points of AC ahead of an NPC CLASS, ever, at the cost of less than 15,000 gp.

But you're still stuck with a guy who pays an assload of money for his weapons and extra AC gear, since he's not going to see an armor bonus for a long time considering how damn expensive bracers of armor are. Low and mid level monk AC works like paying off credit cards with other credit cards, when I think about it, especially for people not on a stupidly-high stat scheme. Since you can't afford an armor bonus like everyone else does (because a +5 bracers of armor cost way the hell more than a breastplate), you're using your money you can't buy an equivalent bonus with absolutely cheaper but less bang-for-your-buck armor raises.

So. The only time a monk ever comes to playing the AC game over everyone else is:

- If the monk is playing on 3.0E, so he can still have an animated shield.
- If the monk is +17 level, so he can afford inherent bonuses.
- If the monk is playing with double 18s and further never ever needs to worry about another stat.
- Your DM does not buy Frank's argument for celestial mithral fullplate.
- The DM isn't using the guidelines in the back of the book which have a precedence for named bonuses to AC that are not items (sacred and luck bonuses, for example). Since these cost noticably, but not hugely more than the enhancement bonuses and disgustingly less than the inherent bonuses for the monk needed to play the AC game, the other guy will come AHEAD with these rules.
- The fighter-type is not allowed to recycle points of attack into defense.
- Non-core book feats like divine shield are not allowed.
- No one else ever, ever picks up a level of another PrC. Ever.


How many of these factors will need to combine so that a monk can have a chance at the coveted Big Ass AC title? These factors are approaching Willy Wonka's Chocolate Factory houserules, but in monk-favorable discussions apparently everyone has a golden ticket to this magical hellhole of child torture and delicious candy.

Note: Lots of Math Ahead.

If you are willing to allo Monks to use Animated Shields, then here's how things have to work out for the Monk to pull ahead in AC somewhere deep into Epic:

First of all, the more bonuses you allow, the longer it's going to take for a Monk to pull ahead. A Deflection Bonus costs 2*(bonus)^2*10,000, the bonus from Wisdom Enhancement costs (bonus*2)^2*10,000. That means that getting an Nth bonus costs 4N-2 off of a Deflection Bonus, and 8N-4 off of a Wisdom or Dexterity enhancement. An Armor enhancement costs only 2N-1 for an Nth bonus.

This means that At any set of Epic Costs, if your items cost the same amount each, the Enhancement to Armor or Shield is twice the magnitude of your bonus to AC from Wisdom Enhancement, and your Deflection Bonus is about 1.4 times the magnitude of your bonus to AC from Wisdom.

However, because of that fact, it is more efficient to drop money into armor and Deflection bonuses than it is to get Wisdom Enhancement bonuses - namely the bonus AC from an ideal cost/benefit standpoint is for you to get twice as much AC from Deflection as you do from Wisdom Enhancement - and about four times the bonus from Wisdom Enhancement with Armor enhancement.

So to pick a specific Nth term - if you get a +8 to your AC from a Wisdom enhancement deally - you are paying 2,560,000 gp for a +16 Wisdom item, 600,000 gp more than you'd pay for a +14 Wisdom Item. To get the next Wisdom enhancement to AC would cost 680,000. In contrast, a +34 Armor Bonus costs 11,560,000 gp - which is 670,000 gp more than you would pay for a +33 Armor bonus. A +17 Deflection Bonus costs 5,780,000 gp - and that's 660,000 gp more than a +16 deflection bonus. So vbefore it would be worth it to you to raise your bonus from a Wisdom enhancer to +9, you'd pump up your bracers of AC to +34, and your ring of epic deflection to +17.

Needless to say, if you allow people to get sacred bonuses, or luck bonuses, or insight bonuses, or natural armor bonuses, or kitchen sink bonuses, this is bad for the Monk because it introduces more equivalent bonuses which at any price level are going to be larger than the Monk's unique bonuses. So we will assume that:

* The Fighter uses Epic Armor and an Epic Shield and an Epic Ring of Deflection only (because the Fighter stopped enhancing his gloves of Dex when he hit the max dex on his armor).

