[citansdnd] Re: unarmed strike
- From: marbleminotaur@xxxxxxx
- To: citansdnd@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2010 17:41:24 -0500
"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?"
THANK YOU. This is exactly what I've been trying to say this entire time. It's
the only way to be absoutely sure we're not shooting ourselves in the foot
here. There's a reason why 4th Ed is structured so rigidly, and it's because
doing stuff like this BROKE THE PREVIOUS SYSTEM. They're trying their damndest
to avoid as many possibilities to break the game as seen especially by the huge
amounts of errata they produce every MONTH. Seriously, the more I play 4th Ed
the more I don't think I ever want to go back to 3.5 because of how broken the
damn thing was by its very nature.
"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."
Thing is, I am 100% certain that this WILL exist. If not in Player's Handbook
3, then in Psionic Power. Like I've said before, once PHB3 is in our hands,
every single one of these issues will not only be addressed, but completely
settled. It's just one more month until its release. If we go crazy with making
stuff up, chances are pretty high we'll wind up having to backpedal like crazy
once the official rules on Monks are here. I'd be willing to bet hard money
that the Monk Multiclass Feat will accomplish everything Casey has been trying
to do for us, and would make it a much more viable option to take once we find
out what it bestows on a character.
"One of our allies is level 11? Oh... dear... That is an order of magnitude
of XP budget above us, we are just not going to be hitting the bad guys if they
are that far above us. Even if they have the level adjustment spred out to
adjust for the XP levels, that will be a lot of high level guys pounding on us.
The maximum amount an enemy can be above the party in an encounter is (and
please do double check this, I am without my books at the moment,) is level +7,
and that is kind of discouraged, especially if it crossed the tier boundary. A
lot of crazy stuff comes into play once you hit paragon, if any of the enemies
are level 11, we probably wouldn't be able to take him even with all our powers
functional. I think their defenses will be, what, +4 compared to what we
normally hit?"
That's not all, the Level 11 is an ELITE. On top of that we have 18 Level 4
NPCs coming along with him. I've found where it mentions the enemy's level
being seven levels higher or more than four levels lower than the party and the
wording strongly suggests to never ever do this, because it's too hard or too
easy. All number work strongly suggests that the highest a monster should be
above the party is a maximum of only four levels higher or a minimum of four
levels lower. I've done the math, and since both teams have 27 players... Yeah,
we're basically boned. The only way we could possibly win is if the 27
opponents are all Minions, and even then we'd only get at most 150 Exp for our
troubles. But that's only if they were all Level 11.
-----Original Message-----
From: Diana Jakobs <diana.c.jakobs@xxxxxxxxx>
To: citansdnd@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Tue, Feb 23, 2010 10:23 am
Subject: [citansdnd] Re: unarmed strike
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.
Other related posts:
