Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Grimmsfeld 03-12-07, 05:09 PM	Um...just checking on this; I'm I'm reading these feats right, you don't actually have to have any levels in monk to gain the benefits, right? You could be...say...a pyschic warrior, take monastic training [Psychic Warrior] at first level, then at third take Tashalatora [Psychic Warrior] (From secrets of Sarlona), and by say, level 10, be psychic warrior 10, with unarmed strike at 1d10 damage, flurry of blows at no penalty, and +2 to your AC. Granted, you'd still have to take the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, since by not taking that 1st level of monk, your unarmed strikes would still provoke, and you wouldn't gain your wisdom to AC, but whatever... So, am I right on this? And sorry if this's already been posted, for some reason, I can only go back one page on the board.
the8bitdeity 03-12-07, 05:26 PM	doesn't monastic training have a prereq of unarmed strike class feature?
Grimmsfeld 03-12-07, 06:02 PM	If it did, I wouldn't've brought this up. And yes, I've checked the errata.
Belabras 03-12-07, 08:23 PM	Monastic Training doesn't do anything for your unarmed strike damage, at least not directly. The effect of the feat is sumed up by the first two sentences in the description "Pick one class. Taking levels in this class does not prevent you from taking monk levels." The description goes on to outline the normal barriers to multiclassing monks, to show what it is this feat allows you to bypass. It's not a mechanic for slipping some kind of Gestalt build into regular play, just a way for monk's to multiclass and still be able to go back to monk levels at a later time.
Cifer 03-12-07, 09:18 PM	Belabras has a good point here. You might want to read what the feat actually does for you - adding in any way to unarmed damage, armor class or anything else monkish is not part of it...
Grimmsfeld 03-12-07, 11:56 PM	Go ahead and reread my original post. I've got time. Ok... Got it? Good. There are TWO parts to this equation here, and I know Monastic Training doesn't do squat. It's a prerequisite for Tashalatora, which lets your chosen psionic class stack with your monk levels for unarmed damage, AC bonus, and Flurry of Blows bonus. Reading comprehension FTW.
Kid SixXx 03-13-07, 07:27 AM	Maybe it's me but I think you answered your own question.
MDosantos 03-13-07, 03:24 PM	(...)It's a prerequisite for Tashalatora, which lets your chosen psionic class stack with your monk levels for unarmed damage, AC bonus, and Flurry of Blows bonus. I think you just answered yourself... you need monk levels to stack them with, it just dosn't give out monk abilities out of nothing...
Deekin 03-13-07, 04:32 PM	My Psi-war 10 levels stack with my monk-0 levels to let me function as if i were a 10-th level monk. 0+x=x
Kid SixXx 03-14-07, 07:08 AM	I think you just answered yourself... you need monk levels to stack them with, it just dosn't give out monk abilities out of nothing... Aha, he did answer his own question.
AvonRekaes 03-14-07, 09:22 AM	What about when a human gets an enhancement bonus to natural armor? As Deekin says, 0 + bonus = bonus. Grimmsfeld, I'd submit a question to the Sage or something, because as you say there is no errata about this, and the situation IS ambiguous, as much as Kid SixXx and MDosantos might not want it to be. It certainly can be read either way. However, there is no specific rule for this situation that says either: "You must have at least one monk level to gain the advantage of this feat" OR: "If you do not have any monk levels, you gain the [pertinent monk abilities] as if you were a monk equal to your psionic class levels." As of right now, it all depends on how lenient your DM is, or how lenient you are of a DM.
Kid SixXx 03-14-07, 10:35 AM	Grimmsfeld, I'd submit a question to the Sage or something, because as you say there is no errata about this, and the situation IS ambiguous, as much as Kid SixXx and MDosantos might not want it to be. Eh, it's been my experience that things are only as ambiguous as your determination to confuse yourself or your anger that a build might not be as effective as you'd like it to be. The specifics of how the enhancement bonuses should be treated is missing and if you don't want the ruling based on an assumption, then eratta or an e-mail to the Sage is the only reasonable alternative.
Cifer 03-14-07, 12:13 PM	What about when a human gets an enhancement bonus to natural armor? As Deekin says, 0 + bonus = bonus. That was the thing I wanted to refer too. However, each such enhancement bonus is followed by the explicit words "Creatures without a natural armor bonus are assumed to have a natural armor bonus of +0". This line is missing for the monks here. So yeah, it's pretty much ambigious.
sidekick 03-15-07, 10:53 AM	I’d agree with the idea of consulting the sage – that is a rather ambiguous wording. It’s probably just some oversight and the errata or sage advice will be to tack on a sentence about having to actually have levels in the monk class. For what it’s worth, I’d say no to your idea if you came to me with that as your DM. It seems like a rather obvious attempt to get around to rules for maximum personal gain. Also Grimmson, I’d suggest that you dial back the tone of your subsequent posts. They could very easily be interpreted (whether you intended it or not) as rather snarky and condescending smarta55 comments. In general the higher the snark & condescention quota a members posts have the less helpful the people around here get. Just a friendly piece of advice. Sorry if it’s come across as anything else. No offence intended.
Cifer 03-15-07, 12:26 PM	I’d agree with the idea of consulting the sage I, on the other hand side, agree with Edy's assessment of the sage and the quality of his answers...
sidekick 03-15-07, 12:35 PM	I, on the other hand side, agree with Edy's assessment of the sage and the quality of his answers... Well it's better than having nothing... sometimes.:rolleyes:
Cifer 03-15-07, 01:10 PM	I disagree. We have something that is better than nothing: Several posters who are more or less well-versed in D&D rules and can spotlight the problem from different perspectives, bringing together all facts to be found. Leaving the actual answering of the question to the individual DM while giving him all the facts we can find sounds better to me than just handing out one answer based on what one man (who, as we all, has been in error several times) has interpreted into what he read.
