Post/Author/DateTime	Post
moosekickedmysisterstoof 11-28-07, 12:45 AM	Does a creature with "powerful build" deal unarmed damage as if it were one size category larger? I was planning on creating a half-giant monk and I was curious about that. Let me know! ^_^ - John
Salla 11-28-07, 12:53 AM	Does a creature with "powerful build" deal unarmed damage as if it were one size category larger? I was planning on creating a half-giant monk and I was curious about that. Let me know! ^_^ - John Not by RAW, but the general consensus is that it won't break anything if it's allowed.
jradd777 11-28-07, 02:13 AM	Oh... yeah, I suppose you're right... I guess we kinda house-ruled that they do since they can use weapons one size category larger without penalty, we just kinda assume that meant unarmed too...
Xiuhcoatl 11-28-07, 08:41 AM	Or just give them Improved Natural Attack in place of Powerful Build (say, as a bonus feat). INA stacks with IUS.
Thorsbjorn 11-28-07, 09:21 AM	In just seven days... I can make you a ma-a-a-a-an! :D
strenoth 11-28-07, 09:29 AM	good place for that quote :)
Thorsbjorn 11-28-07, 09:32 AM	good place for that quote :) Thanks! I'm not sure if everyone will get he reference, but as soon as I saw the title of the thread the song began to play in my mind. :D
Orenmir 11-28-07, 11:37 AM	There are some rules-lawyers that might jump on this post and state PB does not increase your US damage. I, however, think it was an oversight on the writers part. It would be unfair to not allow it. It would be a disadvantage for Goliaths and Half-Giants playing Monks. The way I see it... Whatever quality of PB that allows you to use bigger weapons is also a quality that would make your US hurt more. [What that quality is, can be argued -- it's not strength; it's almost like your size category is in between Medium and Large -- granting some attributes of each. When it comes to weilding weapons, you are Large. If your weapon is your body, it should be treated as Large too (my personal RAI).]
Thorsbjorn 11-28-07, 11:52 AM	There are some rules-lawyers that might jump on this post and state PB does not increase your US damage. I, however, think it was an oversight on the writers part. It would be unfair to not allow it. It would be a disadvantage for Goliaths and Half-Giants playing Monks. The way I see it... Whatever quality of PB that allows you to use bigger weapons is also a quality that would make your US hurt more. [What that quality is, can be argued -- it's not strength; it's almost like your size category is in between Medium and Large -- granting some attributes of each. When it comes to weilding weapons, you are Large. If your weapon is your body, it should be treated as Large too (my personal RAI).] Leverage probably has something to do with it.
jradd777 11-28-07, 11:55 AM	When it comes to weilding weapons, you are Large. If your weapon is your body, it should be treated as Large too (my personal RAI).] Basically, mine too. You're large in the extent that weapons in your hands are treated as though you are large whenever it's beneficial to you, even if you technically aren't large.
moosekickedmysisterstoof 11-28-07, 12:54 PM	In just seven days... I can make you a ma-a-a-a-an! :D I'm really glad someone recognized why I titled this thread "I'm a muscle fan!" I love Rocky Horror. ^_^
CryoSilver 11-28-07, 12:57 PM	Well, even if by RAW it isn't allowed, couldn't you kill a large creature and cut off ITS unarmed strikes and wield THEM with Powerful Build? :P
Thorsbjorn 11-28-07, 01:16 PM	I'm really glad someone recognized why I titled this thread "I'm a muscle fan!" I love Rocky Horror. ^_^ Heh. Yes, it's always nice when someone gets the job. :) I first saw Rocky Horror back in high school in 1978. I was starring as Dracula in a play of the same name and our director took the cast to see Rocky Horror. In those days it was mostly a transgender cult film and none of us had ever heard about it. In the early part of the movie when I first saw Frankenfurter I was thinking, "Oh, that's my character"--right up until he opened his outer clothing and revealed the lingerie underneath. Then I thought "Oh, I guess not my character after all." :D Later my director claimed that my jaw dropped when Frankenfurter revealed the lingerie, but actually I can't breathe well through my nose so when I relax I breathe through my mouth, and thus keep it open. Indeed I have to be careful around other people to close it and make an effort to breathe through my nose at dinner and such. :P Back in those days, by the way, people didn't talk so much during the movie. I mean they did talk, but not so much that