Talk:Monstrous Weapon Master (3.5e Prestige Class)

Bravo

I complement you on a brave piece of work. That being said, get back to they drawing board pal. Major flaws just don't cut it when I say this needs work. First off. Change the prerequisite feats. FAR TOO MANY. Even for a human fighter with his unequivical amount of feats. Spending 4 feats on a prestige class just ain't worth it pal.

Also, the special ability Powerful Wield? Clarify the thing bro! Am I forced to take it at 10th level, or am I only ABLE to take it at 10th? Also, I think a blade 3 sizes larger than you is pretty damn big. I mean, think about it. A medium size creature would be able to wield a blade built for a GARGANTUAN size creature!! TOO BIG!! PHYSICALY IMPOSSIBLE TO CARRY, MUCH LESS WIELD!!! In any case, I really liked the concept. Its a specialized class, so I'm comfortable with the lack of flexibility in focuses, because if I didn't want to focus on wielding really big swords, I wouldn't take this class. Fix a few things, and I think you got a winner. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.4.17.20 (talk • contribs) 06:47, 8 February 2006 (MST). Please sign your posts.

I completely agree. This class is way overpowered, and for all of the above mentioned reasons. And wielding a sword three sizes larger is just silly... try to picture it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Blue Dragon (talk • contribs) 20:42, 8 February 2006 (MST). Please sign your posts.

Agreement... Think about it. A medium greatsword is about 6 feet. Each size category pretty much doubles the size.

Large: 12 feet. Huh, extremely unreasonable for any realistic application, but about the same size as the standard anime huge sword.

Huge: 24 feet. Wait a a minute, what the...

Gargantuan: 48 feet. ...hell?

If you want to make a Huge-Sword-Based PRC (Which I disapprove of in the first place, but different strokes for different folks), don't go anywhere above 1 size category larger. After that you leave the realm of "Man, Cloud's huge sword is SO COOL!" and enter the realm of "Why is that guy wielding a sword eight times as large as he is? How does he go through doors? Where does he put it when he's not using it?" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.73.173.125 (talk • contribs) 18:55, 12 February 2006 (MST). Please sign your posts.

Pictures?

Why did "66.25.25.140" get rid of the pictures? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Green Dragon (talk • contribs) 15:51, 23 February 2006 (MST). Please sign your posts.

Dunno. I guess somebody didn't like the pictures. *shrug* I thought it was a nice touch. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lord Canius (talk • contribs) 21:51, 23 February 2006 (MST). Please sign your posts.

Pictures back on... Because I saw no reason that the pictures were gone, I put them back on. Also, the thread related to this PrC is: —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Green Dragon (talk • contribs) 06:20, 25 February 2006 (MST). Please sign your posts.

Rating - 3/10

'On a scale of 1 to 10, where 1 is abysmal, 5 is adequate, and 10 is damned inspired and well implemented, I rate this entry a 3. I think that the idea is sound and the class itself is focused and builds on itself. The pre-reqs are reasonable. They reflect the genre. The entry itself need to be reorganized on a standard class layout. The abilities are confusing and not concise. Some of the abilities are a little too good. Expeditious Retreat x 40 foot move x 4 move run = +32d6 charge damage? --Dmilewski 07:55, 8 December 2006 (MST)

Rating - 2/10

I'll keep this short-- this prestige class is begging to be misused. It can be abused in a huge number of ways (several have been pointed out), and-- further-- nearly anyone who takes this class does so simply in order to manipulate its weaknesses. Overall, it is an interesting concept, just far to overpowered. --EldritchNumen 16:06, 9 December 2006 (MST)

Rating - 2/10

I give this PrC a 2/10. The reason for this is it excels beyond any normal class in way to many areas. If someone was to take this class they would gain a wide variety of skills, with no drawback. Like the jack of all fighting traits that excels at everything he tries. This is overpowered. --Green Dragon 21:59, 10 December 2006 (MST)

Making this Balanced

I like the idea of this class, and that is why I would like to make this class a viable opportunity for players. All that needs to be done is to make this more balanced, as it definitely is not right now (2.33 Balance rating...). So, please contribute. Would this make it more balanced:

1. - Make the prerequisites steeper, such as make the BAB +7, and make it so he had to have killed 50 or more creatures with a sword while wielding a Sword at least One size Category larger than himself.
2. - Get rid of Improved Grip (Why all the AC bonus', I don't see why this class would train for AC, seems metagaming...).
3. - Get rid of Blade Shield.
4. - Make Momentive Attack have a max range of 20 feet so fast races/classes could not optimize this.
5. - Get rid of the "Special Abilities" and offer some of them at different levels.
   1. - Offer Rending Slash at 1st level.
   2. - Offer Farslash at 2rd level.
   3. - Offer Momentive Attack at 4th level.
   4. - Offer new ability "Blade Shield" that would allow the Greatblade solider to use a weapon that is 2 times his normal size as a heavy steel shield as a full round action; however he could not make any attacks with his weapon while doing this at 6th level.
   5. - Offer Maximum Power at 8th level.
   6. - Offer Powerful Wield at 10th level.

Would this make it more balanced? Please tell me how I could improve this idea... --Green Dragon 23:38, 11 December 2006 (MST)

Still waiting..... --Green Dragon 21:06, 13 December 2006 (MST)

I'll try to take a look at it on monday. --Calidore Chase 13:42, 16 December 2006 (MST)

Okay. --Green Dragon 14:24, 16 December 2006 (MST)

I'll take a look in the next few days as well. --EldritchNumen 23:56, 16 December 2006 (MST)

Alright, makes me happy to hear that. --Green Dragon 23:59, 16 December 2006 (MST)

Well... I updated it. Overall, I hope it gets better than the old 2.33. I hope it is better. --Green Dragon 18:51, 29 December 2006 (MST)

Balance - 7/10

I give this class a 7. The class is much better now, but is slightly forward-heavy in useful abilities and loses power and momentum as the class builds. I would suggest moving Momentive Attack to level 8, maximum power and blade shield to level four, and giving an additional ability (free Greater Weapon Specialization with the sword type selected in the prerequisite feat seems to make a lot of sense). The changes would look like this:

4 - maximum power, blade shield 5 - nothing 6 - Greater Weapon Specialization (perhaps also a boosted version of maximum power which adds 2.5 times str bonus rather than just 2x. That might be cool...) 7 - Nothing 8 - Momentive Attack

I would move Momentive Attack to level 8 because it is a signiture move (which is well reserved for powerful Greatblade Soldiers) and also because maximum power and blade shield are more ubiquitous (common) within the world and a also much more useful at lower levels. --EldritchNumen 00:34, 11 January 2007 (MST)

I followed many of your ideas, however I did change the levels around a bit from what you suggested (even the bonuses out). So, what do you think now? --Green Dragon 01:12, 12 January 2007 (MST)

Balance - 8/10

This class has definitely improved. It now builds upon itself nicely and has much better balance. Great work, 8/10. --EldritchNumen 02:07, 12 January 2007 (MST)

Rating 4/10

I find it a bit overpowered when it allows the use of weapons TWO size categories over...

Blade Shield is fine, yet I would use it only during a total-defense turn...

What about taking some idea from the quintessential fighter fighting styles??? There is one matching this kind of idea, with some neat feat included...

Gatsu anyone??? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.221.198.36 (talk • contribs) 17:22, 25 January 2007 (MST). Please sign your posts.

Hm... How would you recommend fixing this? --Green Dragon 16:29, 25 January 2007 (MST)

Putting in some more penalty and/or asking for more PX once you level up in order to fully use these feats and/or requiring some minimal preparation (from 1 minute to 1 hour, nothing more) before being ready to fight.

Let's say the last option would be a sort of mix between an ordinary warm up and a ritual to go berserk or at least unleash your most animal strenght without ending the fight with some joint gone...

A saving throw on Fortitude after using very large weapon in order not to get some serious body issue would be also fine, but it should be proportional to the maximum amount of damage you can do, subtracting your str modifier; i.e: your war maul can make 2d8, that is 16 max; your str mod is 6, so you would have to add 10 (16-6) to the DC of the throw you do at the end of the combact to see if your body kept up with such a physical stress...

--Third Eye-- (pardon me, I'm trying my best to figure out how to properly sign after receiving a warning) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.221.198.36 (talk • contribs) 17:45, 25 January 2007 (MST). Please sign your posts.

