In my games, a player would have to take ambidexterity twice. Thankfully, since the advent of Savage..., this is no longer necessary. They need to take multiattack (? think that's the title; if not, it's close). This allows them to use their extra arms. Otherwise, it's just like you or I using our off hand.
Sneak attacks? I think you only get one: once you're stabbed, you're no longer sneaked, so the damage bonus would only be applied to one attack (again, in my opinion - but I've been a GM for LOOOOOOOONNNNNG time).
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/er/20030221a
You can sneak attack more than once...
From FAQ
Note that in earlier versions of the game only the first attack a rogue made in a round could be a sneak attack. That is no longer the case.
About monks: humans have only two arms, but who said a human monk will only use his arms? Why can't they use their feet, elbows or whatever? Answer is: they can. And in order to use his monk attacks, PHB pg 41 says "there's no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed". Yeah, if you wanna use lots of attacks, there's flurry of blows: two attacks in 1st monk level, three in 8th lvl, four on 11th lvl.... I think that should happen to kreens as well. They still can use their spare claws as a secondary natural weapon attack, -5 to attack rolls, etc. causing 1d4 damage.
Originally posted by Gab
Er, check the main D&D FAQ on the Wizards' site:
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/er/20030221a
You can sneak attack more than once...
From FAQ
Don't see that in there at all, but I'll take your word for it.
Originally posted by evilrafael
I decided to let the players use monks in Athas because in my opinion it still has a lot to do with Dark Sun: the lack of good weapons, the hazardous environment, the many tribal and different cultures... a lot to explore and to give reason to a monk.
I agree, but I'm done arguing trying to get it in as a core class.
My advice to you is change the flavor a bit where the abilities they get are more psi in flavor and less magic in flavor.
Other than that, I have no problem with the monk whatsoever in Athas, no matter what race you take with it.
About monks: humans have only two arms, but who said a human monk will only use his arms? Why can't they use their feet, elbows or whatever? Answer is: they can. And in order to use his monk attacks, PHB pg 41 says "there's no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed". Yeah, if you wanna use lots of attacks, there's flurry of blows: two attacks in 1st monk level, three in 8th lvl, four on 11th lvl.... I think that should happen to kreens as well. They still can use their spare claws as a secondary natural weapon attack, -5 to attack rolls, etc. causing 1d4 damage.
Not sure that is fair with the LA of kreen and all, but that's one way of tweaking it down some.
How does the TK ranger progression go...would it be ambi or multi dex path?
By the way, good question regarding the kreen rangers. Again, I don't a have a good answer (ugh I hate these four-armed guys, because I hate unbalanced games!)
Originally posted by Dawnstealer
I believe this will be one of those times when my house rules overrule the official doctrine.
As far as multiple sneak attacks toward one target in a round?
I agree. I recall reading somewhere that only one got through in a round, whether the target still lost his Dex or was flanked or not. I think the feat was called manyshot from the epic handbook. Course I haven't read the errata much, so maybe they changed that for 3.5.
I think allowing multiple sneak attacks on one target in a round with anything is too much and should be a feat or something to allow this instead.
Esepcially with the nasty rogue combos I've seen in my group.
Originally posted by Dawnstealer
On to the topic of monks, they are mentioned in City State of Nibeneay from Ivory Triangle. They do exist on Athas. Period. Now how you want to incorporate them into your campaign is another question. I have strict requirements to get in (must be human, elf, or 1/2 elf - kreen do not have the mental discipline to be a monk). Basically, use what you think would be fun and not overpowered.
There are also several snipets here and there about other monk convents around Athas, a few point to being Villichi in origin.
So as far as I'm concerned, monks should be on Athas.
Not even counting the fact that Brown and Denning both wanted monks in the campaign setting but weren't allowed to due to legal restraints, which was for all of T$R.
So there you have it.
Still anxious to see what PsiHb 3.5 has in store for a psi-monk type.
Originally posted by evilrafael
Hey! Not letting kreens be monks solves it all! May Hextor bless tabletop tiranny! :D Seriously, those insects can't really be of just any class. Depending on the situation, it wouldn't be fair to the other players -- this includes the monk situation..... I think.