you couldn't even hear the dialogue anymore like the last time I went. Also starting with the scene where Riff comes in dressed up and tells Frankenfurter that his mission is over, people got very quiet. The movie is supposed to contain a message about intolerance which gets lost with people making jokes during those last scenes. The last time I went to see it I was surprised to see people joking during that part of the film, but I guess that's what happened when it went from transgender cult flick to popular entertainment. I don't know what happens now--it's actually been years if not decades since I last saw it. When I was in college it showed up there as a midnight show each Saturday night and I went a few times with a couple of my friends who were even more into it than I did, but eventually I got bored with doing it over and over. Actually I recall the specific evening back in 1979. We had a floor party in my residence hall that night, a big elaborate affair for which we each chipped in substantial money and at which we had music, decorations, and most importantly, alcohol. In those days the drinking age was 19 in Urbana. The party had barely gotten started when I had to meet Ellen to go see Rocky Horror. I'd already gotten a buzz from the booze and was warm in the cold winter night in my dress suit with only my suit coat for warmth. Standing in line though I decided I wanted to go back to the party for which I'd paid so much money. I told Ellen that I'd be sober by the time the movie ended and then have to walk home freezing. So I bid her goodbye and went back to my party. Ironically I ended up dropping by her boyfriend's on the way home and bringing him to the party with me as he was my best friend. We got drunk and, amazingly, danced to the Time Warp which they played at the party! So you see, I didn't miss Rocky Horror entirely anyway. I actually saw Rocky Horror on TV a couple of years back. I'm pretty sure they edited it, but I enjoyed being able to hear all the lines in the actual movie again, as well as singing along and saying the old audience response lines from before the audience response lines started to overpower the movie. :) It's just a jump to the left... ;) Well, even if by RAW it isn't allowed, couldn't you kill a large creature and cut off ITS unarmed strikes and wield THEM with Powerful Build? :P :rofl: P.S. That reminds me. I just read in someone's signature line yesterday that a monk grabbed a dwarf and started beating a bad guy with him to overcome the bad guy's DR #/lawful. :D
moosekickedmysisterstoof 11-28-07, 01:47 PM	I really like it. I wasn't born yet when it first came out (I'm only 21), so I didn't end up seeing it until much later on. It's my favorite musical though. Recently, a theatre in my town put it on so I went to go see it with a friend. It was amazing! :) My favorite song is "Planet Shmanet Janet." *singing* You're a hotdog, but you'd better not try to hurt her, Frankfurter!
Thorsbjorn 11-28-07, 01:52 PM	I really like it. I wasn't born yet when it first came out (I'm only 21), so I didn't end up seeing it until much later on. It's my favorite musical though. Recently, a theatre in my town put it on so I went to go see it with a friend. It was amazing! :) My favorite song is "Planet Shmanet Janet." *singing* You're a hotdog, but you'd better not try to hurt her, Frankfurter! Heh. That's a great line. It would be corny I suppose if the music weren't so good. Someone put a lot of creativity in that film. My favorite song from Rocky Horror is "There's a Light." I like those sweet, hopeful songs that pretend that life isn't a miserable struggle and that even nice guys can find happiness. :weep: There's a light... Over at the Frankenstein's place. There's a light... Burning in the fireplace. There's a light... Li-i-ight... In the darkness Of e-e-every-body's life.
Stockvillain 11-28-07, 02:30 PM	I would like, if I may, to take you on a journey back on topic [for a lil' bit]. I would have to add my support for the Powerful Build applying to Unarmed Strike damage - with the caveat that Powerful Build not stack with Improved Natural Attack, since the two would be filling the same role. Superior Unarmed Strike [Tome of Battle], is another story . . . *muwahahahaha* Back off topic . . . My local thatre company has a production of Rocky Horror lined up for next Spring, and I am absolutely psyched about playing Eddie/Doc Scott. My favorite musical of all time, hands down. Getting crammed in a Coke machine is gonna suck, though [for those that have only seen the film, Eddie is supposed to be stored in a coke machine, not a deep freeze].