It was not a warning, Cypresslyshra (who has no judicial power) was just saying that because he saw that I had was changing all your posts to have Template:Unsigned present. To sign your signature as "Third Eye" just make a log-in (Upper right hand corner of the screen) and then you will be able to sign your posts as "Third Eye" by typing --~~~~ after your post... Anyway, about the balance of this PrC... Go ahead and change it your version, trying to make it balanced enough for an 8-10. This is a community PrC and should be edited by anyone for balance, it does not particularly have an author.. --Green Dragon 16:53, 25 January 2007 (MST)

So, how does this sound:

1. Double Blade Shield Benefit
2. Continue to allow weapons two sizes larger
3. (To limit damage) Make it so the player can only use two of the following abilities during combat: Farslash, Rending Slash, Maximum Power, Blade Shield, Momentive Attack; however when they have a sword that is two times as large they would only be able to use one of the above abilities per round.
4. However make it so it is possible to use more than one ability per round. However they must make a fortitude save for each additional ability they try to use that round. The fortitude save for 3 abilities in one round with a sword only 2 times larger would be 15, 4 would be 20, 5 would be 25 , etc.

Would this make it more balanced? --Green Dragon 23:06, 25 January 2007 (MST)

How about having to make a Strength check when drawing a weapon two size categories larger than you? Given that it's probably more than twice as tall as you are, it seems appropriate. Even having to make a Strength check once per round might be needed, although that'd obviously have a lower DC. Make having the Wield Oversized Weapon (As well as the class-prerequisite Monkey Grip) feat from Complete Warrior give you a +5, MABYE +10 bonus to these checks. --Son of Urza 22:04, 14 March 2007 (MDT)

What I changed:

• Doubled Blade Shield Benefit
• Added in Strength Checks (DC 15 for drawing the weapon, 10 for having the weapon drawn).

Questions:

• Should I make it so the player can only use two of the following abilities during combat: Farslash, Rending Slash, Maximum Power, Blade Shield, Momentive Attack; however when they have a sword that is two times as large they would only be able to use one of the above abilities per round? Also, should I make it so it is possible to use more than one ability per round with a fortitude save for each additional ability they try to use that round? The fortitude save for 3 abilities in one round with a sword only 2 times larger would be 15, 4 would be 20, 5 would be 25 , etc

--Green Dragon 16:49, 15 March 2007 (MDT)

Permission

My permission was never asked to place my PrC upon this website. In my Signature on the boards where this information is assertained I even place "Anything I post is Intellectual Property owned by me, in order to repost anything I have placed upon this site or any other site my direct permission is required."

You guys are scum. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nightscreamer20 (talk • contribs) 11:30, 2 March 2007 (MST). Please sign your posts.

Hello Nightscreamer20. You are correct, your permission was never given to D&D Wiki. However, this page was created on 18:57, 4 February 2006 (MST), the first day that D&D Wiki was operational. At this time D&D Wiki did not have a strict policy about receiving permission to add, and was looking desperately for content to get off the ground. D&D Wiki now has policies, so you do not need to worry about this happening again. However, this prestige class is not anywhere near the same as your original prestige class (posted on Wizards). Seeing that United States' (you are from the United States - 'whois 24.58.157.204') copyright laws will only hold if the works have been legally copyrighted with The United States Copyright Office, you do not have a legal claim to this work. I feel no obligation to remove this work from this site, not because I want to spite you, but because I feel that this item is too different from yours to be considered the same. I gladly welcome a discussion for a name change and new images, but to completely remove this item, which is not yours, is ridiculous. --Blue Dragon 21:29, 3 March 2007 (MST)

I feel that I must weigh in. I am not a lawyer. This is my best understanding.

Any written material produced in the US is automatically held to be copyrighted by the creator. No formal copyright is needed. The author posted this class to the Wizard boards and claimed this work as his "intellectual property" with restrictions on how it could be used. It would seem that we violated this statement. However, "intellectual property" does not resemble the magical copyright words "Copyrighted by ..." that the law recognizes, nor trademark, nor patent. So by this measure, the signature itself is not legally binding. In addition, the signature of messages on the Wizards board are now dynamically updated. This means that the permissions can be changed dynamically without changing the timestamp of the post. If the author wants to assert restrictions on his work, he must demonstrate that he asserted these restrictions when he published the message. He can not go back and change permissions on an exiting publication. Once published, a work exists as published and the author can not including further restriction in the terms of that publication. Legally speaking, this work is covered by the general copyright of the author as provided by law and only as provided by the law.

