Post/Author/DateTime	Post
jaelis 01-17-06, 11:18 PM	I don't much like the existing rules for armor spikes and unarmed strikes. The whole idea of a weapon that doesn't take a hand to wield doesn't mesh all that well with the regular combat rules. So recently I've been thinking about a variant that specifies more clearly how this kind of thing works. I'm actually kind of happy with it, but I'm curious to see what people think. Does this seem playable? The idea is to have a new weapon category (in addition to light, 1H and 2H): the body weapon. Body Weapons: A body weapon is wielded with the entire body, using punches, kicks, head butts, and similar maneuvers. You can use a body weapon even if your hands are otherwise occupied, but if both hands are full you take a -2 penalty on attack rolls. A body weapon cannot be disarmed or sundered. You always have one body weapon equipped at a time – if you aren’t wearing a manufactured body weapon, you are “equipped” with your unarmed strike. For regular attacks, you add your Str bonus to damage rolls with a body weapon. Attacking with a body weapon draws an attack of opportunity from the target unless you have the Improved Body Weapon feat. A body weapon is generally treated as a light weapon for purposes such as penalties on opposed disarm rolls, penalties for fighting with two weapons, and benefiting from the Weapon Finesse feat. However, a body weapon can normally benefit from the Power Attack feat, doing one point of extra damage per point of penalty taken on the attack roll. It is not possible to use an inappropriately sized body weapon. A body weapon can be used to make off-hand attacks, but only if no other off-hand weapon is used in that round. When used for an off-hand attack, you add only one-half your Str bonus to damage rolls and you don’t get any benefit from the Power Attack feat. You cannot make both a regular and an off-hand attack with your body weapon in a single round. When you are grappling, you can damage your opponent with your body weapon by making a successful opposed grapple check. This action takes the place of a regular attack. Alternatively, you can make a normal attack against your opponent using a body weapon (or a light or natural weapon), but you take a -4 penalty on the attack roll. (This replaces the -2 penalty for having your hands full.) In general, any creature that can grapple can use a body weapon, including an unarmed strike. However, it is not possible to use a body weapon in the same round as a natural weapon, so creatures with natural weapons normally eschew this form of combat. The body weapons are then: Cost S M Crit Weight Type Simple: Armored strike 5 gp 1d3 1d4 x2 2 lb Bludge Unarmed strike — 1d2 1d3 x2 — Bludge Martial: Armor spikes 50 gp 1d4 1d6 x2 10 lb Pierce Exotic: Armor blades 200 gp 1d6 1d8 x2 15 lb Slash Armor Blades: Armor blades can be added to heavy armor only. Doing so increases the armor check penalty of the armor by 2, and increases the arcane spell failure chance by 15%. Magically enhanced armor blades cannot be removed from a suit of armor without spoiling their enhancement. Armor Spikes: Armor spikes can be added to any medium or heavy armor. The armor check penalty of the armor increases by 1 and the arcane spell failure chance increases by 5%. Magically enhanced armor spikes cannot be removed from a suit of armor without spoiling their enhancement. Armored Strike: An armored strike consists of blows and kicks made by a character wearing armor. When you wear medium or heavy armor, you are automatically equipped with an armored strike rather than an unarmed strike, and if you are proficient with the armor then you are automatically proficient with your armored strike. The cost shown in the table represents the cost to purchase gauntlets, metal-shod boots, and other gear so as to be able to deal armored strikes while wearing light or no armor. In this case you are not automatically proficient with the armored strike, and also your armor check penalty increases by 1 and your arcane spell failure chance increases by 5%. Armored strikes can be made masterwork and can be magically enhanced like other weapons. Armored strike enhancements applied to a suit of armor cannot be separated from the rest of the armor without spoiling the enhancement. Similarly, magically enhanced armored strike gear cannot be combined with a separate magically enhanced suit of armor. Unarmed Strike: An unarmed strike is made with the unaided body. It can be used only if you are wearing light or no armor. All characters are automatically proficient with their unarmed strike. Unarmed strikes normally deal nonlethal damage, but can deal lethal damage if you take a -4 penalty on the attack roll. Unarmed strikes cannot be made masterwork or magically enhanced like manufactured weapons. Monks get special benefits when using their unarmed strike. Then the IUS feat is replaced by: IMPROVED BODY WEAPON [GENERAL, FIGHTER] You are skilled at fighting using your body. Benefit: You no longer provoke an attack of opportunity when attacking with a body weapon. In addition, your unarmed strikes can deal lethal or nonlethal damage, at your option. And the monk's unarmed strike class feature becomes: Improved Unarmed Strike: Monks are highly trained at fighting unarmed, giving them considerable advantages when doing so. A monk's unarmed strike attack does not provoke an attack of opportunity and takes no penalty when her hands are full. She can deal her choice of lethal or nonlethal damage with her unarmed strike with no penalty on her attack roll. A monk’s unarmed strike is treated both as a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon for the purpose of spells and magical effects that enhance or improve either manufactured weapons or natural weapons. A monk also deals more damage with her unarmed strikes than a normal person would, as shown on Tables: 3—10 and 3—11. Hey, thanks for reading to the end!
InkBlot 01-17-06, 11:51 PM	Your theory seems extraordinarily sound. I can't find any holes in it, and I look forward to any improvements you might make in it. I think I may include it as a houserule for the game I'm running, if my players don't mind. If any problems crop up I'll post about them here.
Thorak 01-18-06, 08:30 AM	While this theory would work, a simpler fix to the issue with much the same results is just to do some renaming. Strike out any example of "primary hand" or "off hand" which refer to TWFing. You still have them, but they only apply the way the Glossary says; the off-hand gets a -4 to hit and 1/2 Str bonus for any weapon it wields. Now, instead of bothering with hands for wielding, you can wield a maximum number of weapons equivalent to the number of hands you have, as your brain is only set up to handle manipulating that many things separately. The terms for first and second weapons are "primary weapon" and "secondary weapon". These are similar to the "primary natural weapon" and "secondary natural weapon" terms from natural weapons rules. The primary is the main weapon. It doesn't matter where it's wielded or in how many hands. That kind of stuff is irrelevant. The secondary is the one that gets additional attacks from TWF. Since you can obviously have numerous weapons ready to be used, you have to actively choose to use that weapon as a secondary weapon for it to count. In game terms, you have to "wield" it. Yes, I'm defining wield a little differently than the game apparently uses it. It's for simplicity's sake; we need a way to tell if a weapon triggers the TWF penalties, and wielding is a nice easy way that doesn't require a rewrite, just a specific definition. And, for good measure, I'll introduce Beamup's unarmed strike interpretation as well. Unarmed strikes represent your whole body, you can strike with any limb you wish. Therefore, you only have the one body, and thus the one unarmed strike. You cannot dual wield unarmed strikes as a result; you only have one. Interestingly, there's absolutely nothing wrong with this interpretation, nor does it contradict anything anywhere in the PHB, DMG, or FAQ, or any other book I've seen. And it solves all the problems with "can my monk TWF with unarmed strikes?!" posts in a way that doesn't cause any problems; the troublesome monk line merely becomes an acknowledgement that even monks only have the one body to wield at a time. Most of this doesn't really involve any changes in the rules, just some changes in terms and assumptions to make the existing rules, as the FAQ explains them, a bit easier to grasp without using confusing terminology.