* The Monk uses Gloves of Dex, an Animated Shield, Epic Bracers of Armor, an Epic Periapt of Wisdom, and an Epic Ring of Delection.

---

This means that using those assumptions, at any price point for bonuses, the Fighter can get +10 AC, and the Monk can get +12. Note that those extra +2 aren't free, they just are no more expensive than the previous ten.

The Fighter, as we know, starts off massively ahead. In Epic Land, Armor of the Celestial Battalion isn't even a +X Bonus - it "just" costs 126,000 gp which is essentially free long before the Monk is going to pull ahead. So the Fighter is looking at having armor which provides a +8 higher bonus at any price point, and has a Dex Maximum of +11. Further, the Monk needs an Animated Shield, which means that at any price point, the Monk has 2 less AC on his shield.

So the Fighter starts out with 10 more AC off of Armor and shield and 5 more points of expertise. The Monk is at each price point, using our example, pulling a little less than 10% ahead. So when our heroes gain an additional ~150 AC past the point at which the Fighter has maxxed his Dex Bonus - they break even.

So given these rather heinous restrictions, when they have ACs in the several hundreds range - the Monk will finally pull ahead by +1 or so.

If we bring in Natural Armor bonuses, Luck Bonuses,Sacred Bonuses, Your Mom Bonuses, and Insight Bonuses - the break point will go up accordingly - and the Monk will then pull ahead at AC 600, 1,000 or so on depending upon how many of these bonuses you allow.

-Username17

me wrote:the fact remains that the Monk has a higher AC potential if he's willing to pay for it.

If you take Franks' argument that all bonuses will be the same then a fighter has:

+5 from Expertise
Armor
Shield

Two of those scale.

A monk has

Dexterity
Wisdom
Bracers of Armor

Three of those scale.

If you allow a monk to use a shield, four of those scale.

Yes, it will cost an assload, but the monk has a greater potential for AC. Especially if you cheat and do things like combine epic spellcasting (I mean, in theory you've got a wizard or cleric in the party, right?) with the fact that boosting stats is actually beneficial to a monk, whereas a fighter's AC can't benefit at all from having higher stats.

In essence, if you can't cheese out a monk's AC using all the rules of the game, you have issues. And I know that Frank can cheese out way better than I can.

How much stuff is allowed to scale or how many stats you have to add to AC is irrelevant.

If you believe in the DMG, you have a certain amount of money to buy stuff at every single level. If you believe in Epic, there's no limit to how high the AC cap gets on items, unlike in non-Epic.

If you have 5 articles to add your AC to, but they cost, linearly, an extra 20,000 gold pieces per extra piece of AC but your opposition only has 3 articles to add an extra piece of AC, but they cost cost 10,000 gold pieces per extra piece of AC to improve, who do you think is going to come ahead in the AC department?

Consider the fact that the scale is actually steeper for the monk than linear, and you can see why your AC will be need to several times higher than the highest listed AC in the book of 130+ before you come ahead. And still, STILL, if your DM arbitrarily sticks to the magic list I posted above, your monk will come ahead. Somehow, I doubt it's worth it.


Re: Epic Spellcasting. Even if you use this system 'honestly', without the mitigating factors, this method to AC is doomed to failure considering how hard it is to first raise the enhancement bonus--raising the spellcraft DC--noticably higher than your regular level and then high enough so that you will pull ahead of a fighter. Considering that you can get more bang for your buck just by investing in the armor seed (which not only will yield more AC, but will benefit EVERYONE), I really don't think that it's worth it.

Back on the small charger type, is there anything wrong with 4 levels of singh rager?

It's OA, but it's still socks-rockin' awesome.