MDosantos 03-17-07, 05:49 PM	That was the thing I wanted to refer too. However, each such enhancement bonus is followed by the explicit words "Creatures without a natural armor bonus are assumed to have a natural armor bonus of +0". This line is missing for the monks here. So yeah, it's pretty much ambigious. Personally I haven't seen anywhere the words "Creatures without a level in a class are assumed to be at level 0" ;) But well in the end it all depends on the DM... To me it just doesn't feel right
Trannic 03-19-07, 02:19 PM	Ya, I would have to agree with Mdosantos, nowhere in any book does it say that if you don't have a level in a class you are assumed to have a 0 level in that class. In the case of natural armor humans still have skin, so they could be considered to have natural armor, just really weak natural natural. If I haven't trained as a monk, then how could I be a monk? And for that matter, if you've trained as a psychic warrior, does that automatically give you knowledge of monk training? Or Wizard? Or Cleric? Most likely not.
Grimmsfeld 03-23-07, 03:50 AM	Sorry, been away for awhile, and I'm sorry that my last post was a bit pissy-i get defensive when I get called on something that wasn't being questioned. And of course, I'm sorry that I'm going right back into smartass mode... If I haven't trained as a monk, then how could I be a monk? And for that matter, if you've trained as a psychic warrior, does that automatically give you knowledge of monk training? . Iunno...guess I thought that was what the monastic training was for, what with all that time spent training with those monks in their monastery. That's what the feat does in role-playing terms, makes you familiar with monk training. Jackassery aside, if aplayer of mine pitched me a 1st level psychic warrior with Monastic Training and Improved Unarmed strike, describing the character as having grown up in a monastery, but having been gifted with psychic powers, trained his mind a little better than his body.
Grimmsfeld 03-23-07, 03:51 AM	Forgive two posts where the one would do-the Wii has issues when it comes to large posts. As I was saying, I'd likely give that player the benefit of the doubt when level 3 rolls around. RAW or DM fiat? Some of both. I don't think of it as being an nth level manifester with n levels of monk for free. I think of it in a bigger picture. What are the total benefits? In the end, it works out a little better than TWFing with +4 AC and 2d10 unarmed strike damage. Seems a little strong for 2 feats, but not when you consider you need a 3rd feat to do it without penalties and AoO for attacking unarmed. That, and you'd have to take the two feats again if you want to multiclass out of the first psionic class. Seems balanced to me to let the 0 + X=0 rule slide.
Grimmsfeld 03-23-07, 04:44 AM	One more thing before I call it a night. Tashalatora lacks the "if you have levels of 'class y' and monk, those levels stack for..." clause that seemingly all the other ascetic combo feats have. It may be an oversight, but I'm going to stick with my original interpretation, since Ascetic Psion, which appears in the same book includes the text specifying that you need monk levels for it to take full effect.
Trannic 04-18-07, 12:02 PM	All right, going by your monk 0 level logic, and that Tashalatora lets you stack with it, according to your logic anyway, tell me what features a 0 level monk receives because those are the abilities you would gain, not the first level monk abilities. I know you're using the natural armor stacking as an example, but every ability which stacks with natural armor has in it's text that it specifically works with the effective natural armor bonus of 0. I ask you to find a passage in any book that says that you have an effective level, in any class, of 0. If you can, I will agree with your assesment of the feat, otherwise, just like any other feat that allows stacking of class abilities, you would actually have to have those abilities to stack them.
John Q. Mayhem 04-18-07, 07:59 PM	I'd allow it. They want to spend two feats to get monk AC and unarmed attacks instead of psychic warrior armor and weapons? Combined with psychic warriors' access to inertial armor and force screen, it'll be strong (I think), but hey-it's two whole feats! It ought to be. It's an awesome idea, and sounds like a load of fun.
Edymnion 04-18-07, 09:24 PM	I disagree. We have something that is better than nothing: Several posters who are more or less well-versed in D&D rules and can spotlight the problem from different perspectives, bringing together all facts to be found.Right, here on the boards we have what the Sage doesn't, multiple points of view from multiple people with large amounts of experience with the rules. If you can get a simple majority going one way or the other, that is most likely going to be the correct answer. Not counting posts like "I dunno, but I'll guess X", that is.
TheAnthroDM 04-18-07, 10:13 PM	If any of my players tried to pull this stunt I'd have to drop a Quori monolith on their heads. Just like the reason no competent DM allows a Goblin Artificer to take Bind Elemental as a feat, no competent DM would allow either of the two feats you described without a single monk level. In my honest opinion, if you allow someone to take a feat that completely contradicts the flavor of the feat, you need some more time roleplaying and less time rollplaying. But, to each his own I guess. I'd allow it. They want to spend two feats to get monk AC and unarmed attacks instead of psychic warrior armor and weapons? Combined with psychic warriors' access to inertial armor and force screen, it'll be strong (I think), but hey-it's two whole feats! It ought to be. It's an awesome idea, and sounds like a load of fun. 2 out of 15 feats. 16 if you're human. Two whole feats? What a hefty price. :rolleyes:
Belabras 04-18-07, 11:48 PM	If any of my players tried to pull this stunt I'd have to drop a Quori monolith on their heads. Just like the reason no competent DM allows a Goblin Artificer to take Bind Elemental as a feat, no competent DM would allow either of the two feats you described without a single monk level. In my honest opinion, if you allow someone to take a feat that completely contradicts the flavor of the feat, you need some more time roleplaying and less time rollplaying. But, to each his own I guess. 2 out of 15 feats. 16 if you're human. Two whole feats? What a hefty price. :rolleyes: Seconded. Just doesn't pass the "sounds broke so it probably is" rule.
