[citansdnd] Re: unarmed strike
- From: Steve Bartalamay <lanzlo@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: citansdnd@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2010 12:01:02 -0800
OK, my 2 coppers worth:
I agree... the 'no obvious magic' rule is going to bite us in the backside.
Especially if he's going to run the entire 50 minute game in combat time
(esh...) Perhaps have the refs declare that, since they're using outside
influences (the band), we can use whatever magic we have at our disposal.
As for the Ox Fist rewards: make it a boon that adds +1 to our fortitude
defenses and a +1 to attack and damage with our powers. Reason being, they
didn't train us in pure strength; they more or less tailored our training to
our individual talents.
And finally, the unarmed strike. The way it's set up now, it's like a short
sword that no one can disarm you of... and I think that steps on the idea of
the monk class. Granted, training with unarmed attacks should provide some
bonus.. perhaps as was mentioned before, where we can use the 'improvised'
weapon version of unarmed strike as a single weapon class of our choice...
including implements.
I would think that anything more would require more dedication and focus, as
well as a multiclass feat into Monk.
On Feb 23, 2010, at 10:23 AM, Diana Jakobs wrote:
> Simply my $0.02...
>
> Even if the martial powers are allowed via the unarmed strike rule, the no
> magic rule is going to be what hurts us. Half the sorcerer/barbarian's and
> Tartarus's powers are gone, all of the invoker's and the shaman's are just
> shut down. Plus, the loss of the weapons is going to hurt us a bit, Tartarus
> for example is very specifically built to take advantage of reach, he would
> probably not be a Tempest fighter if he didn't have the spiked chain, it is
> that way so he can easily mark two guys a turn with an at will.
>
> On the reward, I've been thinking, why don't we do exactly what the divine
> boons section suggests, rather than try to tweak things and give out
> feat-like things? What if, due to the training, we get built in magic items
> as boons like the section suggests, probably items of our choice. We have
> been incorporating all sorts of things into our training, so, we can justify
> most setups. At this level, we should have roughly 2-3 magic items each,
> since we aren't getting them via other methods, why don't we just cover them
> like the book suggests?
>
> I do like the idea of a interesting bonus for the training, I'd look at what
> artifacts give as a guide honestly, some of them, when they head off and if
> they are well attuned to you, will give a simple stat bonus. What about a +2
> to our choice of strength or constitution? It fits the training, and, since
> we can pick which one it goes into, it will give us all +1 to fort if we put
> it in our highest Str/Con stat.
>
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 1:25 AM, <warrl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I've decided the minotaur is partly right: Unarmed Strike should NOT count as
> a light blade
> or a two-handed weapon or any other sort of weapon except "unarmed".
>
> However, he also wants to NOT take away powers - and to manage that, the
> rogue Assad
> has to be able to use Unarmed Strike with powers that explicitly require
> light blades, and the
> barbarian - Thom? - has to be able to use Unarmed Strike with powers that
> explicitly require
> two-handed weapons.
>
> (Berrian is okay as is, and I think Tartarus is too. They are the two hybrid
> Tempest fighters. I
> can't comment on anyone else's weapon powers, or on non-weapon powers..)
>
> Fortunately, he's also partly mistaken. Yes, there is a class-build option
> for the rogue to be
> able to use something other than a light blade with all his
> light-blade-specific powers and
> with Sneak Attack. However, there are also four standard feats and two
> multiclass-weapon
> feats - three if you count Spiked Chain Training - that do the same thing
> with various
> weapons/groups.
>
> Note that this does NOT mean the rogue can apply light-blade-enhancing FEATS
> to those
> weapons. (Except Spiked Chain Training: with this feat, the chain IS a light
> blade.)
>
> There is no obvious reason why there shouldn't be a feat to do exactly the
> same thing for
> the Unarmed Strike weapon, or for Unarmed weapons generally. (There actually
> is an
> Unarmed weapon - the Spiked Gauntlet.) I suggest Versatile Duelist or
> Longsword Finesse
> as a model. Note the difference in how they treat Sneak Attack.
>
> I'm pretty sure there is no similar feat for using one-handed weapons with
> two-handed
> powers or class features. But we can create such a feat specifically for
> Unarmed Strike,
> modeled after the rogue feats. I think it and the rogue Unarmed Strike feat
> should be
> mutually exclusive.
>
> If anyone else needs a comparable feat to allow the use of Unarmed Strike
> with their
> weapon powers and weapon-related class features, we should do that too.
>
> (Oh, and magic items: I know that weapons & armor are strictly out for the
> game, but please
> can we wear our other magic items? Berrian thinks his Badge of the Berserker
> would be
> really useful.)
>
> On the other stuff: I'm comfortable either way on the fortitude bonus issue.
> I think the
> across-the-board +1 is a slightly better fit for the level but the +2
> fortitude bonus fits the
> story better.
>
> And for the selective strength bonus, I like Weapon Expertise/Focus feats
> better but the
> enhancement bonus is a decent compromise too.
>
>
>
--------------------
"Laugh…and the world laughs with you. Laugh hysterically, for no apparent
reason, and they’ll leave you alone."
Steve Bartalamay
lanzlo@xxxxxxxxxxx
Other related posts:
