DM Nagging: It's pretty much my job

[Corwin]

I keep on forgetting where the numbers for monk unarmed damage are for all the sizes, please help point me in the right direction?

Also, say I want to improve my monk's damage with some variant on the Wallop line of spells. I can go up to Colossal and then it stops there? Even stuff like improved natural attack won't help boost it past that?

What if I wanted to similarly boost the damage of a manufactured weapon? Where are the tables?

Is there anything like Wallop for non-bludgeoning weapons? If not, would a parallel spell be possible?

[Nephrite]

Cor, here you go: http://www.soulriders.net/forum/index.php/topic,103074.msg1050460.html#msg1050460

[Iron Dragoon]

I made a better Wallop spell. Superior Might Wallop, level 10 in spell collection.

[Anastasia]

Also, say I want to improve my monk's damage with some variant on the Wallop line of spells. I can go up to Colossal and then it stops there? Even stuff like improved natural attack won't help boost it past that?

Correct. As long as it says anything about improving the damage as if larger, it caps at Colossal. If you feel a particular ability is unclear, go ahead and post it here and I'll rule on it.

The best way to do more damage

What if I wanted to similarly boost the damage of a manufactured weapon? Where are the tables?

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/weapons.htm#weaponSize

That covers about 95% of weapons. If you have one that doesn't track to that chart, talk to me and I'll see what's up.

Is there anything like Wallop for non-bludgeoning weapons? If not, would a parallel spell be possible?

There's no equivalent to the wallop line as far as I'm aware. Could be wrong, but nothing's popping to mind.

RAW there's really no reason you couldn't do it. It's more a question of style and if it's a good idea. I'm not the biggest fan of the wallops, but as bludgeoning only they provide an interesting paradigm. If you have access to them, it gives you reason to consider bludgeoning weapons, which are otherwise a bit behind slashing and piercing weapons. Granted, superior mighty wallop is good enough (and greater without houserules) that it swings that strongly towards bludgeoning, moreso if you're already a monk or a similar situation.

[Anastasia]

Here is what the Rules Compendium has to say on the subject, if it helps any:

CREATURES
Constructs, elementals, outsiders, and corporeal undead still function in an antimagic area. Their special abilities are affected by the antimagic as detailed below.  A big creature whose space is partially within an antimagic area can choose to attack from a square not within the area, thereby suffering no adverse effects from the antimagic. Its attacks and abilities are affected by the
antimagic if it attacks into the antimagic area or uses an ability on a foe within the antimagic area.  Summoned creatures of any type disappear if they enter an antimagic area. Incorporeal creatures do the same. These creatures reappear in the same spot once the antimagic effect goes away, unless they were summoned by an effect whose duration has expired—see Spells, below

SPELLS
Spells don't function in an antimagic area, but an antimagic area doesn't block line of effect. If a spell's point of origin is inside an antimagic area, that spell is entirely suppressed. When a spell's point of origin is located outside an antimagic area, but part of that spell's area overlaps the antimagic area, that spell's effect is suppressed where the two areas overlap.


It seems to suggest that you can still cast things outside of the antimagic area if you're large enough, but if you're targeting yourself with something, it won't work.

I'm going to rule antimagic is all or nothing. If you're in, you're affected. On checking my old rulings, the discussion Eb mentioned is accurate.

[Anastasia]

We changed Concentration, but I still have Melodic Casting:

Melodic Casting (1st)

Whenever a Concentration check would be required to cast a spell or use a spell-like ability (such as when you cast defensively or are distracted or injured while casting), you can make a Perform check instead. In addition, you can cast spells and activate magic items by command word or spell completion while using a bardic music ability. Bardic music abilities that require concentration still take a standard action to perform.


[21:40] <Kotono> Oh wow, that would be crazy in context. Mmm.


Do you want me to just change the feat out? Are we just using it as a level check right now? I forget how we changed it.

Just change the feat out. Is it a prereq for you in any way?

[Nephrite]

As far as I'm aware, it isn't.