Grimmsfeld 04-21-07, 03:24 AM	So, I'll concede that the combo may seem a little strong without having taken monk levels. Whatever. I don't like, however, the idea that taking a combination of feats that specifically imply that a character has recieved training in something, and allowing him to use that "something" is "contradictory of the flavor of the feat." Using a real world analogy, your argument says that a person that went to med school, but instead, chose a career in entertainment, cannot, at the most basic level, apply a splint to a broken arm because he doesn't have a license. You're saying he can only stand there, even though he knows exactly how to set the break and bind the splint. My argument says that the same individual can practice medicine, whether ethically or not, because he has indeed recieved the training to do so, with or without a license. You're telling me that a person certified in First Aid is incapable of performing first aid because he doesn't have the title Mr. instead of Dr.? Now, tell me how my point of view is any less correct than yours. Now, in regard to the 0 + x=x issue, there is precedent for my deduction, and I feel stupid for not remembering it sooner. That I can remember in recent memory, any class or effect that increases your monk level for any purposec, that does not specifically require a monk class feature to gain entry, says to treat the character as a monk of the appropriate level for the effects they advance. Examples include "Belt, Monk's" from the Dungeon Master's Guide, the Enlightened Fist prestige class from Complete Arcane, the Sacred Fist from Complete Divine, and the Shadowsun Ninja from Tome of Battle. And I'm sure there are likely more, although I don't feel like combing through the library right now to look for them. Only exception to this I can think of are, in fact, the "Ascetic" feats, which give you extra benefits by stating you need to have monk levels. Note-The actual reading of the Enlightened Fist ability supports my assumption that without having monk levels, you don't add your wisdom bonus to your AC, although you do gain the listed AC bonus. I don't remember where, but I think a similar ruling was made on the monk's belt.
aelryinth 04-21-07, 03:55 AM	If any of my players tried to pull this stunt I'd have to drop a Quori monolith on their heads. Just like the reason no competent DM allows a Goblin Artificer to take Bind Elemental as a feat, no competent DM would allow either of the two feats you described without a single monk level. In my honest opinion, if you allow someone to take a feat that completely contradicts the flavor of the feat, you need some more time roleplaying and less time rollplaying. But, to each his own I guess. 2 out of 15 feats. 16 if you're human. Two whole feats? What a hefty price. :rolleyes: Don't undervalue feats. Feats are supposed to be as valuable as spells in their own way...and I can certainly see spells doing similar things without any problems, why is it so dangerous if a feat does? ===Aelryinth
ArcTan 04-21-07, 04:13 AM	My Psi-war 10 levels stack with my monk-0 levels to let me function as if i were a 10-th level monk. 0+x=x It doesn't necessarily work that way. You can't "stack with zero" unless the item actually says so -- a monk's belt specifically says what it does if you have no Monk levels, because otherwise if you had no Monk levels it'd do nothing. If stacking on zero were the default for the rules, then that line in the monk's belt would be redundant and unnecessary.
ArcTan 04-21-07, 04:17 AM	What about when a human gets an enhancement bonus to natural armor? As Deekin says, 0 + bonus = bonus. What about when a Golem gets a headband of intellect? No Int score + Int bonus = no Int score. Just as no Monk levels + levels that stack with Monk levels = no Monk levels. I mean, is having no Monk levels like having an Int of 0 or like having no Int score? I'd really think it's more logically like the latter. But luckily we don't need logical arguments, we have an example, the monk's belt, which *specifically says* that you get a 5th-level Monk's abilities if you're not a Monk, which would be a totally unnecessary statement if there were such a thing as being a "0-level Monk".
ArcTan 04-21-07, 04:25 AM	So, I'll concede that the combo may seem a little strong without having taken monk levels. Whatever. I don't like, however, the idea that taking a combination of feats that specifically imply that a character has recieved training in something, and allowing him to use that "something" is "contradictory of the flavor of the feat." Using a real world analogy, your argument says that a person that went to med school, but instead, chose a career in entertainment, cannot, at the most basic level, apply a splint to a broken arm because he doesn't have a license. You're saying he can only stand there, even though he knows exactly how to set the break and bind the splint. My argument says that the same individual can practice medicine, whether ethically or not, because he has indeed recieved the training to do so, with or without a license. You're telling me that a person certified in First Aid is incapable of performing first aid because he doesn't have the title Mr. instead of Dr.? Now, tell me how my point of view is any less correct than yours. Because you're making up flavor for the Monastic Training feat that's way more in-depth than it actually has? Monastic Training says that you're still doing the basic groundwork for being a Monk while you're training for whatever else you're training in, but that doesn't mean you know enough to *be* a Monk. It's more akin to an English major taking enough natural science classes that he could still pass the MCATs if he really wanted to. But unless he actually takes the MCATs and gets into med school (takes a 1st level of Monk), that's only a potential thing he might be able to do, *not* a thing that gives him the actual ability to do what a doctor could. Mechanics really should trump flavor here, since flavor is vague and easy to change to fit mechanics and doesn't have anything to do with balance.
Grimmsfeld 04-21-07, 04:45 AM	If stacking on zero were the default for the rules, then that line in the monk's belt would be redundant and unnecessary. That's just the thing though, there is no default rule for this, and I'd totally agree with you if there was. I myself, would like to think we'd default to precedent, in that we're told to treat "x," for this stage in the argument, x is the increase to effective monk level, as being a predifined value, instead of defaulting to "Do nothing." In the case of the monk's belt, 5 is the predifined variable. So, now we'll introduce variable y which is your actual monk level, and the variable z, which is your effective monk level. Sure, you can read the two effects of the monk's belt as being completely seperate from each other, but I think that's a rather ignorant and lazy way to go about doing things. Instead, I believe we should think of it as x+y=z, where y CAN equal 0. Both interpretations are correct when thinking about the monk's belt by itself, because either way you figure it, you get the same result, but I think "x+y=0" is a little more credible because it provides a reason for WHY the second part is 5, not just saying it's five...just...because it says so. Line the belt up to the PrC's I mentioned earlier, and you'll see a trend there.
Grimmsfeld 04-21-07, 04:54 AM	Monastic Training says that you're still doing the basic groundwork for being a Monk while you're training for whatever else you're training in, but that doesn't mean you know enough to *be* a Monk. And that's exactly what the PC in this instance would be doing, learning to throw good punches, and being able to defend himself a little bit better than the average mook. HE'S NOT BECOMING A MONK. He's practicing martial arts, not delving into all the spiritual dealings that come with being a monk. He's not deflecting spells with sheer force of will, or becoming immune to pathogens. He's maybe practicing Tai Chi or kung fu (or the Sarlonan variants thereof.)
Forged_Fury 04-21-07, 11:01 AM	And that's exactly what the PC in this instance would be doing, learning to throw good punches, and being able to defend himself a little bit better than the average mook. This is how your flavor reads, but your mechanics are saying 2d10 punches and +4 AC. That's quite a difference and fart better than a low-level monk which, in my opinion, should be the measuring stick here. No feat, or combination of feats, should make a character better in a niche than the class that is supposed to be in the niche (Fighters Suck arguments aside). -Forged_Fury
MDosantos 04-22-07, 01:45 PM	Throw good punches? Improved Unarmed Attack... Martial Arts?? There are martial arts feats and styles... But hey, I insist, if your DM allows it, it's okay, but IMO it just seems broken and I wouldn't allow it w/o the monk levels...