jaelis 01-18-06, 06:32 PM	Thanks Inkblot, I'd love to hear about it you playtest it! And thanks for the comments Thorak... While this theory would work, a simpler fix to the issue with much the same results is just to do some renaming. Strike out any example of "primary hand" or "off hand" which refer to TWFing. You still have them, but they only apply the way the Glossary says; the off-hand gets a -4 to hit and 1/2 Str bonus for any weapon it wields. Kind of a separate issue, but I more or less agree. Actually, I guess I don't quite feel the same... I think the glossary is just an accidental holdover from 3.0, and that you really shouldn't have any actual "off hand". The term off-hand should indeed be replaced by "secondary", but I think it should applied only to TWF. I think its easier and mechanically fine to just say that when you're not TWFing, any attack you make is primary, and when you are TWFing, you're free to designate which weapon is primary and which is secondary. But the TWF rules, while interesting, are not the central issue I was trying to get at here. Now, instead of bothering with hands for wielding, you can wield a maximum number of weapons equivalent to the number of hands you have, as your brain is only set up to handle manipulating that many things separately. The terms for first and second weapons are "primary weapon" and "secondary weapon". These are similar to the "primary natural weapon" and "secondary natural weapon" terms from natural weapons rules. Yep, I'm with you on that. The primary is the main weapon. It doesn't matter where it's wielded or in how many hands. That kind of stuff is irrelevant. The secondary is the one that gets additional attacks from TWF. Since you can obviously have numerous weapons ready to be used, you have to actively choose to use that weapon as a secondary weapon for it to count. In game terms, you have to "wield" it. Yes, I'm defining wield a little differently than the game apparently uses it. It's for simplicity's sake; we need a way to tell if a weapon triggers the TWF penalties, and wielding is a nice easy way that doesn't require a rewrite, just a specific definition. Oh, then we do have the same idea, I misinterpreted your earlier statement. And, for good measure, I'll introduce Beamup's unarmed strike interpretation as well. Unarmed strikes represent your whole body, you can strike with any limb you wish. Therefore, you only have the one body, and thus the one unarmed strike. You cannot dual wield unarmed strikes as a result; you only have one. Interestingly, there's absolutely nothing wrong with this interpretation, nor does it contradict anything anywhere in the PHB, DMG, or FAQ, or any other book I've seen. And it solves all the problems with "can my monk TWF with unarmed strikes?!" posts in a way that doesn't cause any problems; the troublesome monk line merely becomes an acknowledgement that even monks only have the one body to wield at a time. Guess I didn't even think there was a debate here. (I mean, I've seen the posts you mention, but I thought the answer you give is simply the right answer.) Most of this doesn't really involve any changes in the rules, just some changes in terms and assumptions to make the existing rules, as the FAQ explains them, a bit easier to grasp without using confusing terminology. Well, you do kind of have to disregard the glossary entry for off-hand. However, even with this interpretation, there are some weird/semi-unbalanced things about unarmed strikes and armor spikes, like: - With a greatsword and unarmed strike, you can get an effective 3:1 power attack ratio and 2x Str bonus - With a greatsword and armor spikes, you get 2x Str bonus with an enhancable off-hand weapon, without needing an extra feat. - Isn't it weird that you could TWF with your unarmed strike and armor spikes? - How do monster's unarmed strikes work? Can a dragon add a whole iterative unarmed strike attack sequence to its natural weapon routine? - The rules for gauntlets suggest that your unarmed strike is actually tied to just one hand. Could you TWF with two gauntlets? If you're wearing a gauntlet, can you attack with it and your unarmed strike? - If a fighter in plate armor takes of his gauntlets, can he make normal unarmed strikes? What happened to the "whole body" idea? - If you're wearing +2 flaming gauntlets, how much damage do you do with a successful grapple check? - Huge armor spikes would be a 2H weapon for me. Can I use them? Can I TWF with them? None of these questions are game breaking, but I think my system clarifies them and also balances the things that I think are a bit overpowered. Of course, if none of these things bother you, there's no reason to change anything. (Except for the rays from my mind-control satellite, that is.)