I personally think that is unfair, and if you want to balance kreen out more raise their LA by 1, which is what it should be anyways IMO.
Its a moot point since there are no monks in Dark Sun (thank god..er the elements) so thri kreen cannot become one.
Ha! You are wrong, poo-tosser! Seriously, it's in the Ivory Triangle expansion, and Nyt's right in the fact that the Villichi (which he's writing a pretty good expansion on, by the way) also practice something that sounds suspiciously like a monk (or psychic warrior. Kreen could conceivably be monks, but I'd try to discourage. What all DnD games come down to is this: is it fun? Will your players enjoy it? Does it make sense for your campaign?
If the answer to these questions is "no," as it applies to your gaming group, then don't use that rule/race/class/etc. If you want to have spacefaring giant space hampsters land on Athas and take over as sorcerer kings, more power to you. That doesn't mean the rest of us will, but who cares? When TSR stopped making DS, the doors were thrown open. Burnt World is a guide, a starting point, and a good one, but this is no longer an "official WotC Sponsored World."
Have fun with it and damn the critics.
Originally posted by NytCrawlr
As far as multiple sneak attacks toward one target in a round?
I agree. I recall reading somewhere that only one got through in a round, whether the target still lost his Dex or was flanked or not. I think the feat was called manyshot from the epic handbook. Course I haven't read the errata much, so maybe they changed that for 3.5.
Manyshot allows you to shoot multiple arrows with a single shot from a bow (Legolas does this a few times in the LOTR movies, firing two arrows at once). One of the limitations on the feat is that 'precision-based' damage (frex, sneak attack) is only applied to the first arrow. There was a similar limitation on 3.0 shuriken, which could be thrown three per attack. But that limitation is a special case that only applies when using Manyshot.
There's never been a limit on the number of sneak attacks per round that can be made with normal attacks, in 3.0 or in 3.5. While a flanking rogue can cause a lot of damage that way, it's balanced by the rogue's lack of HP and AC. And you can't flank with a missile weapon.
Originally posted by NytCrawlr
Don't see that in there at all, but I'll take your word for it.
It's on page 9 of the 3.0 FAQ, specifically the first two rogue questions.
Whenever a rogue attacks an opponent that the rogue flanks, or who is denied a Dexterity bonus to Armor Class (such as when caught flat-footed), the rogue's attack is a sneak attack. It makes no difference how many attacks the rogue makes or whether the opponent is aware of the rogue or not. (Note that opponents who are not subject to critical hits, such as constructs, elementals, oozes, plants, and undead, are not subject to sneak attacks.) Note that in earlier versions of the game only the first attack a rogue made in a round could be a sneak attack. That is no longer the case.
Originally posted by evilrafael
Seriously, those insects can't really be of just any class. Depending on the situation, it wouldn't be fair to the other players -- this includes the monk situation..... I think.
I dunno. In my campaigns, my players and I have come to the realization that Level Adjustments really suck. A LA of just +1 means that you have 1 less HD of hit points to survive off of. That can be the difference between surviving the infamous tembo attack or becoming a tembo milkbone.
Heck, two of my players adamantly refuse to play any race which has a Level Adjustment of any kind. Of those two, one refuses to play a race that has racial/monster HD's of any kind, preferring to get the full range of advantages from a specific class over the advantages from racial HD.
Of the others, one plays a decent Thri-Kreen, and yes, he was a blender in combat (he had a Gythka in 2 hands, and a Chatkcha in each of his other hands; his character was a Ranger). While another player played a Half-Elf Psychic Warrior who wielded a 2-handed weapon (crystal 2h sword, which I had allowed for the purpose of allowing the development of a Psychic Weapon Master, plus the weapon list for DS3 wasn't complete when we started out) When push came to shove, the two of them dealt the same amount of damage each round, the difference was that the Half-Elf did it in a substantially fewer number of dice rolls than the Thri-Kreen. In other words - they were quite balanced in the game.
Nasty.
[snip] . . .attack or becoming a tembo milkbone.
I love it!
I dunno. In my campaigns, my players and I have come to the realization that Level Adjustments really suck.