Yes, it will cost an assload, but the monk has a greater potential for AC.

That's a meaningless statement. Both the Fighter and the Monk have an unlimited potential for AC. Wherever you put the price point, the Monk and the Fighter will have specific AC totals. You can put the price point wherever you want, and that's unlimited. Neither the Monk nor the Fighter ever stop being able to get new bonuses.

With the assumption that for some reason the only possible available items are:

1> Shields
2> Armor
3> Rings of Deflection
4> Gloves of Dexterity
5> Periapts of Wisdom

And not:

* Amulets of Natural Armor
* Helms of Vision
or any of that crazy stuff...

then:

At a price point of eighty four million gold pieces, then the Monk comes out ahead if both of the characters started life with a Dexterity of 33 before gaining enhancement bonuses (perhaps from PAO into a Hoary Hunter?), and you allow the Monk to gain their bonuses for not using a shield when they are benefitting from an Animated shield (which is a sketchy interpretation in 3rd edition and flat illegal in 3.5).

The Fighter at that point has an AC of 201, and the Monk has an AC of 202.

And you know what? I don't give a damn. Because the assumptions made to get to that point are retarded. There are Natural Armor Bonuses to be had. Transforming into a Hoary Hunter gives you a +10 Natural Armor bonus, and amulets of epic natural armor stack.

And you know what else they do? They take up the same slot as a Periapt of Wisdom and provide a better bonus for the cost.

Zing.

Regardless, you know what's really special about an AC of 202? Absolutely nothing. The highest attack bonus in the game is less than 180 - so all ACs over 200 are exactly the same. If your AC doesn't get better until both of you have crested the 200 mark, it doesn't ever get better - because your AC can't actually get any better in terms of protecting you from attacks once it is over 200.

Back on the small charger type, is there anything wrong with 4 levels of singh rager?

Yes.

In 3.5, your mount takes the charge action - you don't. So the Singh Ranger's ability doesn't apply.

In 3rd edition, it's still interprable to be a non-useful combination. While it lets you put the full attack at the end of a charge - it doesn't actually allow you to make a full attack with a melee weapon while on a moving mount.

Now, that there is a piece of trivia that your DM probably doesn't even know. I suspect that Andy Collins and Skip Williams probably don't even know that piece of trivia. If people let your Lion's Pounce ability function while mounted (the vast majority of people who will let you have the class at all would allow you to do so), then there's nothing wrong with it.

-Username17

A quick question, most likely dumb, but here goes . . .

If I had a mounted dwarven defender, could he use defensive stance while his mount was moving? Or is that just cheating?

Asking before I actually do it in an upcoming adventure.

"While in a defensive stance, a defender cannot use skills or abilities that would require him to shift his position."

Seeing as Ride is based on Dex, I find it hard to believe you can use it in a DS. But beyond that and the sheer dumbness of a dwarf on a horse it looks OK, technically.

[Heh. I got .sig'ed ]

Count wrote:If I had a mounted dwarven defender, could he use defensive stance while his mount was moving?

That is deeply unclear. The Dwarven Defender's description says that you can't use abilities that require you to "shift positions", but it gives you a dodge bonus. Which means that defensive stance is an ability that requires you to shift positions, and therefore can't be used while you are in a defensive stance.

Or maybe not. You see, "shift positions" is not a game term for normal movement at all. "Shifting Positions" is defined as:

* Changing your opinion about other people (Diplomacy can shift people's position to friendly, intimidate can shift people's opinion to unfriendly).

* Planar Movement (both the Horizon Walker's free dimension door and of course plane shift are described as shifting, as is the movement of an Ethereal Filcher or Phase Spider from the EThereal to the Prime and Back again).

* Jumping Hosts while Magic Jarred.

* Changing Forms, such as from Shapechange or Lycanthropy.

So apparently, the literal meaning of the Defensive Stance is that you can't leave the plane you are on in order to keep the defensive bonuses. You can still run around and stab people if you want.

