Discussion & Feedback -- Plain Scholar (Contest #1)

[sirpercival]

This thread is for contestants (and anyone else, I guess) to ask questions about the Plain Scholar, and to give feedback.

[EjoThims]

What is the actual advancement on unarmed strikes? Especially with odd-sized starts, having a set table (or at least pointing to a set table) would be quite useful. If you just want to point to a table, I'd recommend the one on page 43 of SS.

Origin Sign- is the damage supposed to be based on a profession check? Or on knowledge like the rest of the class?

Ephemereality of Life  - is the bonus and penalty on this untyped?

[oslecamo]

What is the actual advancement on unarmed strikes? Especially with odd-sized starts, having a set table (or at least pointing to a set table) would be quite useful. If you just want to point to a table, I'd recommend the one on page 43 of SS.

Die size increases are suposed to be a set thing in D&D. The most basic example would be the improved natural attack progression.

Origin Sign- is the damage supposed to be based on a profession check? Or on knowledge like the rest of the class?

Knowledge check, bad typo on my part there. Humbly requesting sirpercival to correct that because it doesn't really make sense otherwise.

Ephemereality of Life  - is the bonus and penalty on this untyped?

Yes, but it won't stack with itself.

[EjoThims]

Die size increases are suposed to be a set thing in D&D. The most basic example would be the improved natural attack progression.

Supposed to be, but are not. Tables conflict when it comes to odd starting points and high end advancement. Which should be used?

Unless, of course, by 'die size' you literally mean d3->d4->d6->d8->d10->d12->d20->d100. That would, though, mean that a large Scholar at level 18 would be doing 1d100 damage with unarmed strikes. Which is quite unconventional, since standard size increases cap damage at multiple d12s.

[oslecamo]

Die size increases are suposed to be a set thing in D&D. The most basic example would be the improved natural attack progression.

Supposed to be, but are not. Tables conflict when it comes to odd starting points and high end advancement. Which should be used?

Again, the improved natural attack progression in core.

[Garryl]

For consistency, it should reference the size category rules as INA does instead of just increased die size.

Eg: The Scholar gains Improved Unarmed Strike as a bonus feat, and she deals damage with her unarmed strikes as though she was one size category larger for every 3 levels.

[oslecamo]

The problem with that ruling it's that it would cap at colossal size, while the Scholar is suposed to get 6 increases between the 20 levels. But added to use INA as reference.

[EjoThims]

The problem with that ruling it's that it would cap at colossal size

Huge can of worms to open up there with the way you phrased that... lol... I'll just leave it at many people would disagree that you can't increase your effective size past colossal, even though that's where the INA table ends.

But this is why I suggested using the table from page 43 of Savage Species as a reference.