Several players I've got have had complaints about the LA's as well, not neccessarily that they're out of balance, but that they want to have the option (remember that whole options, not restrictions slogan) of using something akin to racial levels ala Arcana Unearthed or Savage Species. I've got both but have yet to sit down and give the idea more than a cursory thought (having sent enought time with my own racial creations rather burnt me out on the idea).
I dunno. In my campaigns, my players and I have come to the realization that Level Adjustments really suck. A LA of just +1 means that you have 1 less HD of hit points to survive off of. That can be the difference between surviving the infamous tembo attack or becoming a tembo milkbone.
Yeah, well, my players are still learning to deal with that. My favorite race of all times is Human, so I don't have to worry about it
but some here are always on the lookout for flaws in rules, just to get a slightly (or greatly) better damage, better reach for critical hits, more spells, etc. It's usually all firstly about the damage, secondly about the number of attacks, and so on. All about hack'n'slash.That's why I prefer non-combat characters, mages or such
but still I always have to be cautious for balance in my games... otherwise they try to take control of the game, and get bitter when they cannot. You'll say "ok, fine, if they want to kill the world god, just put in as many guards as to make them retreat". Yeah, but they say "how come they have so many 10th level guards ?!?!" When creating characters they want to overpower it, when talking of the dangers you'll set on them, they become "realistic" and ask that you be "logical" and "reasonable".It's all delicate.
Another player is the penultimate min/maxking freak, who spends his spare time figuring out new ways to make the "best" (in his view) characters for whatever game we make. He's also probably the #1 reason that the games we play take soooo long - he cannot ever seem to make any decisions whatsoever. Yet, somehow he ends up being the "diplomat" character, or better yet, the occasional "leader" of a group.
Yet another player is simply Lazy Man. He believes fully in the path of least resistance. If that means he lets others make his characters' decisions for him, so be it. He is frequently corrupted by the above min/maxer, and has been known to ignore the concept of roleplaying and focus on min/maxing when the other player is around. If the min-maxer isn't around, however, he's actually a very good roleplayer. He's so lazy, however, that he refuses to put up the effort to even remember the rules for the game he's playing.
My next player is actually not all that bad, he tends to choose the big, hulking brute-like character (Half-Giant Brute is a popular choice for him in DS), but he also tries at other things occasionally, just to keep from geting in a rut.
My last player has permanently sworn off the d20 System, and if he's around while the rest of us play D&D (or Star Wars, d20 Modern, etc), he hangs around and complains about everything he thinks sucks about the game system. He simply doesn't like the fact that he only rolls a single die to do everything (other than damage), and feels more comfortable playing games like Shadowrun or the World of Darkness games.
Not sure what he's smoking but he needs to share, heh.
Originally posted by MrSpatula
It's on page 9 of the 3.0 FAQ, specifically the first two rogue questions.
Except that is 3.0 and not 3.5.
No where in the 3.5 FAQ does it state this.
Unless I'm blind, and that could be a possibility. :D
Originally posted by Dawnstealer
For the record, SR only uses a d6.
Yes, and White-Wolf's World of Darkness series of games (Vampire, Mage, Werewolf, Wraith, Changeling, Mummy, etc., etc., etc.) only uses d10's. His issue is not only using one *type* of die, his problem is only rolling one *physical* die. He likes games where he rolls 2, 3, 5, 10, etc. dice (of the same type) for a check, not games where he rolls a single die and adds a bonus (like the d20 system). It's something that is rather funny when you think about it, but he's very particular on this one point.
That's still damn funny though.
Originally posted by NytCrawlr
Except that is 3.0 and not 3.5.
No where in the 3.5 FAQ does it state this.
Probably because they're no longer getting questions concerning changes between 2E and 3E... And it's not like the sneak attack description has really changed between 3.0 and 3.5. Aside from the 3.0 FAQ, there's nothing in the 3.0 or 3.5 books that says there's a limit on sneak attacks per round, therefore no limit exists.
Just my two ceramic bits
PS: I'm a new Dark Sun fan, I love the game. Hello everybody! :D
Originally posted by Elonarc
PS: I'm a new Dark Sun fan, I love the game. Hello everybody! :D
Welcome to the board Elonarc! The more DS lover we are the more ideas will appear as well !