Tony Vargas 01-18-06, 07:32 PM	The term off-hand should indeed be replaced by "secondary", but I think it should applied only to TWF. I think its easier and mechanically fine to just say that when you're not TWFing, any attack you make is primary, and when you are TWFing, you're free to designate which weapon is primary and which is secondary. That sounds reasonable to me. The key is the extra attack from TWF - that attack needs to get the 0.5 STR bonus, and determines what the penalties are. Guess I didn't even think there was a debate here. (I mean, I've seen the posts you mention, but I thought the answer you give is simply the right answer.)I think it's a bizarre concept. You can TWF with a pair of spiked gauntlets, but take them off and, even with IUS, you can't TWF with your two fists? Nutty. That the only way to layer magical enhancement bonuses onto said fists via magic items is the amulet of mighty fists at not double, but tripple, the usual cost of a magic weapon makes it difficult to abuse. As to monks TWFing with thier unarmed strike, it seems redundant: Flury is TWFing on steroids. You're not just punching with both fists but kicking and whatnot as well - and all with your full STR bonus. TWFing would be a step down. However, even with this interpretation, there are some weird/semi-unbalanced things about unarmed strikes and armor spikes, like: - With a greatsword and unarmed strike, you can get an effective 3:1 power attack ratio and 2x Str bonus - With a greatsword and armor spikes, you get 2x Str bonus with an enhancable off-hand weapon, without needing an extra feat. These both seem /really/ wrong to me, especially compared to the exotic double-weapons. - Isn't it weird that you could TWF with your unarmed strike and armor spikes? Maybe a bit. Armor spikes seem to cover you pretty completely - how do you punch someone for non-lethal damage when you're a metallic porcupine? - How do monster's unarmed strikes work? Can a dragon add a whole iterative unarmed strike attack sequence to its natural weapon routine? No. TWF, whether with a pair of weapons, or a weapon and an unarmed strike, would logically preclude a typical natural weapon attack routine. - The rules for gauntlets suggest that your unarmed strike is actually tied to just one hand. Could you TWF with two gauntlets? If you're wearing a gauntlet, can you attack with it and your unarmed strike? An unarmed strike can be with any part of your body. If you're wearing a gauntlet, attacks with the gauntlet are unarmed strikes that do lethal damage without having to take the -4. If you wear only one gauntlet and were fighting 'two fisted' (TWF with your unarmed strikes) either your primary or your secondary attack (depending on which the gauntlet was) would do lethal, and the other non-lethal (unless you took the -4). - If a fighter in plate armor takes of his gauntlets, can he make normal unarmed strikes? What happened to the "whole body" idea? Why wouldn't he be able to? Under the 'whole body' idea, he could presumably smack you with a bracer, greave, or whatever, much as if he were using a gauntleted fist, though. - If you're wearing +2 flaming gauntlets, how much damage do you do with a successful grapple check? Your usual damage - if you want to attack with a weapon (other than armor spikes), you make an attack roll at -4. - Huge armor spikes would be a 2H weapon for me. Can I use them?Scaled-up armor spikes make no sense: they'd only be on scaled-up armor, which you can't use.
Tony Vargas 01-18-06, 07:48 PM	Now, instead of bothering with hands for wielding, you can wield a maximum number of weapons equivalent to the number of hands you have, as your brain is only set up to handle manipulating that many things separately. The terms for first and second weapons are "primary weapon" and "secondary weapon". Some of that sounds good, but I think the 'amount of effort' thing needs to be taken into account, too. Attacking with a two-handed weapon takes all you got - whether it's two hands or three tentacles or whatever. A one-handed or light weapon takes only one 'hand' worth of effort, whether it's actually on a hand or not; and a light weapon takes a bit less than the one-handed, making it ideal for use as a secondary weapon. So, rather than worrying about hands - either how many you have available, or how many your brain is used to having - worry about STR bonus to damage. A character has 1.5x his STR bonus to work with. It takes all that to wield a two-handed weapon. It takes all that to TWF - one weapon gets x1, the other is left with only x0.5. If you're using a one-handed weapon, you can still take a two-handed grip on it and put everything behind it, getting that same x1.5, though you don't have to do so, as you do with a THW. Looking at it this way, TWFing with a THW and a 'body weapon' is out. Balance-wise, that's a good thing. Visually, it's kinda sad, as it could make for a cool-looking fighting style - though you could, since the 'body weapon' is always ready (never has to be drawn), mix in attacks with it durring an itterative sequence, or threaten with it if anything happens to your THW between your actions.
Thorak 01-18-06, 09:07 PM	Some of that sounds good, but I think the 'amount of effort' thing needs to be taken into account, too. Attacking with a two-handed weapon takes all you got - whether it's two hands or three tentacles or whatever. A one-handed or light weapon takes only one 'hand' worth of effort, whether it's actually on a hand or not; and a light weapon takes a bit less than the one-handed, making it ideal for use as a secondary weapon. So, rather than worrying about hands - either how many you have available, or how many your brain is used to having - worry about STR bonus to damage. A character has 1.5x his STR bonus to work with. It takes all that to wield a two-handed weapon. It takes all that to TWF - one weapon gets x1, the other is left with only x0.5. If you're using a one-handed weapon, you can still take a two-handed grip on it and put everything behind it, getting that same x1.5, though you don't have to do so, as you do with a THW. Looking at it this way, TWFing with a THW and a 'body weapon' is out. Balance-wise, that's a good thing. Visually, it's kinda sad, as it could make for a cool-looking fighting style - though you could, since the 'body weapon' is always ready (never has to be drawn), mix in attacks with it durring an itterative sequence, or threaten with it if anything happens to your THW between your actions. I see where you're coming from, and while I think the issue isn't as bad as you make it out to be (because, primarily, you need both a high Dex and a high Str to maximize the two-hander and still qualify for the TWF feats, in most cases), it is an issue. My issue with your solution is the loss of a "cool-looking fighting style". If I want my Conan-type to headbutt the enemy and then cut him in twain with his greatsword, I don't see what's so wrong with that. So let's go for a reasonable compromise. The big issue is with double weapons, since they require a feat for less benefit. I'm not concerned with people wielding two short swords; they're using smaller weapons for their own reasons, and a Rogue's better off with them than a greatsword and armor spikes anyway. And I agree, double weapons as they exist in D&D simply aren't worth it. Being a double weapon simply isn't really an advantage; why bother with an Orc Double Axe when you can just use twin Battleaxes? Same damage and crit, the only difference is the double axe needs a feat, and can be used two-handed without putting the other axe away first, which frankly, isn't worth the feat. So allow double weapons to get 1.0/1.0 Str damage, used as a double weapon. Justify it by saying that both hands are wielding a single weapon, so the secondary weapon is not held in the off hand alone, and thus doesn't take that penalty. This'll make double weapons more useful, but not overpowering. And considering you can focus on both weapons with a single weapon feat like Improved Critical, that's an even bigger deal than it seems at first glance. And yes, I'm balancing things out by rounding up instead of down. But I'm also trying to keep things relatively logical. If