In 2006, the time that this article was published, Google is available to find appropriate and clear help to implement copyright via US law. In just two minutes, looking for a Copyright FAQ, I found the proper terminology to correctly assert copyright a work. When published, Nightscreamer20 did not do this step. Protecting copyright is the burden of the creator. The creator failed to correctly protect his work.

Nightscreamer20 used copyrighted images and trademarked characters in his post, then attempted to assert that those were his "intellectual property". This "borrowing" of work throws doubt upon the originality of this work, and could assert that this work is derivative of those copyrighted and trademarked works. I do not accuse him of copying.

The author posted this class to the Wizards message boards (hereafter boards). In posting this, the author surely intended other people to see and use the class. A reasonable observer would conclude that there is permission to make copies of this work. Further, the community custom of the boards is to comment upon and suggest improvements and rewordings of posted creative material. Other posters often take the "best" of these posted works to make their own versions of these works. By tradition, these derivative and partially derivative works cite the original works as influences. A reasonable observer would conclude that he has implied permission to update and publish part or all of this work. Nightscreamer20 joined the boards in 2002, so he surely knew (after four years) how the community treats works published via this method.

In summary, this work was published in a medium intended to comment upon and alter the publications of the author. The author was fully cognizant of this tradition. The author did not make a basic effort to correctly assert copyright. The author asserted a right which does not exist in law, or is inappropriate to the work at hand. Even if he did assert such a right, he has granted implied permission to create a derivative work based on this publication. This wiki has taken that work, and substantially altered it enough to assert that it is substantially different from Nightscreamer20's work.

This board holds itself to a higher standard that copyright. We want items granted to us by the authors. We could use this as a justification to take more from the Wizards boards, but we choose to not do so. If this work existed as it did on the Wizards boards, then I feel we should remove it. This is not the case.

Given all these facts, I support Blue Dragon's decision to restore this work. In order to make this a distinct work, I suggest renaming the class, renaming its abilities, eliminating any copyrighted material (the pictures), and rewriting the flavor text. --Dmilewski 07:54, 4 March 2007 (MST)

Images are now gone. Any ideas on good names for the abilities or this prestige class? Also, anyone want to re-write the flavor text or should it be deleted? --Green Dragon 18:15, 4 March 2007 (MST)

Then change the name and remove my name off the whole thing. I think it's ubsurd you'd change the WHOLE class and then keep my name on it. It's ridiculous. If that WAS the case then I don't see why that was the first thing done. It was extremely inappropriate for you guys to do such a thing. Editting other peoples work to your own desire is like rewriting a book and putting it back on the shelf. Who would want a library where all the books are rewritten by the people who go to that library instead of the original authors?

Does that not make any sense to you people?

The work IS made to be commented on and for the author to change what the populaton deems necesarry, not for someone else to do it. It just is completely rude. It is a sort of plagarism, totake something someone else has written and rewrite it, although you guys more just Paraphrased a whole Prestige Class. In order ot make it a seperate class of it's own, all the abilities should be renamed, the requirements changed, and the name of the class changed.

It is absurd that being an Editor for the site would allow somehting like this. Why do you think I posted it in a place where I was the only one who could edit it and a public forum to people to look at. I didn't submit my work and you guys are really pushing the limits of essentially stealing the ideas of other people.

Plus you made the class WAY too linear. It doesn't give each Greatblade a choice of how to fight and completely ruined the idea of giving them special abilities at all. Now most people would rather jst go straight fighter instead of the abomination you turned my class into. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nightscreamer20 (talk • contribs) 01:28, 26 March 2007 (MDT). Please sign your posts.

Please read above! I am fine with you posting, but when you do not read what has already been posted, it is rather bothersome. This class is undergoing a name change. All of the aspects of it are undergoing name changes. Do not concern yourself with it anymore, because it is not your class. It was added when D&D Wiki was very small and was looking for content. A post was added to WoTC forums that this was created a year ago. Seeing that you saw it then, it is rather rude for you to walk in here and demand that it be taken down when it is no longer yours to take down. The class itself is radically different. It is undergoing a name change. Is there anything else you want? Are you still confused? — Blue Dragon (talk) 16:38, 26 March 2007 (MDT)

Renaming

Once again, what name do you think would fit this well? Also, what should the abilities be renamed to? And finally should the flavor text be deleted? --Green Dragon 00:40, 2 April 2007 (MDT)

I'm just tuning into this discussion. See below. Suggestions:

Greatblade Soldier	→	Monstrous Weapon
Great Blade Master	→	Monstrous Attitude
Rending Slash	→	Monstrous Slash
Farslash	→	Monstrous Reach
Maximum Power	→	Monstrous Strength
Blade Shield	→	Monstrous Shield
Greater Weapon Specialization	→	don't change
Momentive Attack	→	Monstrous Momentum
Powerful Wield	→	Monstrosity

--Cúthalion 18:06, 12 April 2007 (MDT)

Other than the class being called "Monstrous Weapon" I like your proposed changes, would you mind implementing them? Also, I think a good name (in spirit of your ideas) would be "Monstrous Weapon Master". Finally if no one wants to re-write the flavor text it should be deleted... --Green Dragon 20:57, 12 April 2007 (MDT)

Sure, I'd be happy to make the changes, although the class will need to be unlocked first. --Cúthalion 21:23, 12 April 2007 (MDT)

Sorry, it is now done. --Green Dragon 21:43, 12 April 2007 (MDT)

The renaming is done. --Cúthalion 08:09, 13 April 2007 (MDT)

P.S. I won't be offended if someone comes up with a better theme and/or naming convention. --Cúthalion 08:11, 13 April 2007 (MDT)

I might suggest "Titanic" or "Gigantic" instead of "Monstrous", with "Monstrosity" becoming "Titanic/Gigantic Build", but I'm weird like that. -- Cronocke 16:22, 29 December 2007 (MST)

I kinda like the sound of "Gigantic Weapon Master". I say change it :). --Green Dragon 16:37, 5 January 2008 (MST)

WoTC property

I'm not a legal expert, but I would think the central legal issue is the licensing agreement under which material is published to the WoTC boards. Here are some potentially relevant sections from their Terms of Use:

Ownership of Intellectual Property and Restrictions on Use of Materials

The materials available through this Site are the property of Wizards and/or its subsidiaries, affiliates, licensors, licensees, or other respective owners. These materials are protected by copyright, trademark, and other intellectual property laws. Information received through this Site may be displayed, reformatted, and printed for your personal, noncommercial use only. You may not reproduce or retransmit the materials, in whole or in part, in any manner, without the prior written consent of the owner of such materials, with these exceptions only:

You may make single copies of the materials available through this Site, solely for your personal, noncommercial use, and only if you preserve any copyright, trademark, or other notices contained in or associated with them. You may not distribute such copies to others, whether or not in electronic form, whether or not for a charge or other consideration, without prior written consent of the owner of the materials. ...

Forums and Chat Rooms

Wizards may from time to time host bulletin boards, chat rooms, forums or other public posting areas ("Forums”). The information and opinions expressed in Forums are not necessarily those of Wizards or its affiliated or related entities or content providers. Wizards makes no representations or warranties regarding information or opinions that appear in the Forums, and does not endorse or guarantee the accuracy of any posting. Wizards assumes no obligation to monitor the Forums or to delete or edit any postings. However, Wizards reserves the right to delete, move, or edit any postings that we consider illegal, inappropriate, or otherwise inappropriate.

By using Wizards’ Site, you agree that you will not submit or otherwise publish through the Forums any content which: (a) libels, defames, invades privacy, or is obscene, pornographic, abusive, harassing, or threatening; (b) infringes any intellectual property or other right of any entity or person, including, but not limited to violating anyone's copyrights or trademarks; (c) violates any law; or (d) advocates illegal activity. ...