Or is that just cheating?

Probably. The intent was almost certainly that you stayed in one 5' square like a sucker and got relatively minor bonuses for a short period and then become tired and despondent. It's fantastically underpowered as envisioned, so letting people take a flying leap through a hole in the rules in order to move around and still get the bonus is pretty small.

Remember, the Constitution Bonuses go away, so since you are by definition a multiclassed dwarven Warrior Type - and thus noone in their right mind is going to throw a Fort Save at you to begin with - the Con Bonuses are basically wasted. So the class gives +2 Strength, +4 AC, and +2 to Will and Reflex Saves for one fight each day. That's kind of like getting Polymorphed, or receiving some other nice buff spell for one fight. It's really not that big of a deal.

As in - if it had no penalties at all, it wouldn't be a big deal.

However, it is supposed to prevent you from moving, which since it doesn't give you a Dex Bonus (and thus does not help your archery in any meaningful fashion), essentially just takes you out of the fight. There's just no reason for this ability. And no reason for this class.

Go run with it.

-Username17

FrankTrollman wrote:So apparently, the literal meaning of the Defensive Stance is that you can't leave the plane you are on in order to keep the defensive bonuses. You can still run around and stab people if you want.

As the two examples given for "abilities that would require him (the Dwarven Defender) to shift his position" are Move Silently and Jump -- both of which deal with movement, and not planeshifting -- this argument doesn't seem to work. So, you're right, it would therefore be "cheating" to allow a defensively standing Defender to move around.

That still doesn't answer the question about the mounted Defender, though. There's nothing in the defensive stance passage that deals with the Defender being moved by something else (probably to avoid having Defenders knocked out of defensive stance through bull rushing and the like). If a DM rules that use of the Ride skill requires position shifting, then it wouldn't work...but there's nothing in the RAW for or against that one, as far as I know.

FrankTrollman wrote:However, it is supposed to prevent you from moving, which since it doesn't give you a Dex Bonus (and thus does not help your archery in any meaningful fashion), essentially just takes you out of the fight. There's just no reason for this ability. And no reason for this class.

Certainly no reason for a PC to take it, unless your DM delights in throwing you into combats with a "hold the line" aspect to them. Defenders aren't terribly bad NPC cannon fodder (ie. they hold the line whilst the more important main characters make their escape, or whip up some magic, or something), although...I don't know, I would kind of expect a class that focuses on holding the front line to grant some kind of specific stability or immobility bonus versus trips and bull rushes, above and beyond the dwarven racial +4. It would certainly make more sense than giving them Trap Sense bonuses they have. Combined with the strange and largely useless feat prereqs, I have to agree -- this is just a poorly designed class.

Draco wrote:As the two examples given for "abilities that would require him (the Dwarven Defender) to shift his position" are Move Silently and Jump -- both of which deal with movement, and not planeshifting -- this argument doesn't seem to work.

Those two examples have been pointedly removed from the 3.5 SRD, with the sentence in question ending in a period after the word "position".

3.5 SRD wrote:While in a defensive stance, a defender cannot use skills or abilities that would require him to shift position.

You can make of that what you will, but using the Open Gaming Content rules on this - we have to either use the common English version of "shifting positions" which includes swinging an axe or dodging blows; or the in-game definition, which is apparently limited to changing from one plane, opinion, form, or body to another.

Note that you don't have to resist Bullrushes - so you can have a kobold follower push you around if you want. If he's well enough trained you get to do all of your moving during other people's turns and then get to Full Attack on yours.

On the "no riding horses" front:

SRD wrote:Your mount acts on your initiative as you direct it. You move at its speed, but the mount uses its action to move.

So despite the fact that it is your mount which counts as using the move action, and your mount which counts as using the charge action, you are still considered to be moving. So if you read the Dwarven Defender's limitation as "no moving" instead of what it actually says - you are totally SOL.