John Q. Mayhem 04-22-07, 02:43 PM	This is how your flavor reads, but your mechanics are saying 2d10 punches and +4 AC. -Forged_Fury ...instead of 2d6+1 1/2 Str, and +8-10 AC from armor and a shield. Also, unarmed fighters have to pay out the nose for their weapon enhancements compared to armed. Broken, eh? It's spending two whole feats (I stand by this) to be, on the whole, less effective! EDIT: Imagine if you took one monk level at first, then your psychic warrior levels and whatever Ascetic Psychic feat you want. You'd lose, compared to full psychic warrior, a few PP, a manifester level, and a single power known. You'd gain a bonus feat, more skills, better saves, and flurry of blows. Seriously, how is one psychic warrior level instead of one monk level broken? The idea is ludicrous.
Kid SixXx 04-22-07, 08:32 PM	Throw good punches? Improved Unarmed Attack... Martial Arts?? There are martial arts feats and styles... But hey, I insist, if your DM allows it, it's okay, but IMO it just seems broken and I wouldn't allow it w/o the monk levels... It's not a terribly broken concept but it is ripe for exploitation. The FR campaign has a PrC called the Shou Disciple which is pretty much your chop socky combatant / martial artist practicioner stripped of the mystical trappings of the monk. I think it's okay to allow for a non monk to use INA or Improved Unarmed Strike but I certainly wouldn't hand out monk class features for nothing.
Grimmsfeld 04-22-07, 08:41 PM	This is how your flavor reads, but your mechanics are saying 2d10 punches and +4 AC. That's quite a difference and fart[sic] better than a low-level monk which, in my opinion, should be the measuring stick here. No feat, or combination of feats, should make a character better in a niche than the class that is supposed to be in the niche (Fighters Suck arguments aside).I'm not convinced. There's still the issue that my theoretical 2d10 damage isn't innately considered to be magical, adamantine, or lawful(for all those times that last one comes in handy.) And this is the last time I'm going to say this, you NEED THREE FEATS to even do this right. As for the +4 AC, not one of you has ever looked down at Dodge on your character and thought, "huh, this wouldn't be complete crap if it scaled"? Gimme a break...
Grimmsfeld 04-22-07, 09:08 PM	it's ripe for exploitationAnd what are these exploitations? Am I going to start ripping holes in the universe with my unarmed strikes? No. After 20 levels, I'm going to do an average 4 more points of damage then if I used a greatsword, spend more resources than enhancing a greatsword (given I've can't just upgrade to the next set of magical fists I find laying around,) and have a +4 AC. Now, I've only played in one game that started at level 20, and this combination, by far, is not the most awesome thing around. Which brings me to my final point-you don't even get the 2d10/+4 AC until level 20. You're not getting all this stuff at level 3. You spend most of the time being MORE mediocre than the monk. So...in short, it only looks broken if you're only looking at level 20, and only if you're completely unfamiliar with the power level of a game at level 20.
John Q. Mayhem 04-22-07, 10:21 PM	I think it's okay to allow for a non monk to use INA or Improved Unarmed Strike but I certainly wouldn't hand out monk class features for nothing. As previously pointed out, this is a patently false straw man. Feats are not nothing.
shadowsofwhite 04-23-07, 02:40 AM	Okay, I am now here to point something out. I don't usually point things out unless it's just so terribly WRONG that I can't help but interfere. Excuse me if that puts me off as rude. Now, first things first, Class levels cannot be related to Natural Armor. Even a human has natural armor, even though it is so pathetically weak that it counts for nothing and is justifiably counted as zero; thusly, if you toughen up a human's skin (by adding natural armor), he would get a bonus to natural armor because he actually has SKIN. My point is that you can't stack on top of something you don't have in the first place. I will use Undead and their complete lack of a Constitution score as an example. Their constitution is not 0, or sero, it is Ø, -, or null. If an undead's constitution score was zero, it would be inert and 100% dead, not undead, where as having a null cunstitution score, it still lives. Maybe that wasn't a good example. Lets use damage reduction as an example. If you have damage reduction 5/- and you gain damage reduction 10/silver, you would have a total damage reduction of 10. If they used a silvered weapon, you would still have a damage reduction of five. I am trying to say that if you have one type of damage reduction, it doesn't stack with another type of damage reduction. Maybe that wasn't good either... Let us use actual class levels. If you are a first level Rogue, or Rogue 1, this does in no way count you as Rogue 1, Monk 0. It would count you as Rogue 1, Monk -, meaning that you have no monk levels and are in no way a monk. Likewise, if you are Rogue 3, Monk 1, there are still a multitude of monk abilities you have not yet accessed. If you have not accessed an ability of a class, how can you stack on top of it to make it more powerful. Let me put it this way, if you didn't have an arm, would you be able to work out and lift weights with it? No. Aslo, it is true that feats do not count for nothing; however, there are some ridiculously pointless feats out there. Improved Unarmed Strike does not give you the Flurry of Blows ability, nor does it increase the damage done by your unarmed strike in any way. Considering that Flurry of Blows is not a feat, you could not improve upon it. The monk's Unarmed Strike ability is not only the aquiring of the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, but a special, monk specific, addition to the feat. I sincerely hopes this helps. I also sincerely appologize for any asinine tone I may have left in my words.
JulesCARV 04-23-07, 03:52 AM	Just like the reason no competent DM allows a Goblin Artificer to take Bind Elemental as a feat. I'm curious -- what's wrong with a goblin artificer taking bind elemental? I feel like I must be missing something that's obvious to you here.