Unsolicited Idea Submission Policy

... PLEASE DO NOT SEND ANY ORIGINAL CREATIVE ARTWORK, SAMPLES, DEMOS, PROTOTYPES OR OTHER WORKS. ... PLEASE UNDERSTAND THAT WIZARDS MAKES NO ASSURANCES THAT YOUR IDEAS, MATERIALS, AND OTHER ITEMS SUBMITTED WILL BE TREATED AS CONFIDENTIAL OR PROPRIETARY.

Submissions

Should any viewer of a document on this Site respond to Wizards with information including feedback data, such as questions, comments, suggestions, or the like regarding the Site, or the content of any item, such information shall be deemed to be non-confidential and Wizards shall have no obligation of any kind with respect to such information. In addition, Wizards shall be free to reproduce, use, disclose, display, exhibit, transmit, perform, create derivative works, and distribute the information to others without limitation, and to authorize others to do the same. Further, Wizards shall be free to use any ideas, concepts, know-how or techniques contained in such information for any purpose whatsoever, including, but not limited to, developing, manufacturing and marketing products and other items incorporating such information.

1. This agreement makes it explicit that the author of material posted to the WoTC website forfeits all legal rights to that material.
2. What's less clear is whether the section on WoTC intellectual property applies to material posted on the boards, or whether that material is public domain. I'd frankly be surprised if WoTC wanted to press the issue, but they conceivably could.

There doesn't seem to be any legal basis for the author's objections -- paticularly since, as Dmilewski pointed out, the original post included non-original material.

However, there are still courtesy issues. His initial post (assuming it hasn't been altered in the meantime) indicated that he did not wish the material to be copied. I have no idea whether the person/bot who copied the material even noticed that statement, but in a way it's moot; if it were me, I would be ticked off that someone copied "my" material against my expressed wishes.

Be that as it may, the class description has taken on a life of its own in the ensuing year, in good wiki fashion. It would make no more sense to delete it now than it would be to delete all references to halflings because they have their ultimate origins in Tolkien's intellectual property.

I suggest the following compromise, similar to what Dmilewski has already suggested -- not for legal reasons, but out of respect:

1. Follow the author's wish in removing his name from the webpage.
2. Delete (or completely rewrite) the "flavor text" at the end.
3. Rename the class (something off-color seems almost obligatory) and key features.
4. Try to put yourself in the author's shoes, understand why he's ticked, and avoid personal attacks. (Similar advice to the author.)

--Cúthalion 18:06, 12 April 2007 (MDT)

Possible Picture

I found a good pic to represent this class since the other ones have long since left.

Funny as the motivational poster is, I was moreso thinking about the guy in it. What ya think? --Flession 15:20, 13 April 2007 (MDT)15:10, 13 April 2007 (MDT)

I love it! The only problem is that it's hard to make out details at low resolution. How does this look? --Cúthalion 07:28, 14 April 2007 (MDT)

It looks good enough, but I'll delve into the hells of 4Chan to see if anyone knows where I could find the original pic. -- Flession 12:23, 14 April 2007 (MDT)

I doubt we should. That is a copyrighted image of Siegfried from Soul Caliber, I believe, and I'm quite certain the original images were removed because of copyright issues. DancingZombies 10:50, 18 April 2007 (MDT)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Role-playing games offers a template related to images, which discusses fair use conditions for copyrighted images. A key factor is that the image can only be used in a discussion of the product with which it is associated. If DancingZombies is correct, this use of the image is a copyright violation, and it should be removed.

I have not been able to locate the image through a quick Google search. Flession or DancingZombies, can you confirm where the image came from, and verify whether it is copyrighted? Thanks. --Cúthalion 08:33, 19 April 2007 (MDT)

Onward, to Google! ::throws his cape to the side and scurries off:: -- Flession 15:27, 20 April 2007 (MDT)

Ok...I don't know anything about the copyright images, buuuut...well, I give you the offical website. Lemme know what you find. I'm on my work's server and it's blocked for me. Tell me what you find. I'll do some additional research on my end once I return home. -- Flession 15:37, 20 April 2007 (MDT)

I did, indeed, find the image on that site. Its terms of use state explicitly that graphics may not be copied. I've deleted the image from this page and submitted a deletion request. Thanks for the thought, Flession. --Cúthalion 21:10, 21 April 2007 (MDT)

Whew, thats quite a terms of use... Anyway, I will delete the image right away. --Green Dragon 13:43, 22 April 2007 (MDT)

Sword/weapon

As originally written, this class required a sword, as opposed to any other kind of weapon. The comment at the end suggests that the author envisions a different prestige class for each possible kind of monstrous weapon: sword, axe, mace, scythe, etc.