-Username17

FrankTrollman wrote:Those two examples have been pointedly removed from the 3.5 SRD, with the sentence in question ending in a period after the word "position".

That's...extremely odd. The addition of those two examples in the 3.5 DMG makes it extremely clear regarding the meaning of "shifting positions". I wonder if they thought it was self-explanitory?

Frank wrote:You can make of that what you will, but using the Open Gaming Content rules on this - we have to either use the common English version of "shifting positions" which includes swinging an axe or dodging blows; or the in-game definition, which is apparently limited to changing from one plane, opinion, form, or body to another.

Again, this is extremely odd. Personally, I think it's fairly obvious what it's supposed to mean -- that is, the Defender in defensive stance can't intentionally move (although he can be moved) from the 5 x 5 square he's in at the start of the stance. The inclusion of the Moble Defense ability, which would be pretty useless, not to mention utterly stupid, if we were using the "plane or shape shifting" definition of "shifting positions", still seems to imply this reading of the ability. Still, just one more example of AC and the gang being totally imprecise with their wording. At this point, it's not even fun finding these little glitches anymore.

Frank wrote:So despite the fact that it is your mount which counts as using the move action, and your mount which counts as using the charge action, you are still considered to be moving.

Hmm...yeah, I'd agree, this would rule out the mounted Defender, and it doesn't interfere with the whole bull rush / getting pushed around thing, since that would qualify more as "being moved" rather than "moving".

The SRD tends to remove "for example" text that would otherwise be included in the core rulebook. See Natural Spell for another example.

Oberoni wrote:The SRD tends to remove "for example" text that would otherwise be included in the core rulebook. See Natural Spell for another example.

It sure does, and often some other text as well. I honestly don't know why. Maybe the words "such as" are considered closed content. Anything's possible after they claimed the Cthonian and the Night Monsters as closed content (AKA, Mindflayer and Displacer Beast, about 40 years before Gygax touched a mimeograph machine).

So here's the breakdown:

DMG, 3rd edition wrote:...position, such as Move Silently or Jump.

DMG, 3.5 wrote:...position, such as Move Silently or Jump.

3.5 SRD wrote:...position.

:shrug:

Regardless, the Dwarven Defender has many many problems:

* Doesn't have any skills (there are only 4 class skills on the list).
* Only tangible benefit of the class is not normally stackable with Rage (which does the same thing and is better) as it has an alignment conflict.
* The class has no particular benefits at higher level.
* The class' benefits are profoundly unexceptional at low level.
* The class has bizzarely massive prereqs which prevent most characters from taking it at all.
* The only reason to get Dodge is to qualify for the mobility feats - which a Dwarven Defender does not benefit from.
* The only reason to take Toughness is to make up for a low Constitution and bad hit die - of which a prospective Dwarven Defender has neither.

Basically, if you meet the massive prereqs of the class and start taking it, then by level 9 you can be a pathetic also ran to what a Barbarian can be at 2nd level. This might be someone's idea of a joke - but I'm not laughing.

If for some reason I thought it important to fix the Dwarven Defender, I would do so thusly:

Dwarven Defender

Prerequisites:
Race: Dwarf
Alignment: Any Lawful
Feats: Endurance, Combat Reflexes
Base Attack Bonus: +5

Dwarven Defender
Hit Die: d12
BAB: Excellent (+1/Level)
Saves: Fort: Good; Reflex: Good; Willpower: Good
Skills: Appraise, Balance, Climb, Craft, Intimidate, Knowledge (Engineering, Geography, Nature, Dungeoneering ), Listen, Sense Motive, Spot.
Skills/Level: 2+Int Bonus

Level Benefit
1 Defensive Stance.
2 Dwarven Dodge +1, Uncanny Dodge.
3 Strong Defense, Giant Fighting.
4 Dwarven Dodge +2, Hold the Line.
5 Mobile Defense, Magic Defense.