I can kick someone while wielding a longsword, why can't I kick him while wielding a greatsword? Oh, and as for your earlier comments regarding Beamup's intepretation of there only being one unarmed strike; use a variation of the "body weapon" concept, and have spiked gauntlets and gauntlets merely modify the unarmed strike. Gauntlets already sort of do this, and it's an easy fix for spiked gauntlets, their upgrade being that they count as armed and deal more damage, over what a gauntlet provides. To make another example, armor spikes. Can't wield two sets. Can't TWF with the same suit of armor. That's the same angle I'm coming from with regards to unarmed strikes. - With a greatsword and unarmed strike, you can get an effective 3:1 power attack ratio and 2x Str bonus And with my above fix for double weapons, they get the 2x Str bonus, and only a single weapon for feat purposes, like Weapon Focus and Improved Critical. And while you can get a 3:1 ratio with an unarmed strike, you can only get 2:1 with any other weapon. So unless we're talking about a monk, I'm not too worried, and even monks aren't all that hot in combat to begin with. - With a greatsword and armor spikes, you get 2x Str bonus with an enhancable off-hand weapon, without needing an extra feat. And with my double weapon fix, you do there, too. For a longsword/shortsword wielder, well, he should get less. He's wielding smaller weapons. Not everything needs to balance out exactly. Just as long as no one thing sticks out as overly strong compared to everything else. - Isn't it weird that you could TWF with your unarmed strike and armor spikes? No weirder than TWFing with a light shield and a dagger, since an armor spike attack could quite easily be a forearm smash, much like a shield bash would be. - How do monster's unarmed strikes work? Can a dragon add a whole iterative unarmed strike attack sequence to its natural weapon routine? To differ with what Tony said, yes, they can. They always could. The difference is that they take a -5 to all those natural weapons, even the primary(s), and can't attack with any natural weapons on a limb being used to make an unarmed strike. Most monsters don't bother with unarmed strikes, because they deal less damage than their natural weapons, it's nonlethal damage, and each unarmed strike provokes an AoO. - The rules for gauntlets suggest that your unarmed strike is actually tied to just one hand. Could you TWF with two gauntlets? If you're wearing a gauntlet, can you attack with it and your unarmed strike? See my point above. Gauntlets are no longer weapons on their own, but as their text in the PHB suggests, they modify your unarmed strikes, specifically the punches. - If a fighter in plate armor takes of his gauntlets, can he make normal unarmed strikes? What happened to the "whole body" idea? Nothing happened to it. He's just the same as he was, just one of his punches deals nonlethal, the other lethal, and he can attack with either as he likes. - If you're wearing +2 flaming gauntlets, how much damage do you do with a successful grapple check? If you're using the "use a weapon" action, then normal damage. If you're using the "grapple check to deal damage" action, then normal unarmed strike damage. That one limb's got special modifications to the unarmed strike doesn't change the base weapon. - Huge armor spikes would be a 2H weapon for me. Can I use them? Can I TWF with them? Like Tony said, you can't wear the armor they're on.
jaelis 01-19-06, 09:54 AM	That's a lot of interesting ideas, and I could agree with many of them. Giving double weapons +Str/+Str is an interesting idea, but I'd have to think about it. It might not be broken, but is it really necessary? I think you can more easily keep the greatsword+unarmed strike style in balance by modifing the unarmed strike rules. But the fundamental thing you both seem to accept that doesn't work for me is the notion that you can make distinct unarmed strikes with particular parts of your body. I take it that you'd both agree that if a character has a +1 flaming gauntlet on his right hand and a +1 shocking gauntlet on his left, then he can choose to do either fire or electrical damage with his unarmed strike, (or perhaps both if he is allowed to TWF.) I really don't like that. My picture of an unarmed strike is that it reflects using your whole body to damage your opponent, and that furthermore it requires your whole body. I want to say that you just can't effectively fight while just hitting somebody with your right fist... the unarmed strike damage is supposed to represent the cumulative effect of all the punches, kicks and body slams you can make in a round. Otherwise, fists, kicks and slams should really all be separate weapons on the table. I suppose it comes down to a matter of taste, really, but I can give two reasons I prefer this interpretation: - It seems fit better with the abstracted nature of dnd combat. When you're fighting with your sword, your attack roll is not supposed to represent a single swing, its supposed to represent the net effect of your combat in a round. When you are fighting with a sword, its fair to say that all the attacks and feints and blocks you make will be with the sword. If you're fighting unarmed, it seems wrong to say that all the attacks, feints and blocks you make are using your right hand. I've also heard it described a bit differently, that your attack roll represents the one good swing you get in a round, while all other moves are less effective. Even that, applied to unarmed strikes, is weird, because how are you supposed to ensure that the one good hit you get is with a particular fist. Seems like in boxing, a fighter gets a good blow in when his opponent drops his guard, and you have to be ready with both fists to take advantage. (Isn't it a cliche that when the underdog realizes that his opponent always makes his big attacks with his right hook, he can use that knowledge to win?) - It is mechanically simpler. If you need to use your whole body for an unarmed strike, then you just can't effectively do something crazy like have a flaming gauntlet on one fist, a shocking gauntlet on the other, and a thundering and frost boots on the two feet. And throw in a defending helmet for good measure. Of course, the rules don't allow that kind of thing anyway, but if you think that you can attack specifically with your right foot, then why can't you magically enhance that boot? Even if you simply say no, you just can't enhance boots, it still seems needlessly complicated. If I'm wearing two gauntlets, can I do nonlethal damage without penalty by kicking? If I'm wearing a helmet but no gauntlets, can I do lethal damage by headbutting? If I'm wearing armor spikes in a grapple, can I choose not to apply their damage with a grapple check? It's not that I can't answer these questions, or the ones I posed earlier. It's that I don't think you should even have to ask them. I want a simple set of rules that makes them and similar questions irrelevant.
Someone 01-19-06, 12:06 PM	I like the idea, but I have a quick question: Could monsters make body weapon attacks? I know dragons can make a "crush" attack with their whole body, but could non-humanoid creatures make body attacks? It would just seem odd to see a griffon drop an elbow on a horse, that attacks back with a headbutt.
jaelis 01-19-06, 12:16 PM	My theory would be yes, any animal can make a body attack, because otherwise I wouldn't be sure how to handle grapples. But I say that if you make a body attack, you can't use any of your natural weapon, so it shouldn't come up very often. (That rule is more for simplicity than for realism.) I was thinking of it as an option for monsters to do non-lethal damage. Like the griffon might resort to head butts and wing buffets rather than using its claws and beak. It would probably still be more effective take the -4 penalty and do nonlethal damage with it's natural weapons, but that just means it shouldn't ever come up. Well here's a way it might be useful: if a creature with only a claw attack wanted to deal bludgeoning damage, they could use their body weapon. Oh, and I do think that any creature that can wear armor should be able to use armor spikes.