I see no reason for such a proliferation of classes. If someone is comfortable picking up a 12-foot long bastard sword, it doesn't stretch my imagination any further to see him pick up a 10-foot long battle axe. However, if it seems important to class balance to require such specialization, that could easily be written into the class description in a single line, while still allowing that specialization to be in any type of weapon.

I propose to:

• change the wording throughout to allow any type of weapon, not just a sword;
• change the prerequisites to require weapon specialization in any oversized weapon;
• specify that the special class abilities apply to any oversized weapon for which the character has weapon specialization.

--Cúthalion 14:19, 16 April 2007 (MDT)

Exactly what I was thinking -- Flession 15:19, 16 April 2007 (MDT)

I say go ahead as well—it makes no sense that variants for this to encompass other weapon types exist. It should be changed. --Green Dragon 20:05, 16 April 2007 (MDT)

References

See: User talk:Blue Dragon#References. --Cúthalion 21:01, 16 April 2007 (MDT)

What is a ref id? Do you mean to use span id? I think span id would work and accomplish what you are doing... --Green Dragon 22:27, 16 April 2007 (MDT)

This is the HTML/Wikipedia implementation of footnotes. I've been using it extensively on WikiRPS, and I find it more convenient than hand-coded superscripts and links. See, for example, Game comparison. --Cúthalion 14:08, 17 April 2007 (MDT)

I see now. --Green Dragon 18:24, 17 April 2007 (MDT)

Monstrosity

Someone who cares should review the Monstrosity description, keeping in mind that Monkey Grip is a prerequisite for the class. --Cúthalion 21:04, 16 April 2007 (MDT)

Er... What is the DC for keeping a weapon out? 15 again? I think that could be better clarified... --Green Dragon 22:28, 16 April 2007 (MDT)

Rating - 2/10

Honestly, I would never allow this class in a campaign, because of what I see as insurmountable problems with the basic concept.

1. I can come up with no plausible story for how one enters this class, either by joining an organization or by pursuing a regimen of personal development. (This may simply reflect a deficit in my imagination.)
2. I cannot conceive of a nonmagical class in which a 6-foot 200-pound character can wield a 24-foot sword weighing 400 pounds (roughly the stats of a huge bastard sword).
3. Despite the heroic efforts of various people to make the class more balanced, it still comes across as an attempt to create a fighter that does the same things all other fighters do, only much better and at lower levels.

Call me a pessimist, but I don't see this as being salvageable.

On second thought, maybe I would allow it in a campaign -- and then I'd make sure the party spends all their time in buildings, dense forests, and 10-foot wide corridors. --Cúthalion 14:36, 17 April 2007 (MDT)

Um... I didn't think my rating would supersede everyone else's. --Cúthalion 20:11, 17 April 2007 (MDT)

Er... All the other ratings have been nullified (please notice they are all grayed out) because the class has been changed since they were given. Your rating is the only one in effect right now. --Green Dragon 22:53, 17 April 2007 (MDT)

Oh... I feel such power. --Cúthalion 07:32, 18 April 2007 (MDT)

Balances

I love this class, and have been hoping for a brutal melee class specializing in large weapons. The class, as much as I hate to say it, needs to be toned down a bit, however. First of all, the prerequisites are pretty good and make since, except for the Perform (Weapon Drill). Maybe I'm not exactly understand what a weapon drill is. Either way, this seems like an ability that would be found more in an organized military force, which this class doesn't seem to fit into.

