Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Gerdreg 05-07-05, 07:55 PM	I'm sure this has been covered at some point, but is this feat really good, or is there an error in the descriptions? The short description says it stacks monk and rogue levels for sneak attack damage and the long description says rogue and monk levels stack for purposes of unarmed damage. Together, this is a very powerful combo. Lets take a very simple build, Rogue 1/ Monk 19... BAB +14 (+14/+14/+14/+9/+4) Unarmed Sneak Attack Damage (with Fists of Iron from CW) = 2d10 + 11d6 + str bonus, per attack. I think that is pretty crazy damage with minimal optimization. With full optimization, equipment, ect., I think this feat could create some top ten contenders for best melee damage in a round, unless the feat gets changed in errata. At the cost of one monk level and and a feat, you get 10d6 worth sneak attack, this HAS to be broken. Any thoughts?
Kintara 05-07-05, 08:04 PM	Text trumps table. That's the official rule. Ignore the table's Sneak Attack thing.
Gerdreg 05-07-05, 08:10 PM	Text trumps table. That's the official rule. Ignore the table's Sneak Attack thing. Could you please point out the location of the official rule out to me? I think that rule makes sense in a case where the table and the text contradict eachother, but in this case it may in fact be a matter of the sentence missing out of the text description.
Kintara 05-07-05, 08:21 PM	Download any recent Errata. It'll say that at the top of the first page. Edit: If the table says one thing and the text doesn't mention it, that's a contradiction. Two different sources say two different things. "Maybe they forgot." Maybe, but, if so, then it'll be mentioned in the errata for CV.
Gerdreg 05-07-05, 08:34 PM	Thx for the speedy rules replies, I realize most frown on that here. To continue with the spirit of optimization, I'll leave this tidbit. If you go by only the text description, the reverse of the above build is still pretty good. Monk 1/ Rogue 19 will give a Rogue a 2d10 unarmed attack damage (4d8 with the Improved Natural Attack feat from the MM). As 20 Rogue doesn't give any extra stuff, this is a pretty good trade for 1 BAB and a feat. You won't wanna flurry, however, as you cannot flurry in armor and you don't get rid of the -2 to hit until level 9 Monk.
PhaedrusXY 05-07-05, 08:51 PM	If you go by only the text description, the reverse of the above build is still pretty good. Monk 1/ Rogue 19 will give a Rogue a 2d10 unarmed attack damage (4d8 with the Improved Natural Attack feat from the MM). As 20 Rogue doesn't give any extra stuff, this is a pretty good trade for 1 BAB and a feat. You won't wanna flurry, however, as you cannot flurry in armor and you don't get rid of the -2 to hit until level 9 Monk.It's "pretty good", but it sure isn't even remotely close to "broken". A 20th level rogue will have one more point of BAB, and his weapon should be doing about as much as the 1monk/19rogue's fists are. The 1monk/19rogue will have a harder time penetrating some kinds of damage reduction than the 20 rogue will, unless he uses a weapon instead of his fists (which defeats the purpose of Aesthetic Rogue in the first place). The 1monk/19 rogue is also not getting a feat for free, because he had to spend a feat on Aesthetic Rogue.
RadicalTaoist 05-07-05, 09:56 PM	Aesthetic Rogue? Does that give the Craft [home design] skill a bonus? Sorry, but that's one of the funnier typos I've seen before.
PhaedrusXY 05-07-05, 10:21 PM	Aesthetic Rogue? Does that give the Craft [home design] skill a bonus? Sorry, but that's one of the funnier typos I've seen before. :pbbbtt: :raincloud At least I didn't type Aesthetic Rouge. :D
RadicalTaoist 05-07-05, 11:04 PM	:pbbbtt: :raincloud At least I didn't type Aesthetic Rouge. :D That would cause a critical OVERLOL'D.
Caelic 05-08-05, 10:03 AM	Hey, that particular typo has a grand tradition in AD&D. The first edition PHB described monks as "Pious aesthetics." "I am Li Ho Pan, Superior Grand Master of Flower Arranging."