Thorsbjorn 11-28-07, 02:58 PM	I would like, if I may, to take you on a journey back on topic [for a lil' bit]. I would have to add my support for the Powerful Build applying to Unarmed Strike damage - with the caveat that Powerful Build not stack with Improved Natural Attack, since the two would be filling the same role. Superior Unarmed Strike [Tome of Battle], is another story . . . *muwahahahaha* Back off topic . . . My local thatre company has a production of Rocky Horror lined up for next Spring, and I am absolutely psyched about playing Eddie/Doc Scott. My favorite musical of all time, hands down. Getting crammed in a Coke machine is gonna suck, though [for those that have only seen the film, Eddie is supposed to be stored in a coke machine, not a deep freeze]. I've never before heard of the Coke machine, but I'd heard before that they'd had the same actor play Eddie and Doctor Scott.
Crimson_Concerto 11-28-07, 07:29 PM	It would be unfair to not allow it. It would be a disadvantage for Goliaths and Half-Giants playing Monks.While I agree that it wouldn't break the game to allow races with Powerful Build to be teated as a larger for purposes unarmed damage, I have to say your argument for it is rather nonsensical. You might as well say it's unfair for Dwarves to have a penalty to Charisma because that would be a disadvantage to Dwarves playing Sorcerers. What's really sad is that's the only real argument for Goliaths and such to be treated as large for unarmed damage. You can't argue RAW, because RAW doesn't even mention that as a benefit of Powerful Build, and you can't argue logic, because Goliaths are still medium size creatures with medium size bodies and fists, and their great racial strength bonus ALREADY DOES give them better unarmed damage anyways. Look, I know it's sad, but not ever character can significantly benefit from every single racial ability it has. Even without Large unarmed damage, a Goliath Monk is by no means useless (and least no more useless than Monks normally are, but that's another story). What, you miss out on one, maybe two points of damage? Big deal. As a Monk, you'll probably be doing much more tripping or grappling than other melee characters anyways, so your Powerful Build benefits increase there... I'm just saying if you DM doesn't want to house rule it, it's nothing significant enough to make a big uproar about...
jradd777 11-28-07, 07:35 PM	I'm just saying if you DM doesn't want to house rule it, it's nothing significant enough to make a big uproar about... That's true. Well said. As a DM I'd still houserule they get it because it does seem like part of the intent of powerful build. However, all your points are completely valid and well voiced, except that "ridiculous" is a pretty harsh word.
Thorsbjorn 11-29-07, 12:11 AM	That's true. Well said. As a DM I'd still houserule they get it because it does seem like part of the intent of powerful build. However, all your points are completely valid and well voiced, except that "ridiculous" is a pretty harsh word. I agree all around. I'd say that rather than ridiculous, the logic comes from the same logic that allows the use of larger weapons--superior leverage. Before making a decision though I'd probably check with my buddy the rocket scientist (aerospace engineer) to see what he thought about the physics of it. :)
Crimson_Concerto 11-30-07, 12:05 AM	I agree all around. I'd say that rather than ridiculous, the logic comes from the same logic that allows the use of larger weapons--superior leverage. Before making a decision though I'd probably check with my buddy the rocket scientist (aerospace engineer) to see what he thought about the physics of it. :) I will admit that I'm not expert on physics, but I was always under the impression that those with shorter limbs had better limb leverage, and I'm pretty sure Goliaths have longer limbs? :confused:
Thorsbjorn 11-30-07, 12:39 AM	I will admit that I'm not expert on physics, but I was always under the impression that those with shorter limbs had better limb leverage, and I'm pretty sure Goliaths have longer limbs? :confused: Imagine trying to pry up the end of your couch with a quarter staff. Then imagine trying it with a pencil. The quarterstaff clearly gives you better leverage. You'll find the same is true with arm-wrestling. Someone with a shorter arm has serious trouble beating someone with a longer arm if both of you have your arms perpendicular to the table. If you both tilt your arms down to a 45-degree angle from the table, however, the leverage advantage of the longer arm diminishes. :)
Crimson_Concerto 12-01-07, 02:01 AM	Imagine trying to pry up the end of your couch with a quarter staff. Then imagine trying it with a pencil. The quarterstaff clearly gives you better leverage.Yeah, but again not being an expert in physics, in your example, you're using a first class lever, right? But isn't like say a bicep more like a third class lever? I mean, in that case, if you have the same weight on the end but it's distance distance is closer to the fulcrum, don't you have to exert less force to lift that same amount of weight? I can't say I know enough about the matter to say anything about your arm-wrestling example, though...
