Your opinon on Tome of Battle

[Vogonjeltz]

What? It's not, y'know, two progressions. That wouldn't even make sense. It's just one big progression. Not every part of a progression needs to individually progress. A good example of this sort of thing is vow of poverty. It's all one big progression, arranged on a table, except some of the abilities are completely static. If something were to grant you vow of poverty progression, then you would gain all of the abilities of vow of poverty, while if something were to grant you vow of poverty feat progression, then you would get only the feats.

There is only one progression. In that at least, we are in total agreement. That progression is increases in the damage that unarmed strikes deal.

What isn't in that, nor even a progression at all, is the bonus feat granted by the monk class feature. Note it is not listed on the damage progression tables at all.

The change is from not having the feat to having the feat. The feat makes the monk's unarmed strike better. By definition it's part of the progression.

a movement or development toward a destination or a more advanced state, especially gradually or in stages.

Stages, plural. It requires multiple steps, not one step. So no gaining a single unchanging feat is not in and of itself a progression, by definition.

If either you or eggynack are using some non-standard meaning of the word progression it would be helpful to explain that when responding.

[Fax Celestis]

Stages, plural. It requires multiple steps, not one step. So no gaining a single unchanging feat is not in and of itself a progression, by definition.

They are using the game's definition of "progression", which means it appears on the class' table.

Bringing a dictionary to a D&D argument is like bringing a thesaurus to a calculus class and expecting it to be more than tangentially relevant.

[malonkey1]

They are using the game's definition of "progression", which means it appears on the class' table.

Bringing a dictionary to a D&D argument is like bringing a thesaurus to a calculus class and expecting it to be more than tangentially relevant.

I dunno, I think it could strike a chord. Although, that may be a sine that things are getting too complex to imagine.

[Vhaidara]

Stages, plural. It requires multiple steps, not one step. So no gaining a single unchanging feat is not in and of itself a progression, by definition.

If either you or eggynack are using some non-standard meaning of the word progression it would be helpful to explain that when responding.

a movement or development toward a destination or a more advanced state, especially gradually or in stages.

Note the word especially. That does not mean always. Therefore, it is not required that there be more than two stages.

By the way, there are stages.
Stage 1: No Improved Unarmed Strike. This occurs before level one of Monk/USS
Stage 2: Improved Unarmed Strike, and increased unarmed damage. This occurs at Monk/USS 1.
Stage 3: Unarmed Damage continues to increase. This occurs at Monk/USS 4
Stage 4: Unarmed Damage continues to increase. This occurs at Monk/USS 8
Stage 5: Unarmed Damage continues to increase. This occurs at Monk/USS 12
Stage 6: Unarmed Damage continues to increase. This occurs at Monk/USS 16
Stage 7: Unarmed Damage continues to increase. This occurs at Monk/USS 20

[Brookshw]

I think you've just come up with the caption for this entire thread.

Your Opinion on Tome of Battle:
^%$^&%$^*ing Pelor.

We just need a photo and we've got a demotivator.

... Seriously, though, that was /thread.

I haven't found a good pic (yet) for Pelor but will work on it. In the meantime

Spoiler

Show

Edit: Hmmmm, maybe this one.

Spoiler

Show

[eggynack]

Stages, plural. It requires multiple steps, not one step. So no gaining a single unchanging feat is not in and of itself a progression, by definition.

If either you or eggynack are using some non-standard meaning of the word progression it would be helpful to explain that when responding.

I'm using the same definition you are. As Kelderath notes, improved unarmed strike is part of stage one of the monk's unarmed strike progression. The subsequent stages only feature increases in unarmed strike damage, but that doesn't preclude the capacity of that first stage to have a feat. Gaining a single unchanging feat is not in and of itself a progression, but when you pair it with a bunch of other abilities gained over time, that is a progression. You've provided a definition of progression, and the total ability unarmed strike perfectly fits that definition.

[Thrice Dead Cat]

Adding to the Unarmed Swordsage progression argument, having the feat versus not having the feat is a binary progression gained at the first level of Monk. Yes, there's another progression that boosts that damage every so many levels, but those two different rates of progressions are apart of one larger progression. The adaptation is legitimately only one sentence of text, but it never specifies damage as eggynack has been saying. It is:

...give the swordsage the monk's unarmed strike progression and remove his light armor profiency.

Someone who progressed into Monk 1 would, from the Unarmed Strike class feature progression immediately gain a boost to his unarmed strike damage and the Improved Unarmed Strike feat. That's the change from not having the progression to having the progression, but such is and of itself a progression, even if our hypothetical multiclass monk or unarmed swordsage only ever has one class that boosts unarmed strike damage.

Yes, it's terrible editing and added in almost as an afterthought, but that's what we have for the adaptation. Despite being just one sentence, I agree that it works as eggynack describes it.

[Anlashok]

Feels a bit weird that we're arguing over the explicity of language expressly presented as informal suggestion rather than formal rules.