[Anastasia]

Rough draft/idea:

Telekinetic Storm
Transmutation
Level: Sor/Wiz 13
Components: V, S
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Medium, Special
Duration: 1 round/level

As you cast this spell, a windstorm begins to stir, soon becoming a maelstrom. This spell causes a storm of telekinetic energy to appear. All hostile creatures in the eye of the storm, a 20 foot radius, are thrown into the air and suspended in place. Outside of the eye, the telekinetic winds throw all objects, including creatures, are whipped into a tornado-like whirlwind. Once per round, as a free action, the caster can fling these objects at the suspended targets, impacting for 1d6 damage per caster level. The caster can designate a target for each object as they wish. Any creatures with flying caught in the storm must make a check to maintain their flight, and any creature trying to cast a spell must make a check to maintain their spell.

Okay, so lemme run this through. The idea of this is...

1. Creatures within 20ft are grabbed by telekinetic force and held immobile.
2. Creatures beyond that but within the ranged are caught in a whirlwind and can be hurtled at creatures within the eye of the storm?
3. What sort of check does a flying creature need to make not to lose their flight?
4. What about saves/SR?

[Corwin]

Correct. As long as it says anything about improving the damage as if larger, it caps at Colossal. If you feel a particular ability is unclear, go ahead and post it here and I'll rule on it.

The best way to do more damage

Were you cut off here?

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/weapons.htm#weaponSize

That covers about 95% of weapons. If you have one that doesn't track to that chart, talk to me and I'll see what's up.

Okay. I'm basically interested in the progression for a red dragon's bite, claw, wing slam and tail slap from Medium all the way to Colossal.

Also, am I correct in assuming that a monk's unarmed strike is treated as a natural or manufactured weapon, whichever is more convenient to the monk (from the monk's unarmed strike writeup), and you could use Greater Magic Weapon or Greater Magic Fang on it, whichever you preferred?

As for the natural attacks, only Greater Magic Fang would work there?

There's no equivalent to the wallop line as far as I'm aware. Could be wrong, but nothing's popping to mind.

RAW there's really no reason you couldn't do it. It's more a question of style and if it's a good idea. I'm not the biggest fan of the wallops, but as bludgeoning only they provide an interesting paradigm. If you have access to them, it gives you reason to consider bludgeoning weapons, which are otherwise a bit behind slashing and piercing weapons. Granted, superior mighty wallop is good enough (and greater without houserules) that it swings that strongly towards bludgeoning, moreso if you're already a monk or a similar situation.

Bludgeoning weapons just lose out in visual appeal, except when monks are involved. It's not like they're inherently worse than slashing or piercing.

Incidentally, something that got me wondering. The gauntlet's writeup under Weapons says 'This metal glove lets you deal lethal damage rather than nonlethal damage with unarmed strikes.'

What if you put a gauntlet over a natural attack like a claw? Would it replace your claw damage progression with the gauntlet damage progression, but in turn allow you to enchant it and change the attack type to bludgeoning when you use that natural attack? Or would using it with your secondary claw mean you no longer have a secondary attack and need to invest in Two-Weapon Fighting to use it?

[Corwin]

Also I've seen that Asmodad is DvR20, I'm reminding you again to edit the divine faq~

[Iron Dragoon]

Okay, so lemme run this through. The idea of this is...

1. Creatures within 20ft are grabbed by telekinetic force and held immobile.

Something like that. I don't know how many would be appropriate, if just a single target or multiple, but yeah.

2. Creatures beyond that but within the ranged are caught in a whirlwind and can be hurtled at creatures within the eye of the storm?

Not just creatures, but objects. Mainly objects, I meant more that creatures are caught in the whirlwind, but throwing them should work. I mean, fling skyward and all.

3. What sort of check does a flying creature need to make not to lose their flight?

I have no idea. I know there's that alter gravity spell that does the same thing, so I figured it'd be the same check with that.

4. What about saves/SR?

I put in that there's a save, but I probably worded it poorly and I forgot to put it in the block for it. I don't know if it'd be Ref or Will though since its a physical impact. SR is fine either way, I suppose. Personally I'll just use factotum to bypass it anyway.