Forged_Fury 04-23-07, 07:31 AM	I'm not convinced. There's still the issue that my theoretical 2d10 damage isn't innately considered to be magical, adamantine, or lawful(for all those times that last one comes in handy.) And this is the last time I'm going to say this, you NEED THREE FEATS to even do this right. This argument is not logical. Just because you take three feats does not guarantee that you are going to gain an appreciable benefit. A fighter could, according to RAW, take three metamagic feats during the course of their career. If they don't ever take a level of a spellcasting class, this study has done them no good, as they can not mechanically take advantage of these feats. From my perspective, this feat is somewhat similar to Practiced Spellcaster. Without levels in a spellcasting class, it is mechanically useless. Same with this feat and monk levels. As for the +4 AC, not one of you has ever looked down at Dodge on your character and thought, "huh, this wouldn't be complete crap if it scaled"? Gimme a break... I look down at Dodge and see a perfectly valid pre-req feat for a number of more powerful feat combos. I think a scaling dodge would be wildly broken considering how many other dodge bonuses one could get from several other feats, skills, and class abilities. In any event, why not try and find the folks that wrote Secrets of Sarlona and see if you can get their opinion on it. I would say to write Customer Service, but they are wildly hit and miss. -FF
Forged_Fury 04-23-07, 07:49 AM	...instead of 2d6+1 1/2 Str, and +8-10 AC from armor and a shield. Actually, I am comparing it to 1d3+STR Non-Lethal and +0 AC that every other 20th level fighter without monk levels has. The two feats argument is superfluous since you are choosing to spend one feat (Monastic Training) to meet the prerequsite of the second feat and clearly not using the first for its intended purpose. I still maintain that this does not work. -FF
John Q. Mayhem 04-23-07, 02:59 PM	Actually, I am comparing it to 1d3+STR Non-Lethal and +0 AC that every other 20th level fighter without monk levels has. -FF This is not a reasonable comparison, I'm afraid. A psychic warrior 20 is simply not going to be running around naked and unarmed. You need to compare it to what a level 20 psychic warrior is actually going to be using to have a useful comparison. EDIT: Actually, an even better comparison would be between a monk 1/psy war 19 and a psy war 20. The two feats argument is superfluous since you are choosing to spend one feat (Monastic Training) to meet the prerequsite of the second feat and clearly not using the first for its intended purpose. I still maintain that this does not work. Piffle. You're still spending two feats.
prototype00 04-23-07, 03:22 PM	Dear CustServ, Following on from a recent discussion on the Eberron board, I was wanting to ask this question. The Tashalatora feat from Secrets of Sarlona states that it allows a psionic class to stack with your levels in monk for the purpose of determining unarmed damage and suchlike. If you have no levels in monk (i.e. monk levels =0) would it still be possible to get use out of the tashalatora feat? I.e. would a 20th level psychic warrior with this feat deal damage as a 20th level monk? Also, is the monk's cane a special monk weapon for the purposes of flurry of blows? It doesn't say, but I was wondering in this case whether it would make sense. Many thanks, Thank you for writing. 1. It is possible to take this feat without any levels in Monk, but you would not gain any additional benefits from it. It only allows for the stacking of abilities and does not grant any Monk abilities not already possessed by the character. 2. The Monk's cane does not specifically mention if it is an eligible weapon for use during a Flurry of Blows. The decision for use in conjunction with this ability may be brought to your DM for approval, but in the end it is up to his/her discretion. Please let me know if you need anymore help! Good Gaming! For all its worth. prototype00
Hideous Phidias 04-23-07, 05:03 PM	Everyone is right, you need to take levels in theclass to use powers or abilities of that class. No monk levels no slap happy fighting for you. My wizard can not pull the spellthief ablity to steal spells just because he took master spellthief unless he has atleast on level in the class. Just like a fighter can not pick a trap just by throughing a halfling at it, unless that halfling happens to bethe rogue. Lastly the feat MonasticTraining's benefit is just to allow a monkl to multi class with one other class freely. If you multi class in another class other then your chosen for the feat then you no longer take levels in monk. It does not allow you to stack monk abilities with class levels of other classes.
John Q. Mayhem 04-24-07, 06:49 AM	Lastly the feat Monastic Training's benefit is just to allow a monk to multi class with one other class freely. If you multi class in another class other then your chosen for the feat then you no longer take levels in monk. It does not allow you to stack monk abilities with class levels of other classes. You're right, that's what Tashalatora does. EDIT: To clarify my position: I am not arguing that Tashalatora, as written and intended, does let you gain monk abilities without monk levels; it's obviously not what was intended, and furthermore, the clauses in the monk's belt and suchlike strongly indicate that non-stacking is the default. I am, however, arguing that it is in no way unbalanced to let someone do this, and nobody has shown a single way that it is.
Kid SixXx 04-24-07, 09:39 AM	As previously pointed out, this is a patently false straw man. Feats are not nothing. Holy Christ, it's one feat slot you're burning, as opposed to the Shou Disciple PrC that forces you to burn levels in order to accomplish something similar & is actually a fairly balanced PrC. It's my frame of reference for this matter, so pardon friggin me if I am skittish on buying the assumed power of the one-stop shop feat that the OP seems to believe that it is but CustServ seems to believe otherwise. Hopefully you're referring to my argument as a straw man and not me personally. I would hate to vent harsh language at someone I don't even know.
Belabras 04-24-07, 11:34 AM	I am, however, arguing that it is in no way unbalanced to let someone do this, and nobody has shown a single way that it is. I think a more accurate statement would be that you are ignoring all the ways in which people have shown that it is.
John Q. Mayhem 04-24-07, 01:26 PM	Kid Six: I'm sorry if I came off as insulting. Yes, I was calling your statement a straw man, which it is; it misrepresents the opposing argument and then knocks down the defeated argument. Nobody has argued that psychic warriors should get monk abilities for nothing. Belabras: A psychic warrior with these feat will be less effective in combat than ordinary, armed-and-armored psychic warriors. A psychic warrior with this feat will be no stronger than a monk 1/psychic warrior X with this feat. HOW IS IT UNBALANCED? :confused:
Grimmsfeld 04-24-07, 02:35 PM	I still don't buy that it's overpowered in the least, but if CustServ says I'm wrong, I can only conclude that I am, indeed, wrong. End of discussion.