Defensive Stance (Ex): A Dwarven Defender can enter a Defensive Stance as a free action. The character gains a +2 bonus to strength and a +4 Dodge bonus while in a defensive stance. The defensive stance ends the moment the defender moves or is moved out of the square(s) he occupied when the stance began. Entering the defensive stance is a free action, but it may only be taken during the defender's turn, and only after completing his normal actions without moving (even a five foot step). There is no limit to the number of rounds a single defensvie stance can last, nor is there a limit to the number of times a character can enter a defensive stance.

Dwarven Dodge (Ex): A Dwarven Defender of 2nd level or higher gains a +1 Dodge Bonus to AC. This bonus increases to +2 when the Dwarven Defender achieves 4th level.

Uncanny Dodge (Ex): A Dwarven Defender gains the Uncanny Dodge ability at 2nd level. If the Defender already has this ability, he instead gains the Improved Uncanny Dodge ability.

Strong Defense (Ex): A Dwarven Defender of 3rd level or higher gains an additional +2 bonus to strength while in a defensive stance (ie.: the bonus to strenght from Defensive Stance rises to +4).

Giant Fighting (Ex): A Dwarven Defender of 3rd level or higher becomes exceptionally adept at fighting large enemies. The Defender gains a bonus to attacks against large and larger creatures. The Defender gains a +1 bonus to hit Large Creatures, a +2 bonus to hit Huge Creatures, a +4 bonus to hit Gargantuan Creatures, and a +8 bonus to hit Colossal Creatures. The Dwarven Defender also gains a dodge bonus to AC against attacks from creatures larger than Medium sized equal to his bonus to hit them.

Hold the Line (Ex): A Dwarven Defender of 4th level or more treats the charge action as an action which provokes attacks of opportunity from him. So a Dwarven Defender would be able to take an attack of opportunity against an enemy who charged into a square he threatens, in addition to whatever attack of opportunity he would be allowed were the charge to carry the opponent through or out of his threatened area.

Mobile Defense: A Dwarven Defender of 5th level can enter a Defensive Stance even if he takes a 5 foot step that round. Furthermore, the Dwarven Defender can retain his Defensive Stance bonus if he moves or is moved no more than 5 feet during a round.

Magic Defense (Ex): A Dwarven Defender of 5th level gains a +2 bonus on all saves while in a defensive stance.

---

There, that's a class that would be worth something, and encourage people to actually take it and possibly fight in a semi-static and defensive posture.

-Username17

Quick question: why is knowledge: nature on the class list?

Count_Arioch_the_28th at [unixtime wrote:1078215446[/unixtime]]Quick question: why is knowledge: nature on the class list?

It's a nod to the fact that many people (myself included) play with a more streamlined system of knowledges.

For example: many people drop "Knowledge Nobility" because "Knowledge: History" includes knowledge of important events, and nobility.

For example: many people drop "Knowledge: Religion" because "Knowledge: Arcana" includes cryptic symbols and obscure groups - which superficially would seem to include holy symbols and religious organizations.

And of course: many people drop "Knowledge: Dungeoneering" because it is totally retarded. Every single thing it does is already handled by other knowledges.

In a streamlined system of knowledges, the workings of cave netoworks, underground rivers, cave-ins and such are handled with Knowledge: Nature in the same way that the workings of ridge lines, above ground rivers and avalanches are. The fact that natural events are in a "Dungeon Environment" does not magically put them into another skill.

And thus, having a few ranks in Knowledge: Nature is both expected and helpful for a Dwarven Defender.

-Username17

In an effort to get this back on subject, here's a fine bit of cheese based on the Emancipated Spawn. Keep the following things in mind:

* PrCs do not go away when you no longer have the prereqs unless they specifically say that they do somewhere in the PrC itself.

* The spellcasters in D&D do not gain an additional 3rd level spell when they hit caster level 6 - instead they replace the base value of 3rd level spells per day with a 2.

