The Gaming Den

Brobdingnagian at [unixtime wrote:1176059931[/unixtime]]You suck.

No, you must hope that I create stupid Barbarians that dont' kill "wands" first.

Be sure to be careful at... around level 7-8. At that point Barbrian NPCs who've unlocked the +11 BaB Blitz option become availible: Make full Attacks as a Standard action.

Also. I hate you.

Also also. You're a good DM.

Endovior at [unixtime wrote:1176050449[/unixtime]]Seriously, even among those who study unarmed combat, the preferred way of fighting a guy with a sword is 'with a gun'.

Fixed.

IUS really should just get given out with MWP. Should also be an option for exploits from RoW too. Whilst punching is a seperate combat style from swords, so is using an axe. So as long as you're giving out MWP like candy the fluff isn't hurt by attaching IUS to it.

I dunno. SWP would be more appropriate, I think.

^ Sorta, I can understand that a wizard would fare better in a fight with a knife than with a fist, but rogues should definitely know how to box... so I'd say throw it in with "rogue" weapon proficiencies...

...also makes sense that some races would know how to use their hands universally, like dwarves and orcs...

it should definitely be tossed in with MWP though, no questions on that one

I could see a Bard knowing how to clock someone good... but maybe not a Cleric...

So unarmed strike - a martial weapon? Makes sense, I guess.

Yep - as well as with any class that, logically, should know how to sucker-punch someone and follow it up with a few knuckle-dusters.

Brobdingnagian at [unixtime wrote:1176093073[/unixtime]]Also. I hate you.

Also also. You're a good DM.

My only problem is that I don't like to railroad and my players seem to not want to have any cool goals for their characters that they could talk about.

Brobdingnagian at [unixtime wrote:1176065407[/unixtime]]I have difficulty understanding why Clerics know how to wear full armour and get 3/4 BAB, but that's a different discussion entirely.

Clerics get good combat ability because the society for the preservation and encouragement of mighty maces. You have to look at the classes from the restrictions of the old 1E classes even though those restrictions no longer apply.

Clerics were the "bashing" (no pointed/slashed weapons) fighters with healing spells. They had no armor limitations.

Druids get the pointed slashing thing but were weaker on the healing spells. They also had armor limitations.

So now that those reservations no longer apply, I vote Clerics get 1/2 BAB and proficiency in light armour only.

...

Seriously, name me one person who can't wear a friggin' chain shirt effectively. It's a damn shirt, you put it over your head, done.

From a purely practical perspective.. me! They are actually pretty bloody heavy, and calling them a shirt is a bit of a misnomer in my opinion.

Then again, I only have levels in expert.

Brobdingnagian at [unixtime wrote:1176147143[/unixtime]]So now that those reservations no longer apply, I vote Clerics get 1/2 BAB and proficiency in light armour only.

Um, not if you're playing Tome-series D&D. Clerics are overpowered by core rules, but there's been enough rebalancing that clerics don't need any nerfage.

Well, our group tries to use RoW stuff as much as possible.

I'm gonna seriously throw hordes and hordes of casters; gotta show them how glad they've got good classes to use.

If one of the players takes lvls in Frank's Marshall; he'll get Warmages and crap to make him useful.

Clerics are overpowered because they have the same spell progression as Wizards and better spells. Like, the ability to get full BAB and uber-strength at level 7.

Brobdingnagian at [unixtime wrote:1176182858[/unixtime]]Clerics are overpowered because they have the same spell progression as Wizards and better spells. Like, the ability to get full BAB and uber-strength at level 7.

They're more powerful than wizards in a number of areas, and are generally more powerful overall, but they're still not better at wizarding than wizards.

Dropping a cleric's BAB and armor proficiency is basically saying 'you can't function as a secondary combatant unless you have access to Persistant divine power.' It doesn't change the balance of the cleric's spell list at all. If clerics casting too good is your complaint, deal with that.

Brobdingnagian at [unixtime wrote:1176182858[/unixtime]]Clerics are overpowered because they have the same spell progression as Wizards and better spells. Like, the ability to get full BAB and uber-strength at level 7.

Well this is a kind of vacuous argument. Is getting full BaB and über-strength better than Polymorph? Or Wall of Force? Apples and Oranges man.
Clerics have some better spells because they get some wizard spells earlier.

Clerics functioning as secondary combatants and primary spellcasters off the hop means that they can also function as Primary Combatants and Primary Spellcasters later on. Seriously. I can't tell you how many games we've played without a wizard, and if we subbed out one of our divine casters for a wizard, everything would have been harder.

Besides, clerics still get twice as many hit points as wizards.

Okay, not 1/2 BAB. I'm still boggled as to why they should have 3/4, but whatever. I still don't think they should have heavy armour proficiency, though. Seriously. Where in your training as a priest do you learn to wear full plate? Studded leather and chain shirt maybe, but a breastplate or banded mail? C'mon, really.