Tony Vargas 01-19-06, 03:49 PM	I see where you're coming from, My issue with your solution is the loss of a "cool-looking fighting style". If I want my Conan-type to headbutt the enemy and then cut him in twain with his greatsword, I don't see what's so wrong with that.I have the same problem with it. ;) Throwing out a kick or headbutt in a fight is a cool thing. However, it's not the sort of thing that should be all that potent in terms of total damage output. It makes more sense as a sort of surprise manuever - something D&D simply doesn't model. Of course, you could, if you get itterative attacks, use one of them to make an unarmed attack or armor spike attack without letting go of your greatsword, so the visual is possible, it just doesn't bring much of a mechanical advantage. If I wanted to encourage such a style, I'd give the player using it the occassional circumstance bonus to the unarmed strike. That'd make, for instance, throwing in the unarmed strike as a late itterative attack (that probably wouldn't hit, but has a better chance with the circumstance bonus) tactically worthwhile. And I agree, double weapons as they exist in D&D simply aren't worth it. Being a double weapon simply isn't really an advantage; why bother with an Orc Double Axe when you can just use twin Battleaxes? There's taking a -2 instead of a -4, and being able to switch to two-handing whenever a full attack isn't an option w/o having to drop or sheath the other weapon first. Sure, Oversize TWF lets you get the -2, but that equalizes the feat cost. I'd say that double-weapons are fine - that a trick like TWF with a 'body weapon' and THW would outpower them indicates a problem with the combo, not the existing, balanced weapons. So allow double weapons to get 1.0/1.0 Str damage, used as a double weapon. And yes, I'm balancing things out by rounding up instead of down. And I have to object to that. What I was trying to accomplish was to avoid a x2 STR bonus. x1.5 makes STR quite a powerful enough stat as it is. If I can kick someone while wielding a longsword, why can't I kick him while wielding a greatsword?Presumably because wielding a greatsword effectively requires you to keep your feet planted, as it were - you're not just swinging it with your arm or wrist or even arm, wrist & torso, you're putting your whole body into it to get that x1.5 damage. That gives me an idea, though. If the amount of effort nominally required to wield a weapon is in the x1 range (a one-handed weapon), then we could pull the two-handing + kicking/headbutting style - just with a one-handed weapon weilded in two hands. It'd still get the x1 STR damage & Power Attack, so there's the x1/2 left for the secondary attack. The candidate for this: the Bastard Sword. Now, there's an official ruling on the bastard sword, but, as you know, it's nonsensical. Here's an alternative: The bastard sword is a one-handed weapon, period, even when you're using it in two hands with martial weapon proficiency. It disarms/sunders/etc as a one-handed weapon, and it can take either a x1 or x1.5 STR bonus depending on how much effort you put into weilding it, just like any other one-handed weapon. It's just that you always have to have two hands on the thing to avoid the -4 non-proficiency. Ergo, you can wield a bastard sword using two-hands (martial proficiency), chose to take x1 STR damage (and 1:1 Power Attack) with it, and TWF with an unarmed strike or armor spikes. You could also do this with any one-handed weapon, but with a martial-proficiency bastard sword, you have a reason to do it. What do you get for using this unorthodox fighting style? Well, compared to just using a long sword in one hand and punching with the other, you get 1 extra point of average damage with your primary attack (and, compared to using a real weapon in the off hand, probably that much less, or the equivalent with the secondary). That's a minor, balanced benefit. And it's cool look'n. And, while I'm on a roll: Shields. Shields take up a 'hand' ('cept for bucklers) and require effort to use (recieve an AC benefit from) - x0.5 STR bonus worth of effort - unless you take Improved Shield Bash or Improved Buckler Use, then you get the AC bonus for 'no effort,' and can shield bash, use a secondary weapon, or fight with a two handed weapon (if you've got the hands for it). In fact, ISB & IBU could be combined into a single "Improved Shield Use" feat, that lets you gain an AC bonus from your shield without taking up any of your potential 'effort' (possible x1.5 STR bonus), enabling you to TWF or THF while gaining buckler AC, or TWF with shield bash or a 'body weapon' while using a light or heavy shield, or even, if you have the proficiency, TWF with a 'body weapon' while using a Tower Shield. To make another example, armor spikes. Can't wield two sets. Can't TWF with the same suit of armor. That's the same angle I'm coming from with regards to unarmed strikes. That also strikes me as wierd. If I can wield a longsword in one hand, and TWF with armor spikes as my off-hand weapon, or wield a shortsword in one hand and TWF with armor spikes as the primary, why can't I just TWF with armor spikes? It's not like I haven't got lots of spikes to choose from. Maybe Armor spikes should be masterworked & enchanted like double-weapons - or, even like the Amulet of Mighty Fists. I mean, if MWing one spiked gauntlet is 300, and MWing two is 600, couldn't MWing dozens of spikes all over a suit of armor possibly be a bit more?