CryoSilver 12-01-07, 02:04 AM	But if you are hitting someone, your longer arms give you more reach, meaning you can attack from further away and they have to work harder to defend against you. This means that you can put more force into your attack, knowing your enemy can't use the opportunity to counterattack, and might account for more damage.
Crimson_Concerto 12-01-07, 03:36 PM	But if you are hitting someone, your longer arms give you more reach, meaning you can attack from further away and they have to work harder to defend against you. This means that you can put more force into your attack, knowing your enemy can't use the opportunity to counterattack, and might account for more damage. Possibly, I suppose, but then again that has little to do with leverage, and it still does little to explain Powerful Build, which unless I'm mistaken was the point?
Thorsbjorn 12-01-07, 05:02 PM	Possibly, I suppose, but then again that has little to do with leverage, and it still does little to explain Powerful Build, which unless I'm mistaken was the point? I concur. :) On the large issue of whether leverage could explain the powerful build, I broken down and emailed my rocket scientist buddy about. I should have also asked whether more weight could help explain it too. I've known from my own experience that when I lost a substantial amount of body fat, even as I kept lifting weights and maybe increased my intensity, I lost the ability to lift at the very high ends. When I weighed 190, for instance, I could lift 265 on the free weight bench press. As soon as I started losing weight, however, my maximum lift dropped substantially. Soon I couldn't do 250 even once. I know that he's also said you can't lose fat fast like that and not lose muscle too, but with the smaller muscles I didn't experience any drop in my lifting capability. I might not, on the other hand, have been pushing the upper limits on other lifts. I don't recall ever working, for instance, with my maximum (one-rep only) curl. So maybe I did lose strength at the upper end there too and just never tested it. Of course even if that's true it doesn't tell me whether I lost lifting capacity because of simply losing body mass, or specifically because of losing muscle, or perhaps even a combination of both. I knew a fellow who weighed 500 pounds and never worked out. He had an extraordinary capacity to lift weight as I discovered when he lifted a huge metal container filled with water and put it on a counter at chest level. Two people my size couldn't have muscled that container that high! So I'm pretty sure that body mass alone, even if it's fat, helps with certain types of lifting. Of course having to lift all that fat in his body just to move around probably made his body develop more muscle than an ordinary person develops just moving around in the ordinary course of life, so maybe he had more muscle than I might have thought. I have to confess an ignorance of different types of levers. I do know from studying kenjutsu that wielding a weapon doesn't depend solely the biceps. The forearm muscles, triceps, deltoid, trapezius, pectoralis and even latissimus dorsai all play roles in wielding a weapon. Anyway I just emailed my buddy so we'll see what he has to say. :)
strenoth 12-03-07, 03:54 AM	just remember, that if you have longer limbs and are gripping a large weapon, so to the leg behind you is longer, proving more mass and length to your counter balance. Plus, it's Dnd, so good enough :)
CryoSilver 12-03-07, 11:05 PM	I concur. :) On the large issue of whether leverage could explain the powerful build, I broken down and emailed my rocket scientist buddy about. I should have also asked whether more weight could help explain it too. I've known from my own experience that when I lost a substantial amount of body fat, even as I kept lifting weights and maybe increased my intensity, I lost the ability to lift at the very high ends. When I weighed 190, for instance, I could lift 265 on the free weight bench press. As soon as I started losing weight, however, my maximum lift dropped substantially. Soon I couldn't do 250 even once... Your bench press uses your chest muscles; as you begin losing weight, there is less constant strain on those muscles from your weight pulling down on them. This is similar to the way that larger people tend to have legs made of solid muscle; their legs are required to constantly support more weight and are consequently stronger. Since there is no longer constantly weight on your chest muscles, they are only really being used WHEN you bench press, which could account for your reduced max weight. The gain is mostly realized in that since that strain isn't there, you probably have more calories available to do many reps at lower weight, which tends to leave you looking more lean and attractive than bulky and (IMO) bloated.