* The emancipated spawn is pretty funny. It gives you the feats you used to have if you still meet the prereqs of the feats, not of the

OK, first of all, make a crappy character. I mean, a really crappy character. In this case, a Cleric 3/ Wizard 3/ Mystic Theurge 4/ Geomancer 10. Furthermore, you're going to take a Vow of Poverty at 1st level and load up on the Exalted Feats even though they are totally the suck. Pick two domains which give bonus feats. Then, instead of doing something sensible like putting all the Geomancer caster levels into Wizard - instead mix them so that you end up casting as a Wizard 12/Cleric 12. Now get killed.

Not by just anything, either, you want to get killed by something that will animate your sorry corpse as a worthless walking spawn of crap. I suggest a Spectre, because it is able to get Emancipated Spawn right out of the box. Normally this would be bad, as it makes you CR 7 and ECL "14", but in this case it's all part of the plan. The next thing you do is take 2 levels of Emancipated Spawn. Don't take the third because it will frickin blow your ECL off into crazy land.

So now you are a Spectre or a fiendish Vampire Spawn or whatever, and you get all of your spellcasting power back at level 16. Sort of, because you currently only have one spell base at each level 0 to 6 of Cleric and Wizard spells. But you do have all 10 levels worth of class features from Geomancer (which means among other things that you can cast in armor and prepare spells twice a day) and all your old feats that you still qualify for. Naturally, of course, you are not going to be living up to a Vow of Poverty anymore, so that one is gone - but all the bonus feats you got from it carry over.

Here's where it all gets weird. You voluntarily get resurrected. You lose a level - which puts you down to 112,500 XP, and your entire pile of Spectre hit dice and LA goes away. Which means that at this point you get to select 13 levels worth of anything you want. I suggest taking 10 levels of Mystic Theurge and maybe some levels of Hathran Witch or something. It doesn't really matter.

You see, at this point, you have all the feats of a 20th level Vow of Poverty Character and all the feats of a 15th level normal character. In order to make things even more hilarious, you cast spells like a a 22nd level Wizard and like a 22nd level Cleric at the same time before you even select your 3 final levels.

Note that you have the normal spells per day of a 20th level + Wizard and a 20th level + Cleric, despite being 15th level.

Hillarity ensues, neh?

-Username17

Frank, this build is bogus.

Frank Trollman wrote:* If you are willing to be evil, you can be a cleric archer without ever being a "Cleric" at all. A Wizard 5/ Mindbender 1/ Ur-Priest 1/ MyTh 10/ Hospitaler 1/ Contemplative 1/ Master of Shrouds 1, for example, has a Wizard caster level of 16, and an Ur-Priest caster level of 22. In addition, she has no less than 5 domains (of which 3, are, unfortunately, Death, Evil, and Protection), and a Prestige Domain. She has proficiency in every martial weapon, so the War Domain is not strictly speaking a necessity.

You cannot enter Contemplative from Ur-Priest due to the entry requirements of the relationship with the deity. Monte confirmed this as well as the vast majority of people who debated this over on the WotC boards. You cannot even finagle the verbiage of the pre-req.'s to make it work (as you are wont to do in some cases like this). Ur-Priest "steal" divine magic/power .... Contemplative requires interaction with your deity. Even wrangling the words to make it sound like you are "contemplating" with nothingness or using some chicanery as a divinity-stealing Ur-Priest to simulate "contemplation" doesn't hold water either.

Guest wrote:
Contemplative requires interaction with your deity.

Balogna...you can also get there by having a heart to heart with a Solar. One Planar Ally casting and you're in like Flynn.

Game On,
fbmf

I think the idea of a Ur-Priest Contemplative is pretty shady, but it's not illegal by certain readings of the rules. The problem is that a Ur-Priest 1 cannot qualify for Mystic Theurge.

-Desdan