Thorak 01-19-06, 04:09 PM	I have the same problem with it. ;) Throwing out a kick or headbutt in a fight is a cool thing. However, it's not the sort of thing that should be all that potent in terms of total damage output. It makes more sense as a sort of surprise manuever - something D&D simply doesn't model. Of course, you could, if you get itterative attacks, use one of them to make an unarmed attack or armor spike attack without letting go of your greatsword, so the visual is possible, it just doesn't bring much of a mechanical advantage. If I wanted to encourage such a style, I'd give the player using it the occassional circumstance bonus to the unarmed strike. That'd make, for instance, throwing in the unarmed strike as a late itterative attack (that probably wouldn't hit, but has a better chance with the circumstance bonus) tactically worthwhile. I see the point, but I don't like the "I can fight with two weapons without TWFing" interpretation, and don't see that it's obviously correct, by the RAW. There's taking a -2 instead of a -4, and being able to switch to two-handing whenever a full attack isn't an option w/o having to drop or sheath the other weapon first. Sure, Oversize TWF lets you get the -2, but that equalizes the feat cost. I'd say that double-weapons are fine - that a trick like TWF with a 'body weapon' and THW would outpower them indicates a problem with the combo, not the existing, balanced weapons. And I have to disagree. Haven't ever seen anyone bother with a double weapon. If they're a heavy melee type, they don't want to waste feats on TWFing. If they're a TWFer, they're almost always a rogue, and weapon damage dice are the last thing on their mind, just delivering the sneak attack is primary. And sure, this is pigeonholing, but I don't see that every combat style has to be just as good for every class; if my Barbarian want to just use a dagger and his teeth, he shouldn't be dealing greatsword-equivalent damage. And I have to object to that. What I was trying to accomplish was to avoid a x2 STR bonus. x1.5 makes STR quite a powerful enough stat as it is. The corrollary is that, unless you're a Ranger, it also requires a 19 Dex just for the TWF feats, limiting how high your Strength could be, or requiring that you pay for it elsewhere. And rangers aren't exactly melee powerhouses. Presumably because wielding a greatsword effectively requires you to keep your feet planted, as it were - you're not just swinging it with your arm or wrist or even arm, wrist & torso, you're putting your whole body into it to get that x1.5 damage. I don't agree. I've done some staff training, which while it's not the same as a greatsword, is still a two-handed weapon. And I'm perfectly able to kick or even punch someone while using it, if they're close enough. And I'm not very good. Definitely 1st level. That gives me an idea, though. If the amount of effort nominally required to wield a weapon is in the x1 range (a one-handed weapon), then we could pull the two-handing + kicking/headbutting style - just with a one-handed weapon weilded in two hands. It'd still get the x1 STR damage & Power Attack, so there's the x1/2 left for the secondary attack. The candidate for this: the Bastard Sword. Now, there's an official ruling on the bastard sword, but, as you know, it's nonsensical. Don't get me started.... Here's an alternative: The bastard sword is a one-handed weapon, period, even when you're using it in two hands with martial weapon proficiency. It disarms/sunders/etc as a one-handed weapon, and it can take either a x1 or x1.5 STR bonus depending on how much effort you put into weilding it, just like any other one-handed weapon. It's just that you always have to have two hands on the thing to avoid the -4 non-proficiency. Ergo, you can wield a bastard sword using two-hands (martial proficiency), chose to take x1 STR damage (and 1:1 Power Attack) with it, and TWF with an unarmed strike or armor spikes. You could also do this with any one-handed weapon, but with a martial-proficiency bastard sword, you have a reason to do it. What do you get for using this unorthodox fighting style? Well, compared to just using a long sword in one hand and punching with the other, you get 1 extra point of average damage with your primary attack (and, compared to using a real weapon in the off hand, probably that much less, or the equivalent with the secondary). That's a minor, balanced benefit. And it's cool look'n. What would perhaps be easier would just be to say you've got 1.5x Str to assign. A two-hander requires all of it. And you must assign at least 1x to a single weapon. And, while I'm at it: Shields. Shields take up a 'hand' and require effort to use (recieve an AC benefit from) - x0.5 STR bonus worth of effort - unless you take Improved Shield Bash or Improved Buckler Use, then you get the AC bonus for 'no effort,' and can shield bash, use a secondary weapon, or fight with a two handed weapon (if you've got the hands for it). My biggest issue with shields is twofold; they're passive in D&D (you maintain the shield bonus while unconscious, for instance), and the benefit is far too little. I've proposed it before, but shield ACs should be doubled. And require 0.5x of your Str bonus to use, in this angle we're taking. If you get Improved Shield Bash, you can retain that AC while bashing with it. But really, shield ACs are simply too small. That's why people ignore them. Yes, this means low-level knights can be ridiculously hard to hit for low-level warrior types, but there's a reason why almost every military of the time issued shields to front-line troops; they were integral to defence, even more so than armor in many cases. That also strikes me as wierd. If I can wield a longsword in one hand, and TWF with armor spikes as my off-hand weapon, or wield a shortsword in one hand and TWF with armor spikes as the primary, why can't I just TWF with armor spikes? It's not like I haven't got lots of spikes to choose from. Maybe Armor spikes should be masterworked & enchanted like double-weapons - or, even like the Amulet of Mighty Fists. I mean, if MW one spiked gauntlet is 300, and MWing two is 600, couldn't MWing dozens of spikes all over a suit of armor possibly be a bit more? At some point, you have to draw a distinction. You choose to draw it at "none", I choose to draw it at weapons actually wielded in hand. Differences of opinion, perhaps. Of course, if I had my druthers, I'd rewrite the whole thing from the ground up. I'm trying to patch something consistent together.
tiluvias99 01-19-06, 04:24 PM	Just to weigh in... This looks like a great idea. I used something somewhat similar in my Bando Warrior, it just seemed like it made sense. I also included natural attacks in it as well. On the current gauntlet arguements... (note that my arguements are based on the actual RAW, not the houserule you're proposing)Gauntlet: This metal glove lets you deal lethal damage rather than nonlethal damage with unarmed strikes. A strike with a gauntlet is otherwise considered an unarmed attack.I had come to the conclusion that a strike with a gauntlet was not an unarmed strike at all. The idea was that a gauntlet strike is another subset of unarmed attacks, just like unarmed strikes and natural weapons are. Thus, hitting someone with a gauntleted hand is different than punching, just like making a hoof natural attack is different than kicking. So we have at least 3 different types of unarmed attacks: gauntlet strikes, unarmed strikes, and natural attacks. Gauntlet strikes follow the exact same rules as striking with a longsword or a battleaxe. They are no different at all (except for that they don't threaten). The only difference is that gauntlet is not only a weapon, it is an unarmed attack as well. However, a gauntlet strike is just as different from an unarmed strike as a longsword attack is. Unarmed Strikes follow mostly the same rules as weapons, but have some special rules of their own, such as how unarmed strikes are effectively made with the entire body, or that a monk deals more damage than normal with one. Natural Weapons follow completely different rules than normal weapons, and have their own special rules. The point: If you are wearing a uber enchanted gauntlet, and you make an unarmed strike (even if you designate that its a punch), then you don't get the bonuses from the guantlet. None. Likewise, if you make a strike with the gauntlet itself, you wouldn't gain any of the bonuses that may or may not apply to your unarmed strikes, such as weapon focus or the monk damage bonus, but you would still gain the bonuses from the gauntlet. The first line of the guantlet description, "This metal glove lets you deal lethal damage rather than nonlethal damage with unarmed strikes", does not mean at all that a gauntlet strike has anything to do with an unarmed strike. However senseless it may be, putting on a gauntlet changes all of your unarmed strike damage to lethal. If you wear a metal glove, it means your feet, your head, and your buttocks now deal lethal damage. That's what I had deciphered from the RAW... does anyone see any holes in this?