I'm new here too, we're just starting our first campaign, isn't that exciting I suppose I will allow a thri-kreen rogue to make sneak attacks just with his "primary claw". The other three won't be able to do sneak attack damage.
Wait a minute. As far as I know, all the four claws are considered "primary" natural weapons, provided the kreen is not using any real weapon.... right?
Originally posted by evilrafael
Wait a minute. As far as I know, all the four claws are considered "primary" natural weapons, provided the kreen is not using any real weapon.... right?
True, but you could limit it to a simple 1 sneak attack per round rule if you so desired. The Thri-Kreen could have a sneak attack Bite for all that cares.
Personally, I don't see it as that much of a problem. Compare a TK Fighter with a TK Rogue or even a TK Monk, they are balanced. Then compare a Level 1 TK Rogue with a level 4 Human Rogue, and you'd see that it's pretty balanced as well. Assuming they are comperably equipped. The TK Rogue could get more attacks in, but the Human Rogue would have more HP (most likely), another level of skills (plus extra skill points being Human), an Ability increase and an extra feat (once again, being Human). Don't compare a Level 1 TK Rogue with a level 1 Human Rogue, you wouldn't be comparing apples to apples, you'd be comparing grapefruits to grapes. Sure, they both have the word "grape" in it, but they aren't alike.
And once again, I've had a player who was a TK Ranger, and he was very balanced with a Half-Elf Psychic Warrior (my other player). The TK used multiple weapons while the HE used a single 2H weapon. The difference was that the TK took much longer in combat due to making (at a minimum from the beginning) 5 attacks for every 1 attack the HE did. But they averaged the same amount of damage each round (the game stopped with them being somewhere around CL/ECL 27).
Of course, I could see to it that it wasn't allowed if it felt unbalanced in our games, but then again, it's our first campaign, we're still playtesting.
Thanks for the tips
Originally posted by Hoondatha
I might be forgetting (or it might have been changed when 2e was left behind), but I thought the kreen book said that kreen are mildly dominate on one side (left claws over right, or vice versa), and that the upper claws are primary over lower. I also don't think it made too much difference during a game, it was mainly for "my guy had one dagger. uhh, which claw is he holding it in?"
And in the d20 rules (3.0 or 3.5), a 4-armed character is treated as having 1 primary hand, and 3 offhands for weapons. Also, instead of Two-Weapon Fighting, they get Multi-Weapon Fighting.
I'm curious, how likely is it that a thri-keen would join a monastary, they don't really live long enough, and have to much of a pack mentality to be searching for inner peace. I cant see them being to great at thieving anyway-too bulky, although I guess they have camoflague.
Monks don't need a monastery. Technically speaking (afaik) only cenobite monks live in communities. Anchorite monks are solitary (and the places they live are often known as anchorages). In England, the requirements for monkhood have been quite lax at times - for many centuries all you needed was to learn the Lord's Prayer and get a tonsure (that bald-patch haircut). Oh, and dedicate the rest of your life to God. That too. But you get the picture. Wandering kreen monks (colloquially referred to as "grasshoppers") seem fine to me...
Thri-kreen Monk... impossible you say? Just take a look:
http://www.wizards.com/dnd/article.asp?x=dnd/fc/fc20010803a
D&D Fight Club
Kitzukhan: Thri-Kreen Monk
By Scott Brocius
Stop worrying about optimization all the time and just have fun with the character you want to play, heh.
Originally posted by leopardmessiah
Cool, but more so than the problem of four arms. There is also the problem that as Kreen have no armour, and have claws, the monk (while not neccessary better than say, a psionic warrior) is certainly a better option than a fighter.
And you forget that a Thri-Kreen has 1 less HD than their human (or other non-LA races) equivalents, due to their Level Adjustment. As such, some might prefer the Fighter, which has a d10, rather than a d8 per level HD, as well as gets a +1 to their Base Attack Bonus, as opposed to the monk, which IIRC is actually more like a + 2/3 per level. Also, my players like the Fighter over any other melee class for the simple reason of personalization (can choose every feat however they want based on the large selection of "fighter" feats) and psycho-rapid feat development. They like the bonus feat every other level concept.
Then again, my players also like the Wizard over the Sorcerer hands-down, so I've not had to worry about attempting to bring Sorc's into DS....