Kid SixXx 04-24-07, 02:39 PM	Kid Six: I'm sorry if I came off as insulting. Yes, I was calling your statement a straw man, which it is; it misrepresents the opposing argument and then knocks down the defeated argument. Nobody has argued that psychic warriors should get monk abilities for nothing. Actually I saw your response this morning before my first cup of coffee so I was probably cranky & took easy offense. I should probably be the one apologizing to you for being so snippy. And you are correct: no one has argued that the class abilities should come for free, and qualifying for some feats can be monumental. The measure of Talashatora should be whether or not the pre-reqs balance out the rewards of the feat, & they may very well do that since you already have to burn one feat slot for Monastic Training in order to qualify for Talashatora and that's over and above the other pre-reqs. Even so, I still hold that it's pretty obvious that Talashatora is supposed to augment the abilities of someone that already has Monk class abilities, not make someone with no Monk class levels into an impromptu Monk. I'm curious -- what's wrong with a goblin artificer taking bind elemental? I feel like I must be missing something that's obvious to you here. Probably stems from the notion that the Gnomes of Zilargo are the only documented race that notably stole the secrets of elemental binding from the Drow of Xen'Drik & are assumed not to have shared that knowledge with anyone. Which would be kinda pointless since it'd imply that every magical item with a bound elemental had to have been made by either a Gnome or a Drow. I've always been under the impression that rudamentary binding to create weapons, armor & such is a fairly well known practice, but that only the Zil are skilled enough to create elemental vessels & the like.
Cifer 04-24-07, 03:03 PM	Which would be kinda pointless since it'd imply that every magical item with a bound elemental had to have been made by either a Gnome or a Drow. I've always been under the impression that rudamentary binding to create weapons, armor & such is a fairly well known practice, but that only the Zil are skilled enough to create elemental vessels & the like. Well, that's pretty much how it is - you want elemental stuff, you need a Zil binder. They won't necessarily do the whole process themselves and pay the XP, but they need to be present to donate their feat. It's not like there are that many important elemental-bound items anyway.
Belabras 04-24-07, 03:04 PM	Belabras: A psychic warrior with these feat will be less effective in combat than ordinary, armed-and-armored psychic warriors. A psychic warrior with this feat will be no stronger than a monk 1/psychic warrior X with this feat. HOW IS IT UNBALANCED? :confused: Specificially? Because class abilities are stronger than feats. You may notice that there is no feat that grants Trapfinding, wizard or sorc spell casting, cleric spellcasting, bardic music, etc. There are feats that ameliorate multiclassing for these abilities, which I think everyone here can agree Tashalatora was intended to do. It takes an editing mistake, and some serious mental jujitsu, to try to make it do what you want. As a counterpoint, why would you want to try this when it is likely to make your DM and your fellow players angery and generally diminish the fun of the group?
Kid SixXx 04-24-07, 03:10 PM	It's not like there are that many important elemental-bound items anyway. You're saying this with elemental vessels like Airships & the Lightning Rail not thrown into the mix, correct? Otherwise I'd say that there are quite a few important elemental-bound "items" (ie. containment rings for airships, lightning rail engines, elemental landcarts, etc.) Without Aereni soarwood or Zil containment rings, you wouldn't have any airships.
Cifer 04-24-07, 03:53 PM	You're saying this with elemental vessels like Airships & the Lightning Rail not thrown into the mix, correct? Otherwise I'd say that there are quite a few important elemental-bound "items" (ie. containment rings for airships, lightning rail engines, elemental landcarts, etc.) Without Aereni soarwood or Zil containment rings, you wouldn't have any airships. Ok, let me rephrase that: There aren't that many elemental-bound items around that would be so important to have right now that you can't just travel to Zil for them.
John Q. Mayhem 04-24-07, 08:23 PM	Actually I saw your response this morning before my first cup of coffee so I was probably cranky & took easy offense. I should probably be the one apologizing to you for being so snippy. And you are correct: no one has argued that the class abilities should come for free, and qualifying for some feats can be monumental. The measure of Talashatora should be whether or not the pre-reqs balance out the rewards of the feat, & they may very well do that since you already have to burn one feat slot for Monastic Training in order to qualify for Talashatora and that's over and above the other pre-reqs. Even so, I still hold that it's pretty obvious that Talashatora is supposed to augment the abilities of someone that already has Monk class abilities, not make someone with no Monk class levels into an impromptu Monk. Haha, I haven't exactly been at my best snark-wise in this thread, and I apologize to anyone else I've annoyed :embarrass I totally agree that it wasn't intended to let them stack, and I think that reading the RAW they don't, when you consider the precedent of the monk's belt and such. I still hold that it's balanced, though :D Belebras: Simply because something is a class ability doesn't mean that it's stronger than a feat. What about, say...trapfinding? Or the old Leap of the Clouds, or Still Mind, or a host of other nice little bennies that still aren't super-strong? If you want to claim that it's overpowered, then you need to demonstrate why a psychic warrior with these feats is stronger than a psychic warrior with different feats, or a monk 1/psychic warrior X with these feats. No-one has done so as of yet; this is because it is simply not overpowered. As to making other players angry and diminishing the fun of the game... Well, suffice it to say that most people won't get angry at someone else having a non-overpowered character that they enjoy, and that fits the concept they have. Because seriously, this is NOT overpowered. EDIT: Perhaps we are using different concepts of "overpowered" here. I am assuming that it means "too strong;" do you simply think that having an ability that normally can be gained only by taking levels in a particular class without having taken levels in that class is "overpowered," regardless of the actual strength or utility of the ability?
Belabras 04-24-07, 10:03 PM	Belebras: Simply because something is a class ability doesn't mean that it's stronger than a feat. What about, say...trapfinding? Or the old Leap of the Clouds, or Still Mind, or a host of other nice little bennies that still aren't super-strong? If you want to claim that it's overpowered, then you need to demonstrate why a psychic warrior with these feats is stronger than a psychic warrior with different feats, or a monk 1/psychic warrior X with these feats. No-one has done so as of yet; this is because it is simply not overpowered. As to making other players angry and diminishing the fun of the game... Well, suffice it to say that most people won't get angry at someone else having a non-overpowered character that they enjoy, and that fits the concept they have. Because seriously, this is NOT overpowered. EDIT: Perhaps we are using different concepts of "overpowered" here. I am assuming that it means "too strong;" do you simply think that having an ability that normally can be gained only by taking levels in a particular class without having taken levels in that class is "overpowered," regardless of the actual strength or utility of the ability? Class abilities are more powerful than feats because they are what make the classes classes. Seriously, if you'd found some way to get a sorcerers spell progression via feats alone, would you argue that was fair? I don't need to demonstrate anything, but I will. A psychic warrior with those feats is more powerful than a psychic warrior without because he is effectively a Monk/Psychic Warrior Gestault. He can fill two class roles instead of one. A monk/psychic warrior (1/whatever) with those feats is roughly equivalent to a monk/whatever with the asociated Ascetic feat (see Complete Adventurer) so he's fine. He's paid his dues. Overpowered here means able to fill two class roles using feats alone. I think that's pretty easy to agree on.