Tony Vargas 01-19-06, 06:18 PM	But the fundamental thing you both seem to accept that doesn't work for me is the notion that you can make distinct unarmed strikes with particular parts of your body. I really don't like that. My picture of an unarmed strike is that it reflects using your whole body to damage your opponent, and that furthermore it requires your whole body. That's given me two ideas. First, the simple one: Unarmed Strike count as light weapons, yet also let you get full Power Attack bonuses. That's actually kinda nasty. So, here's the idea: Striking with a specific body part, like a gauntleted hand is a light weapon. You can TWF by striking with two different specific body parts, & they both count as light weapons, for all purposes. You can, instead, attack with your 'whole body,' trying to get in the best hit you can with whatever striking surface your opponent leaves himself open to. This counts as a one-handed weapon - heck, if you want, count it as a two-handed weapon - with commensurate STR & Power Attack factors. You can't TWF this way, either with a weapon, or with a specific-body-part-unarmed-strike. Otherwise, fists, kicks and slams should really all be separate weapons on the table. Which brings me to the complicated one... :D Cost Dmg(S)Dmg(M) Critical Range Weight Type Light Simple Unarmed Attacks: Punch/slap - 1d2 1d3 20/x2 - - Bludgeoning Squeeze* - 1d2 1d3 20/x2 - - Bludgeoning 'One-handed' Simple Unarmed Attacks: Low Kick - 1d3 1d4 20/x2 - - Bludgeoning Low Blow@# - 2d3 2d4 20/x2 - - Bludgeoning 'Two-handed' Simple Unarmed Attacks: Stomp** - 1d3 1d4 20/x2 - - Bludgeoning Light Martial Unarmed Attacks: Jab - 1d3 1d4 20/x2 - - Bludgeoning Elbow/Knee Shot - 1d3 1d4 20/x2 - - Bludgeoning Headbutt - 1d3 1d4 20/x2 - - Bludgeoning Clinch* - 1d3 1d4 20/x2 - - Bludgeoning 'One-handed' Martial Unarmed Attacks: Cross/Hook/etc# - 1d4 1d6 20/x2 - - Bludgeoning Kick - 1d4 1d6 20/x2 - - Bludgeoning 'Two-handed' Martial Unarmed Attacks: Roundhouse/haymaker# 1d4 1d6 20/x2 - - Bludgeoning Punt** 1d4 1d6 20/x2 - - Bludgeoning Light Exotic Unarmed Attacks***: Lightning Fist - 1d4 1d6 20/x2 - - Bludgeoning Palm Strike# - 1d4 1d6 20/x2 - - Bludgeoning Elbow/Knee Smash - 1d4 1d6 20/x2 - - Bludgeoning Snap Kick - 1d4 1d6 20/x2 - - Bludgeoning Forehead smash# - 1d4 1d6 20/x2 - - Bludgeoning Joint Lock* - 1d4 1d6 20/x2 - - Bludgeoning 'One-handed' Exotic Unarmed Attacks:*** Chop# - 1d6 1d8 20/x2 - - Bludgeoning High Kick# - 1d6 1d8 20/x2 - - Bludgeoning Ki Punch+# - 1d6 1d8 20/x2 - - Bludgeoning Spearhand++ - 1d4 1d6 20/x2 - - Piercing Tiger Claw++ - 1d4 1d6 20/x2 - - Slashing 'Two-handed' Exotic Unarmed Attacks:*** Spinng Kick# - 1d8 1d10 20/x2 - - Bludgeoning Flying Kick+++ - 2d4 2d6 20/x2 - - Bludgeoning*Uses a grapple check instead of an attack roll. **Attack can only be made against a prone foe. ***Monks are proficient with and can substitute thier unarmed attack damage for any Light Exotic Unarmed Attack, all of these attacks except the Joint Lock can be used as part of a Flurry of Blows. Monks are proficient with the Chop & High Kick manuevers, and may substitute thier unarmed damage if it is higher. Monks are proficient with the Spinning & Flying Kick manuevers, and may substitute thier unarmed damage if it is higher. + The Ki Punch counts as a special monk weapon and can be used in a flurry, a monk can substitute his unarmed damage if it is higher, but monks are not automatically proficient in this secret technique. ++A monk can substitute the unarmed damage of a monk 4 levels lower, if that is higer, but monks are not automatically proficient in this secret technique. +++ The Flying Kick can only be used as part of a charge, and requires a successful DC 15 Jump check to carry you into your target's square. This provokes an AoO from the target, unless the movement of the charge has already done so, or the attacker makes a DC 25 tumble check. If the Flying Kick hits, the attacker can also make a free Trip Attempt against the target. The attacker ends his round prone, regardless - if he hit, in the square in front of the target, if he missed, in the square behind it (or the nearest legal square his jump could have reached, often the square directly in front of the target). # This attack can be used to deliver a Stunning Blow. @ This attack can only be used if the target is denied his DEX bonus relative to you, it cannot score a critical hit. Proficiency: All characters are proficient with the Simple Unarmed Attacks, except Paladins, who lack proficiency with the Low Blow and Stomp attacks. Characters proficient with 'all martial weapons' are proficient with all the Martial Unarmed Attacks, again, except Paladins who lack proficiency with the Punt attack. Monks are Proficient with all the Light Exotic Unarmed Attacks, plus the Chop, and the High, Spinning & Flying Kicks. Though they are not automatically proficient with them, they can gain special benefits when using the Spearhand, Tiger Claw or Ki Strike exotic unarmed attacks. Rogues are proficient with the Light Martial Unarmed Attacks and the Punt 'Two Handed' Martial Unarmed Attack. Druids are proficient with the Clinch Light Martial Unarmed Attack. Characters can take a single Martial Weapon Proficiency Feat, 'Fisticuffs' to learn the Jab, Cross/Hook & Roundhouse/Haymaker Martial Unarmed Attacks, and/or a single Martial Weapon Proficiency Feat, 'Infighting,' to learn the Elbow/Knee Shot, Clinch, Headbutt, Kick & Punt Attacks. All the Exotic Unarmed Attacks take Improved Unarmed Strike as a Prerequisite. In addition, Tiger Claw & Spearhand both take Chop as a preq, which in turn takes Lightning Fist; Ki Strike takes Palm Strike as a preq; and Flying Kick & Spinning Kick take High Kick which takes Snap Kick. That should keep the non-monks away. ;) Simple & Martial attacks can do lethal damage without the -4 if you're using a part of your body covered by relatively hard armor. Heavy armors count as such for your whole body, unless you remove the helm or gauntlets. Breastplates and Scale armor count for you body (used for clinch or squeeze attacks), legs/knees, and head; chainmail counts for your whole body. Hide & light armors don't count at all. Adding armor spikes substitutes d4/d6 lethal piercing damage for the regular attack damage, and attacking with the spikes doesn't provoke an AoO - it's an armed attack. As a general rule, this is not optional - if you have fully spiked heavy armor, forget about grappling to subdue - you can take a -4 to inflict non-lethal damage with the spikes, or to use your unarmed attacks without impaling the target on the spikes. If you want to MW or enchant armor spikes, you have to go into what coverage area gets what. The 10 lb weight for armor spikes is for full coverage - 2 arms, the legs, torso, & head. Armor spikes don't cover the hands or feet (they'd be too cumbersome), but you can get spiked gauntlets, or, if you really want to, cleats that'll count as a spiked guantlets for your feet. I suppose I could write a description of each attack, but I figure they're pretty slef-explanatory, familiar cinematic moves.