Many of the abilities need some consideration. Monstrous Shield seems unnecessary. As far as Monstrous Strength, Reach, Slash, and Momentum, these are all passive, always active abilities that inproportionally boost a fighter's damage dealing capabilities through the roof. The level requirement of Slash and Reach should both be increased by one. Reach is pretty powerful, and having an increased reach usually leads to at least a +1 character level in race abilities, which means this may be overpowered, even at level 3. Monstrous Slash could be buffed to maybe dealing 1 point of Con damage (or doing so at higher levels, perhaps lvl 6 or so), and made to be only usable a certain amount of times per day. Monstrous Strength is also a super-powerful ability, and could be changed to a certain times per day ability with a certain duration, kind of like a rage (necessary buffs could be placed). As for Monstrosity... I'll have to get to that later. I'll finish this in a while. DancingZombies 11:07, 18 April 2007 (MDT)

| Here is some better explanation of what weapons drill maintain, although technically it talks only about the modern equilivency. I would recommend some tweaking in this before use, or at least someone testing it out. -- Flession 13:51, 18 April 2007 (MDT)

Hm... What would you recommend be changed to make this better once more? --Green Dragon 22:42, 19 April 2007 (MDT)

Adoption

I'm adopting this page. Let it be born anew! --Mrwest13 08:17, 2 May 2009 (MDT)

Finished preliminary revisions. --Mrwest13 09:21, 3 May 2009 (MDT)

Noticed a Mistake

I've just created an account on here. But I've been looking at this page for a few weeks. I saw that there is Monstrous Defense +1, and then Monstrous Shield +2. I believe that the Shield +2 is supposed to be Defense +2. I'm pretty new to the game, but I saw this class and knew that I'd enjoy playing as it. It does seem really powerful though and I'd like to offer help with perfecting it, if I can.

Rating

Power - <<<5>>>/5 I give this class a <<<5>>> out of 5 because <<>> --24.2.2.166 09:01, 29 September 2010 (MDT)

Wording - <<<4>>>/5 I give this class a <<<5>>> out of 5 because <<< some of the abilities could use better wording>>> --24.2.2.166 09:01, 29 September 2010 (MDT)

Formatting - <<<Insert Your Rating Here>>>/5 I give this class a <<<Insert Your Rating Here>>> out of 5 because <<<insert why you gave the rating and how to improve it>>> --24.2.2.166 09:01, 29 September 2010 (MDT)

Flavor - <<<5>>>/5 I give this class a <<<5>>> out of 5 because <<< Can you say Cloud Strife or Gutts!>>> --24.2.2.166 09:01, 29 September 2010 (MDT)

Rating

Power - <<<5>>>/5 I give this class a <<<Insert Your Rating Here>>> out of 5 because <<<insert why you gave the rating and how to improve it>>> --173.245.55.236 15:18, 21 September 2011 (MDT)

Wording - <<<4>>>/5 I give this class a <<<Insert Your Rating Here>>> out of 5 because <<<insert why you gave the rating and how to improve it>>> --173.245.55.236 15:18, 21 September 2011 (MDT)

Formatting - <<<4>>>/5 I give this class a <<<Insert Your Rating Here>>> out of 5 because <<<insert why you gave the rating and how to improve it>>> --173.245.55.236 15:18, 21 September 2011 (MDT)

Flavor - <<<5>>>/5 I give this class a <<<Insert Your Rating Here>>> out of 5 because <<<insert why you gave the rating and how to improve it>>> --173.245.55.236 15:18, 21 September 2011 (MDT)

Rating

Balance - 3/5 I give this class a 3 out of 5 because monstrous reach 3 should be taking out. A -2 to attack rolls would not mean anything to a high level fighter. With the supreme cleave feat it would be way too overpowered. I would suggest replacing monstrous reach three with monstrous defense +3. Monstrous intimidation should only apply to creatures the same size as you or smaller.Monstrous momentum should also be taking out as well. I dont see how you would get the bonus just for weilding a larger weapon. I would take out monstrousity. Id move combat style to level 10 ability. I would also move greater weapon specilization to level 10. The class gives you too many bonuses for combat situations. Being that you can use all the abilities in here as much as you want to makes it too powerfull. It needs to be scaled down. Wording - 5/5 I give this class a X out of 5 because --72.204.59.125 16:05, 31 December 2013 (MST)

Formatting - X/5 I give this class a X out of 5 because --72.204.59.125 16:05, 31 December 2013 (MST)

Flavor - 5/5 I give this class a X out of 5 because --72.204.59.125 16:05, 31 December 2013 (MST)