John Q. Mayhem 04-24-07, 10:13 PM	Class abilities are more powerful than feats because they are what make the classes classes. Seriously, if you'd found some way to get a sorcerers spell progression via feats alone, would you argue that was fair? I don't need to demonstrate anything, but I will. A psychic warrior with those feats is more powerful than a psychic warrior without because he is effectively a Monk/Psychic Warrior Gestault. He can fill two class roles instead of one. A monk/psychic warrior (1/whatever) with those feats is roughly equivalent to a monk/whatever with the asociated Ascetic feat (see Complete Adventurer) so he's fine. He's paid his dues. Overpowered here means able to fill two class roles using feats alone. I think that's pretty easy to agree on. Please. Having unarmed damage that's barely better than your weapons (worse if you consider 1 1/2 Str for a greatsword, and the difference in costs to enhance fists vs. weapons) and armor bonuses that are worse than the armor they could use anyways is NOT filling two class roles instead of one. What monk role is the psychic warrior encroaching on? Fighting? They could do that anyways! They could even fight unarmed, with claws of the beast and bite of the wolf, this is just letting them do it in a different, more expensive way. Where is the imbalance? Also: A monk 1/psywar X is still not weaker than a psywar X+1. There is no "paying of the dues" here, except the feats-which the psywar X+1 needs to take, too.
Belabras 04-24-07, 10:27 PM	Please. Having unarmed damage that's barely better than your weapons (worse if you consider 1 1/2 Str for a greatsword, and the difference in costs to enhance fists vs. weapons) and armor bonuses that are worse than the armor they could use anyways is NOT filling two class roles instead of one. What monk role is the psychic warrior encroaching on? Fighting? They could do that anyways! They could even fight unarmed, with claws of the beast and bite of the wolf, this is just letting them do it in a different, more expensive way. Where is the imbalance? Also: A monk 1/psywar X is still not weaker than a psywar X+1. There is no "paying of the dues" here, except the feats-which the psywar X+1 needs to take, too. Denigrating the Monk's signature abilities doesn't make them less important. A psy war can match the monk in an equipmentless situation only by spending a ton of Power Points, which only works if you can manifest, and can only do it a limited number of times per day. The whole point of the Monk is that they are always armed, always armored, regardless of anti-magic fields or sundered armor or whatever. That is the point of the class. As to your second point - the strait Psy War gets 2 non-bonus feats freed up, an extra bonus feat, 13 power points, and a level 6 power. He is definitely a better Psy War than the Monk/Psy War. The multiclasser trades the power of a focused build to add a second set of abilities to his roster. This is the whole idea behind the multi classing rubric, and trying to bypass that via feats breaks the rubric. You know I'm not the first to bring this arguement up in this thread.
John Q. Mayhem 04-25-07, 07:43 AM	The straight psychic warrior gets 13 pp, 1 6th-level power known, and a bonus feat on the psychic warrior list; he has to purchase IUS. The monk gets better saves, 8 skill points, flurry of blows (basic only), and a bonus feat (limited, but with the option of getting Stunning Fist at 1st level). That's not as wildly divergent as you think. The monk/psywar is more diverse, and the bennies the psychic warrior gets aren't as good as you think-the need to take IUS as a feat eliminates the benefit of their bonus feat, and they already know 4/5 6th-level powers. Getting suspend life isn't game-breaking in the slightest. The psywar with the Monastic Training/IUS/Tashalatora feats is still down from the straight psywar, who could take, say...Power Attack, Weapon Focus, and whatever else makes his heart sing. As they each gain levels, the psywar with Tashalatora is going to be down on AC, feats, and damage compared to the normal psywar, and by the time his unarmed attack gets the same base damage as a greatsword, still doesn't have Str-and-a-half, 2-1 Power Attack, or the bonuses on disarm/sunder the greatsworder has. The disparity there continues into higher levels-the greatsworder is going to be doing more damage. Alright, I think that about sums it up for me. I've laid out my arguments and heard yours, so I think it's time for me to agree to disagree. Thanks for your time!
Forged_Fury 04-25-07, 08:44 AM	As they each gain levels, the psywar with Tashalatora is going to be down on AC, feats, and damage compared to the normal psywar, and by the time his unarmed attack gets the same base damage as a greatsword, still doesn't have Str-and-a-half, 2-1 Power Attack, or the bonuses on disarm/sunder the greatsworder has. The disparity there continues into higher levels-the greatsworder is going to be doing more damage. But that's the thing, just because the PsyWar has taken the feat doesn't prevent them from using a Greatsword. They aren't losing any class abilities (such as Weapon Profs) because they are taking the feat combo. So both PsyWars (with and without the feats) are probably doing the same damage with their Greatswords (given differences based on feat selection and the three extra feats a non-Talashtora PsiWar is going to have). The difference is apparent, however, when they are in a social situation, are disarmed, or any other situations where they might not have their weapon available. Another big difference is that the unarmed damage is usable while armored. While the +4 to AC is a loss, they can still wear the Heavy Armor of their choice and stay as protected as any other PsyWar. Augmented with a 1st level power (Expansion), I can bump the 20th Level damage up to 4d8/hit. With an augmented Expansion, I can bump it up to 6d8/hit. You can even get some pretty decent gains at earlier levels. I would have to suggest that is a bit much for a combination of three feats when compared to other three feat combos (e.g Dodge - Mobility - Spring Attack). I have no problem agreeing to disagree as well. -FF
gaerfindel 04-25-07, 11:49 AM	As I understand the situation, the advantage behind taking Tashalatora lies in the fact that psiwar levels stack with monk levels in determining things like Flurry of Blows. This then lets the kalashtar (or Inspired/Chosen) use that to her advantage weapons-wise, a la Whirling Steel Strike, Double Steel Strike (ECS), or Sudden Willow Strike (PGtE).
Belabras 04-25-07, 12:13 PM	I've laid out my arguments and heard yours, so I think it's time for me to agree to disagree. Thanks for your time! Agreed. Gaerfindel- Yes. The debate has been over whether it is ok to use the feat to bypass Monk levels entirely and still gain the abilities.
gaerfindel 04-25-07, 03:00 PM	Gaerfindel- Yes. The debate has been over whether it is ok to use the feat to bypass Monk levels entirely and still gain the abilities.I grokked that much. But from where I sit, part of the arguemnt seemed to stem from the idea that monk levels aren't truly useful to a psychic warrior. I was specifying how they can be given the feats available. As to the issue of bypassing monk 1 -- any player pulling that screed in my game would be kicked out so fast it would take a Great Mark of Passage to catch up with him.
yrogerg 04-26-07, 12:27 AM	Another big difference is that the unarmed damage is usable while armored. While the +4 to AC is a loss, they can still wear the Heavy Armor of their choice and stay as protected as any other PsyWar that doesn't go the already high-AC Inertial Armor route. Fixed it for you.:P
prototype00 04-29-07, 06:14 AM	I would just like to add, mostly for the purpose of further discussion, that the optimization board does not regard mnk/psywar as the optimal choice for tashalatora build. The optimal build is instead mnk/warmind. With their sweeping strike ability, chains of various things (including dr and such), good selection of psychic powers (vampiric claws and expansion), and the ability to get Robilar's gambit as an 18 lvl feat, the mnk/warmind was quite powerful. The thing is if they allowed a psywar/warmind to have all the monk abilties as well, wouldn't that be a bit too powerful? prototype00
gaerfindel 04-29-07, 10:53 AM	I would just like to add, mostly for the purpose of further discussion, that the optimization board does not regard mnk/psywar as the optimal choice for tashalatora build. [...] The optimal build is instead mnk/warmind. The thing is if they allowed a psywar/warmind to have all the monk abilties as well, wouldn't that be a bit too powerful? In the spirit of Eberron, we must then ask, "If such a thing is allowable, who has achieved such power? And more importantly, why haven't they had more influence/wrought more havoc upon the face of Khorvaire?" Some possibilities: There is only one such being, an Inspired warrior of the Thousand Eyes. The du'ulora last saw action during the wars that split Sarlona apart, prior to the Inspired "revealing" themselves. Now, her vessels are among the most feared champions of the Harmious Fist, but she seethes for a real chanllenge once more, thinking the anger & resentment created by the Kreigstanz of Thronehold may yet blossom into a lucious feast of rage & revenge. A feast she would perticipate in directly... Many kalashtar in the line of Serath persue the path of the atavist in their quest to defeat il Lavashtar, but there is one who has perfected the art of battle in another way: Amartaserath. Wanted by the Dreaming Dark for numerous crimes and accused of no less than ten counts of murdering Chosen, he is on the run, striking where his influence can be most felt. And there are rumours that is influence is being felt in Xen'drik... The daelkyr lord Amzaxioqtlu is imprisoned deep within Khyber. Some of his leutenants, however, still roam free. One of their number, Illibin the Unchained claims to have a direct connection with the War Mind itself, and is willing to reveal the secrets of True Battle Prowess to the penetant...
Grimmsfeld 04-29-07, 04:38 PM	The thing is if they allowed a psywar/warmind to have all the monk abilties as well, wouldn't that be a bit too powerful?By the rules though, I don't think you can. Though I stated you would pretty much have to to be able to multiclass out of psywar into another psionic class, the rules don't really support such an option. Neither Tashalatora or Monastic Training say you can take either feat twice.
Shattered_Shard 05-22-07, 04:54 PM	According to RAW this will not work. 1) Monastic Training only allows you to take levels in monk and one other class without stopping your monk class level progression. 2) Tashalatora allows a multiclass monk/psionic character to use the sum of the monk and psionic class levels to determine the effect level the monk class abilities unarmed strike, AC bonus etc... 3) Unless you have one level of monk you are determining the effect level of abilities you do not have. A zero level monk character dose not have first level monk class abilities by definition you only get those when you become a first level monk. Sorry to rain on your party.
Grimmsfeld 05-26-07, 06:22 PM	Good thing you rained on it a month after we already had a CustServ ruling.
Edymnion 05-26-07, 07:31 PM	Good thing you rained on it a month after we already had a CustServ ruling.Heh, well that might mean something if Customer Service did something besides flip a coin to answer these kinds of questions.
Grimmsfeld 05-26-07, 10:57 PM	Iunno. I'd say this one was actually a pretty fair call. IMO, it wasn't really overpowered, but it does bend the rules a bit.
Edymnion 05-26-07, 11:23 PM	Iunno. I'd say this one was actually a pretty fair call. IMO, it wasn't really overpowered, but it does bend the rules a bit.I've found from personal experience that I can basically twist customer service into giving conflicting answers simply by being careful about how I word the email. My favorite example is the Elemental Orb spells and how they interact with the Energy Substitution metamagic feat. For those that don't know, the differant elemental orb spells have secondary effects, differing depending on the spell. Electric Orb magnetizes metal armor so the person can't move for a round. Fire Orb sets things on fire, that sort of thing. Energy Substitution lets you change the type of elemental damage a spell does. So, I sent two differant emails to Customer Service. One I worded something like "Elemental Orb has secondary effects based on it's element. If I use Energy Substitution to change the element, would it change the secondary effect as well?", and I got the answer "Yes, it would." The other email I worded about the same, but specifically put it "But the Energy Substitution feat specifically says it doesn't change anything about the spell but the type of damage it deals", and got the answer "No, the secondary effect of the spell would not change, just the damage type."
Belabras 05-27-07, 12:54 AM	:uh-huh: I find your dedication a little frightening Edy.