Brobdingnagian at [unixtime wrote:1176228488[/unixtime]]Clerics functioning as secondary combatants and primary spellcasters off the hop means that they can also function as Primary Combatants and Primary Spellcasters later on. Seriously. I can't tell you how many games we've played without a wizard, and if we subbed out one of our divine casters for a wizard, everything would have been harder.

Besides, clerics still get twice as many hit points as wizards.

Okay, not 1/2 BAB. I'm still boggled as to why they should have 3/4, but whatever. I still don't think they should have heavy armour proficiency, though. Seriously. Where in your training as a priest do you learn to wear full plate? Studded leather and chain shirt maybe, but a breastplate or banded mail? C'mon, really.

Are you arguing against the flavor of the cleric, or the mechanical balance?

If you're going by flavor, there's very little reason to have a cleric base class. Mythologically & historically, priests and other magic users have been pretty much indistiguishable, with your guys being 'priests' and 'magi,' while the other guys are 'foul sorcerers.'

The tank-cleric is really a 'paladin' archtype, but that's the way the cards fell back in 2e.

Regardless, Tome-series D&D hasn't nerfed a single class yet, and I'm pretty sure that's intentional. If they did, the blance point would seem a bit more arbitrary.

Actually, I'm just arguing for the sake of arguing.

Considering the original intent of this thread, I guess I'll stop now. Thanks for playing.

Digestor at [unixtime wrote:1176064435[/unixtime]]

clikml at [unixtime wrote:1176039971[/unixtime]]

Digestor at [unixtime wrote:1175983219[/unixtime]]^ That's not really the point though, you shouldnt' have to multi-class to a class outside of 'fighter' to learn how to throw your fist at something's face.

Like, most 8 year olds know that.

Ehhh, there is a rather vast difference between knowing how to throw a punch, and knowing how to throw a punch without losing your fingers to some guy waving a sword at you. More than minimal martial training is required for the latter.

Improved Unarmed Strike isn't just knowing how to throw a punch effectively, it's knowing how to avoid having your arm meet a sword in the process. Not being able to parry or block without being hurt makes it much much harder to close in to land that punch.

Never said anything to the contrary - doesnt' change the fact that even themost seasoned of sword-master will know how to punch someone, because in a sword fight (in reality) at one point or another your sword is going to be locked or unavailable or somehow unusable and you're just going to have to cold-clock that drunk bastard/goblin one.

True; but just about any sword master knows that if you try to punch someone who has a sword out and is trying to hit you with it, you'll have to dodge his sword before you can make the punch. Quite practically, it's a similar concept to charging a guy with a pike; his range exceeds yours, therefore he gets the first attack. There are sneaky ways around this, but those are difficult.

Furthermore, I'd imagine most people, especially 8 year old people, don't even know how to throw a punch properly for more speed and damage. They probably just swing wildly if they haven't had any training.

Don't let jokes get in the way of the real point, they're only there for..... fun.

Quite practically, this applies equally to 8-year olds and seasoned warriors; if your foe has range on you, you'll probably get hit first. 'You're unarmed and I'm not' is a severe case of this.

Really, almost nobody tries to get in a fist fight with somebody who has a real weapon. Trading punches for slashes is a pretty bad idea unless you're a friggin kung fu master and they're mooks. You try to either close and grapple so that their weapon is useless or else find something to put in your hands to make it a fair fight.

But when you cant and your' forced to fight with your fists, a person who's slashed apart a demon or two should know how to be able to throw his fist and NOT get an AoO handed to him (several with some enemies).

Well, that's the trick. Compared to two-handed battleaxes, enchanted longswords, huge mouths filled with razor-sharp teeth, three-foot long claws with a coating of poisonous venom... a plain old punch fundamentally ISN'T a good weapon. You need to get right up next to the thing to use it, and then shoot out an appendage that's relatively unprotected, resulting in a relatively minimal impact. You may be able to get away with this against your average wimpy Orc or Goblin, but a 30-foot demon is going to hand you your ass if you try it, and deservedly so.

So handing out improved unarmed strike for free (or almost free) does seem more than a little weird. At the very least it should be on par with martial weapon proficiency, which admittedly many classes do give out for free. So I'd be content with just calling it a martial weapon proficiency and giving it out for free to classes which grant all MWPs.

Yes. Though I think Rogues should get no AoO when fighting as well, I'm sure they've been in a situation of fisticuffs or 8 considering their life style.

I do however understand why a wizard/cleric would have difficult boxing.

Again, it's a fairly tricky and generally suboptimal fighting style... really, unless you put a some decent effort into it, it's not much good. Mechanically, however, I will agree it really isn't all that different from a standard weapon proficiency... and as RoW is generous in granting such things, it's less of a problem here. If you're wanting to integrate it into the standard system, I'd suggest the following would make a bit more sense.