[Thrice Dead Cat]

Feels a bit weird that we're arguing over the explicity of language expressly presented as informal suggestion rather than formal rules.

Despite not having its own full on table and what not, the book's single sentence does a damn good job of getting the point of what I expect most people not coursed in the study and practice of argumentation to mean. You give up wearing any armor without penalty in exchange for hitting as good as a monk in terms of damage and not provoking by doing so. Yeah, there's still the garbage in the default Swordsage text about not getting the AC bonus in no armor versus in light armor, plus all the other typographical errors in the book from the stance progressions not matching when new stances show up and the Jade Phoenix Mage having the exact same skill list as the class before it - just off the top of my head.

Beyond those annoying issues and the non-errata for them, I still love the book. Yeah, it seems to have more errors per page than other 3.5 books, but that's probably a fault of coming out so late in the system's lifespan. Also, nearly any game will require some DM arbitration during the course of play for one reason or another, so at least some of these issues are negligible. It may just be the Playground, but as RAW is the only tool we have to communicate with each other in terms of game mechanics, we assume that's what's in play unless a poster gives us a set of houserules. I can't speak for everyone, but I personally will assume monks are proficient with their unarmed strikes and that drown-healing, and so on won't work in an actual game.

[Curmudgeon]

Those are for the Human bonus feat, not Monk bonus feat.

Then your conclusion is that the Human Monk Starting Package gets nothing for their Monk Bonus Feat class feature? The class immediately before (Human Fighter Starting Package) gets the following:

Bonus Feat (Fighter): If Strength is 13 or higher, Power Attack; if Strength is 12 or lower, Improved Initiative instead.
Bonus Feat (Human): Blind-Fight.

You'll see that the decision tree is for their class bonus feat.

[Segev]

There is a significant difference between "unintended consequences," which includes things like "maybe they didn't mean for monks to pick up this feat even though they made an alternate class feature that could let them do it if you realized it was possible," and "overly strict reading of the RAW," which includes things like, "despite the fact that the writers went out of their way to include language that explicitly permits monks to operate in what would be the straight-forward reading of their class features, the words they used can be interpreted to exclude the obvious and clear possibility of actually being able to do anything they are made out to be able to do."

If you have more than one way to read some rules, and a plain-english reading can allow something to operate in a sensible fashion, it is hardly violating RAW to consider VERY CLEAR intent in choosing the interpretation of the RAW to use.

[Curmudgeon]

If you have more than one way to read some rules, and a plain-english reading can allow something to operate in a sensible fashion, it is hardly violating RAW to consider VERY CLEAR intent in choosing the interpretation of the RAW to use.

The situation for the Monk Bonus Feat class feature doesn't permit more than one reading. The Monk can select feats they don't meet the prerequisites for. However, the general rule is that you must satisfy prerequisites to select or use any feat. It's a one sentence rule, and there's no ambiguity.

[georgie_leech]

The situation for the Monk Bonus Feat class feature doesn't permit more than one reading. The Monk can select feats they don't meet the prerequisites for. However, the general rule is that you must satisfy prerequisites to select or use any feat. It's a one sentence rule, and there's no ambiguity.

It's also unambiguous that Monk's don't have proficiency with Unarmed Strikes, that being a Simple Weapon that doesn't appear on their specific list. Monk is a class that 99%+ of DM's will technically houserule anyway.

[Gwendol]

Except there's absolutely no trumping anywhere in the Monk class entry. The Bonus Feat text never mentions the Monk using those choices. The term "select" (the exact word appearing in the general feat rules) is used four times, while there isn't even a synonym for "use".

Ah, that one again. I gave you the example of the Wolf entry in the MM. It has Weapon Focus (bite), without being proficient with said weapon, yet still benefits from the feat. I think you apply an overly restrictive reading of the rules in this case.

[OldTrees1]

The situation for the Monk Bonus Feat class feature doesn't permit more than one reading. The Monk can select feats they don't meet the prerequisites for. However, the general rule is that you must satisfy prerequisites to select or use any feat. It's a one sentence rule, and there's no ambiguity.

It is RAW that RAW does not contain what WotC expects the consumers to consider typos. (Ex: Swordsages do not get x6 skill points at 1st level) This may or may not be relevant to this argument.

[eggynack]

Ah, that one again. I gave you the example of the Wolf entry in the MM. It has Weapon Focus (bite), without being proficient with said weapon, yet still benefits from the feat. I think you apply an overly restrictive reading of the rules in this case.

That argument doesn't really work. Per the animal type entry, animals are proficient with their natural weapons.

[Curmudgeon]

It is RAW that RAW does not contain what WotC expects the consumers to consider typos. (Ex: Swordsages do not get x6 skill points at 1st level) This may or may not be relevant to this argument.