[Anastasia]

Correct. As long as it says anything about improving the damage as if larger, it caps at Colossal. If you feel a particular ability is unclear, go ahead and post it here and I'll rule on it.

The best way to do more damage

Were you cut off here?

No, editing mistake. This post went through a few permutations as I got interrupted midway, and I wasn't as clean with my editing as I thought I was.

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/weapons.htm#weaponSize

That covers about 95% of weapons. If you have one that doesn't track to that chart, talk to me and I'll see what's up.

Okay. I'm basically interested in the progression for a red dragon's bite, claw, wing slam and tail slap from Medium all the way to Colossal.[/quote][/quote]

Oh, that's easy. That's in the true dragon writeup. They specially note how it goes up in size there.

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/dragonTrue.htm

The first table under combat has a chart.

Also, am I correct in assuming that a monk's unarmed strike is treated as a natural or manufactured weapon, whichever is more convenient to the monk (from the monk's unarmed strike writeup), and you could use Greater Magic Weapon or Greater Magic Fang on it, whichever you preferred?

Correct. Monks have a special there unique to the class, as noted in the unarmed strike class feature. Note that precisely how that is executed has been clarified in various sources since then, but you have the right of it.

As for the natural attacks, only Greater Magic Fang would work there?

Correct. Natural attacks don't count as manufactured weapons.

There's no equivalent to the wallop line as far as I'm aware. Could be wrong, but nothing's popping to mind.

RAW there's really no reason you couldn't do it. It's more a question of style and if it's a good idea. I'm not the biggest fan of the wallops, but as bludgeoning only they provide an interesting paradigm. If you have access to them, it gives you reason to consider bludgeoning weapons, which are otherwise a bit behind slashing and piercing weapons. Granted, superior mighty wallop is good enough (and greater without houserules) that it swings that strongly towards bludgeoning, moreso if you're already a monk or a similar situation.

Bludgeoning weapons just lose out in visual appeal, except when monks are involved. It's not like they're inherently worse than slashing or piercing.

Incidentally, something that got me wondering. The gauntlet's writeup under Weapons says 'This metal glove lets you deal lethal damage rather than nonlethal damage with unarmed strikes.'

What if you put a gauntlet over a natural attack like a claw? Would it replace your claw damage progression with the gauntlet damage progression, but in turn allow you to enchant it and change the attack type to bludgeoning when you use that natural attack? Or would using it with your secondary claw mean you no longer have a secondary attack and need to invest in Two-Weapon Fighting to use it?

That's a good question. I'd have to rules dive on it, but off the cuff I believe it would simply replace the natural attack in question. You cant use your claws if they're covered in a metal gauntlet, after all. It would be a gauntlet attack in all ways, rather than a natural attack.

To be totally honest, I'd want to review all the relevant rules here, so give me a reply to this so I don't forget to later. Probably tonight or whenever I next clear out nagging.

[Anastasia]

Also I've seen that Asmodad is DvR20, I'm reminding you again to edit the divine faq~

Added.

[Corwin]

Incidentally, something that got me wondering. The gauntlet's writeup under Weapons says 'This metal glove lets you deal lethal damage rather than nonlethal damage with unarmed strikes.'

What if you put a gauntlet over a natural attack like a claw? Would it replace your claw damage progression with the gauntlet damage progression, but in turn allow you to enchant it and change the attack type to bludgeoning when you use that natural attack? Or would using it with your secondary claw mean you no longer have a secondary attack and need to invest in Two-Weapon Fighting to use it?

That's a good question. I'd have to rules dive on it, but off the cuff I believe it would simply replace the natural attack in question. You cant use your claws if they're covered in a metal gauntlet, after all. It would be a gauntlet attack in all ways, rather than a natural attack.

To be totally honest, I'd want to review all the relevant rules here, so give me a reply to this so I don't forget to later. Probably tonight or whenever I next clear out nagging.

As requested.

[Anastasia]

Build charts are being converted to B3 style, as I'm finding those better than the new style I tried here. There's here and being filled in, they'll be stickied once done.