Simple: 1d3 Nonlethal, Provokes AoO
Martial: 1d3 Nonlethal, Does not Provoke AoO
Exotic: 1d3 Nonlethal/Lethal, Threatens Nearby Squares

And if you want anything better, take Monk levels.

Endovior at [unixtime wrote:1176236612[/unixtime]]

Digestor at [unixtime wrote:1176064435[/unixtime]]

clikml at [unixtime wrote:1176039971[/unixtime]]


Ehhh, there is a rather vast difference between knowing how to throw a punch, and knowing how to throw a punch without losing your fingers to some guy waving a sword at you. More than minimal martial training is required for the latter.

Improved Unarmed Strike isn't just knowing how to throw a punch effectively, it's knowing how to avoid having your arm meet a sword in the process. Not being able to parry or block without being hurt makes it much much harder to close in to land that punch.

Never said anything to the contrary - doesnt' change the fact that even themost seasoned of sword-master will know how to punch someone, because in a sword fight (in reality) at one point or another your sword is going to be locked or unavailable or somehow unusable and you're just going to have to cold-clock that drunk bastard/goblin one.

True; but just about any sword master knows that if you try to punch someone who has a sword out and is trying to hit you with it, you'll have to dodge his sword before you can make the punch. Quite practically, it's a similar concept to charging a guy with a pike; his range exceeds yours, therefore he gets the first attack. There are sneaky ways around this, but those are difficult.

Furthermore, I'd imagine most people, especially 8 year old people, don't even know how to throw a punch properly for more speed and damage. They probably just swing wildly if they haven't had any training.

Don't let jokes get in the way of the real point, they're only there for..... fun.

Quite practically, this applies equally to 8-year olds and seasoned warriors; if your foe has range on you, you'll probably get hit first. 'You're unarmed and I'm not' is a severe case of this.

Really, almost nobody tries to get in a fist fight with somebody who has a real weapon. Trading punches for slashes is a pretty bad idea unless you're a friggin kung fu master and they're mooks. You try to either close and grapple so that their weapon is useless or else find something to put in your hands to make it a fair fight.

But when you cant and your' forced to fight with your fists, a person who's slashed apart a demon or two should know how to be able to throw his fist and NOT get an AoO handed to him (several with some enemies).

Well, that's the trick. Compared to two-handed battleaxes, enchanted longswords, huge mouths filled with razor-sharp teeth, three-foot long claws with a coating of poisonous venom... a plain old punch fundamentally ISN'T a good weapon. You need to get right up next to the thing to use it, and then shoot out an appendage that's relatively unprotected, resulting in a relatively minimal impact. You may be able to get away with this against your average wimpy Orc or Goblin, but a 30-foot demon is going to hand you your ass if you try it, and deservedly so.

eh, as this is Tome, I think there needs to be an option for the fighter who can punch Asmodeus in the face while locking swords, and not get his ass handed to him, with out him having to be a kung-fu master...

^ Oh hell no, my entire point is that martial weapon proficiency included punching without AoO, and maybe rogue weapon proficiency too.

I can't imagine me throwing counter examples to do good if we both arrive at basically the same conclusion.

"Unarmed" attacks made by warriors are generally things like grabs for trips and disarms, body slams made to bullrush, and punches or locks used on grappling.

A smart fighter fighting unarmed probably isn't going to punch a town guard unless he has suprise or is using a heavy gauntlet In which case he isn't unarmed). He'll probably try to disarm the guard, and then punch the guard, or trip the guard and kick him while he's down.

With the way armor is set up, most punches dealing nonlethal damage won't do jack to an armored warrior (DR 5/- vs. subdual damage).

The whole AoO thing is iffy: Sure, you have to be nimble and quick to disarm a guy holding a sword, but that's an exception to a general rule (and probably why swords are feudalist's weapons of choice). Disarming a guy's dagger just requires that you be careful, and that's the case with most spears as well. The danger of trying to disarm someone while you're unarmed isn't so much a matter of the reach of the weapon as the length of the blade. Unfortunately, D&D can't reflect that.

With that in mind, it might make the most sense to have every unarmed character threaten and make special manuvers as normal, and just keep the 'provokes and AoO' bit.

Well, I know how I'm going to use it in my campaign. The rest of you are free to do it your own way, I won't stop you.

Brob, stop being all defeatist. God.

Endovior: That argument would work if taking an AoO stopped you from swinging next round. Here's the thing: They don't.

If you punch a guy, he gets to swing at you twice as much as he normally would in six seconds. Which just doesn't make sense. It implies some kind of specialized training against people who duck in and punch you. Slicing them and then hitting them again with the same swing as they duck away or something.

Also, mechanically? Punching someone is already an incredibly sub-par option. 1d3+half-strength? The only reason to do it ever is the free slashing, piercing and bludgeoning damage. And since drawing a weapon is a move action? Yeah, right. There are very few reasons to do a cool thing already. Why layer needless free attacks on top? That just makes it stupid.