I don't believe it's relevant here. The Bonus Feat class feature uses the term "select" four times, each time spelled correctly and without grammatical problems. It's not an issue of typing incorrectly; it's an issue of only including one exception to a rule where two exceptions would give the class extra help. It is worth noting that, years after the class was written, Wizards of the Coast stated online that the Monk class doesn't need extra help.

[Gwendol]

That argument doesn't really work. Per the animal type entry, animals are proficient with their natural weapons.

Sure, but where does it say that anyone is proficient with unarmed attacks? Where is that proficiency listed? In other words, can anyone not be proficient with an unarmed strike?

[Necroticplague]

Sure, but where does it say that anyone is proficient with unarmed attacks? Where is that proficiency listed? In other words, can anyone not be proficient with an unarmed strike?

Well, the Unarmed Strike is listed as a simple weapon, so anyone proficient with all simple weapons is proficient with the unarmed strike.

[Curmudgeon]

Sure, but where does it say that anyone is proficient with unarmed attacks?

Player's Handbook, page 100, in the Simple Weapon Proficiency feat:

You understand how to use all types of simple weapons in combat (see Table 7–5: Weapons, page 116, for a list of simple weapons).

"Unarmed strike" is the second entry in the Unarmed Attacks subcategory under Simple Weapons on the referenced table.

[Gwendol]

Well, the Unarmed Strike is listed as a simple weapon, so anyone proficient with all simple weapons is proficient with the unarmed strike.

Listed, yes, but is it a simple weapon?

An unarmed strike is always considered a light weapon.

and

The damage from an unarmed strike is considered weapon damage for the purposes of effects that give you a bonus on weapon damage rolls.

It is considered a light weapon, and the damage is considered weapon damage for purposes of effects that give bonus to weapon damage rolls. It is thus not actually a weapon, and so proficiencies don't apply.

[Curmudgeon]

Listed, yes, but is it a simple weapon?

Carnac has answered your question before you asked it, here.

[Alent]

It is considered a light weapon, and the damage is considered weapon damage for purposes of effects that give bonus to weapon damage rolls. It is thus not actually a weapon, and so proficiencies don't apply.

Wouldn't the intent of the specific "Considered a light weapon" be to permit the Monk to benefit from Weapon Finesse, rather than to make the monk non-proficient with his own body?

[Necroticplague]

Wouldn't the intent of the specific "Considered a light weapon" be to permit the Monk to benefit from Weapon Finesse, rather than to make the monk non-proficient with his own body?

Nah, if they wanted that, they could just list "unarmed strike" as a natural weapon, which is finessable (and would allow them to remove several "natural weapons or unarmed strikes" to just "natural weapons", saving space and ink). The only difference would be lack of iteratives. And how they interact with using other weapons (because, currently, you counterintuitively use the rules for two-weapon fighting, not multiple natural weapons).

[Divayth Fyr]

Then your conclusion is that the Human Monk Starting Package gets nothing for their Monk Bonus Feat class feature?

And by your reading, what do they get for their Human Bonus Feat?

[Gwendol]

Agreed, but in it's description it is to be considered a weapon for specific purposes. Unarmed strikes are not weapons in this game and so it is unclear if proficiency is actually required.
Look at the rules for grappling:

Attack Your Opponent

You can make an attack with an unarmed strike, natural weapon, or light weapon against another character you are grappling. You take a -4 penalty on such attacks.

Why is the unarmed strike spelled out if it's just a light weapon, seems rather unnecessary to list it twice?

[fishyfishyfishy]

Monk being a bad class has little bearing on the virtues of the Tomb of Battle. I think this thread has been derailed long enough and you guys should open a new monkday thread for this instead of continuing this one off topic.

[Fax Celestis]

Monk being a bad class has little bearing on the virtues of the Tomb of Battle. I think this thread has been derailed long enough and you guys should open a new monkday thread for this instead of continuing this one off topic.

Came here to say this.

[Fax Celestis]

But this really is off-topic for the Tome of Battle and your opinions thereof. I forget; is the morning star a style weapon for any of the 9 disciplines?

Desert Wind: Scimitar, light mace, light pick, spear, falchion; Tumble.
Devoted Spirit: Falchion, greatclub, maul, longsword; Intimidate.
Diamond Mind: Rapier, shortspear, trident, bastard sword (katana); Concentration.
Iron Heart: Bastard sword, dwarven waraxe, longsword, two-bladed sword; Balance.
Setting Sun: Short sword, Nunchaku, unarmed strike, quarterstaff; Sense Motive.
Shadow Hand: Dagger, sai, Siangham, short sword, spiked chain, unarmed strike; Hide.
Stone Dragon: Greatsword, greataxe, heavy mace, unarmed strike; Balance.
Tiger Claw: Kama, kukri, handaxe, claw, greataxe, unarmed strike; Jump.
While Raven: Longsword, battleaxe, Warhammer, greatsword, halberd; Diplomacy.

[Flickerdart]

Monk being a bad class has little bearing on the virtues of the Tomb of Battle.

I didn't know Battle had died.