Tony Vargas 01-19-06, 06:41 PM	I see the point, but I don't like the "I can fight with two weapons without TWFing" interpretation, and don't see that it's obviously correct, by the RAW. What's not to like? You can already fight with multiple different weapons by dropping and quickdrawing them in succession, why not by just striking with one hand or the other over the course of a full attack? Or, if you have a weapon that's always ready, like armor spikes that you don't have to drop or draw at all, just substitute an attack with it whenever you feel like it. No big deal, as such weapons are usually a lot less effective than even light weapons. The only bugaboo is Defending weapons - and that's a problem with defending weapons - why anyone thought giving them an unamed bonus and saying they'd stack with themselves would be a /good/ idea is beyond me. I think they'd work much better as magically actuated Combat Expertise: You can take a penalty on /all/ your attacks of up to the Defending weapon's bonus, and get a similar Dodge bonus to AC. Could two stack? Theoretically, sure, since Dodge bonuses do stack - but the penalty would stack, too. The corrollary is that, unless you're a Ranger, it also requires a 19 Dex just for the TWF feats, limiting how high your Strength could be, or requiring that you pay for it elsewhere. By the time the last leaves of the TWF tree really matter, you can afford to buy yourself some DEX enhancement. The greatest impact comes from the initial TWF feat, and that only requires a 15. You can take a 15 DEX and still max your STR, if what you want to do is cheese up a doubled STR damage bonus with every full attack. I don't agree. I've done some staff training, which while it's not the same as a greatsword, is still a two-handed weapon. And I'm perfectly able to kick or even punch someone while using it, if they're close enough. And I'm not very good. Definitely 1st level. Are you a 1st level monk? That'd be a flurry. ;) What would perhaps be easier would just be to say you've got 1.5x Str to assign. A two-hander requires all of it. And you must assign at least 1x to a single weapon. That's more or less what I was aiming towards, just more concise than I can ever seem to get. :rolleyes: I've proposed it before, but shield ACs should be doubled. And require 0.5x of your Str bonus to use, in this angle we're taking. If you get Improved Shield Bash, you can retain that AC while bashing with it. You could give proficient characters a dodge bonus equal to the shield bonus for using the shield defensively, (which'd take the '0.5 STR effort' to use, unless you have improved shield bash). This would make the shield no longer entirely passive, and make shield proficiency, as well as shields, more meaningful.
Thorak 01-19-06, 09:48 PM	What's not to like? You can already fight with multiple different weapons by dropping and quickdrawing them in succession, why not by just striking with one hand or the other over the course of a full attack? Or, if you have a weapon that's always ready, like armor spikes that you don't have to drop or draw at all, just substitute an attack with it whenever you feel like it. No big deal, as such weapons are usually a lot less effective than even light weapons. Because you're only having to coordinate the attacks from a single hand, not the attacks from two. Which is harder, having done a bit of it. But like I said, I have further problems with the whole system. I'd agree with you in spirit, that any ready weapon should be useable when possible, but the system started by limiting your valid weapons wielded, and that's a limitation I'm trying to work with. Otherwise, we've got to completely trash the TWF rules completely and come up with something more like the Flurry rules from the KOTOR games (and possible Star Wars d20, which I imagine they're based on). Like I said, no real problems with it, I just think it's yet another step away from the D&D paradigm. The only bugaboo is Defending weapons - and that's a problem with defending weapons - why anyone thought giving them an unamed bonus and saying they'd stack with themselves would be a /good/ idea is beyond me. I think they'd work much better as magically actuated Combat Expertise: You can take a penalty on /all/ your attacks of up to the Defending weapon's bonus, and get a similar Dodge bonus to AC. Could two stack? Theoretically, sure, since Dodge bonuses do stack - but the penalty would stack, too. Interesting. But it's just as easy to redefine "wield" to be what standard English means, to actively use. So if you're not deliberately trying to use the weapon, you're not wielding it and can't gain the benefit. And also rewrite the TWF rules, explicitly, to trigger off wielding, rather than making the extra attacks. You can interpret the rules this way to begin with, from the core books, but it's too evasive and inconclusive to be sure, and I'm tired of trying to prove what I'm saying is "better". By the time the last leaves of the TWF tree really matter, you can afford to buy yourself some DEX enhancement. The greatest impact comes from the initial TWF feat, and that only requires a 15. You can take a 15 DEX and still max your STR, if what you want to do is cheese up a doubled STR damage bonus with every full attack. If you're using 24 point buy, sure. And all your other stats are 8. Nice Con. And with higher point buys, it just extends to other stats. Someone who doesn't need to get both ability scores is going to do better. And can wear other stuff in place of the dex enhancement item; I can think of gloves I'd rather wear than those. I wasn't saying you can't do it, just that it's expensive in ways that can't be ignored or completely corrected. Are you a 1st level monk? That'd be a flurry. ;) Heh. Though I wouldn't. I've also got an Honours degree, so I'd class myself as an Expert first and foremost. If I'm a multiclassed Monk/Expert, then I'm at least 2nd level. Woo! That's more or less what I was aiming towards, just more concise than I can ever seem to get. :rolleyes: I feel you. You're talking to the master of run on dialogues and beating a point to death by repeating it over and over. See? 24 words to say "I talk a lot too". And that's 10 more. I'm stopping now. You could give proficient characters a dodge bonus equal to the shield bonus for using the shield defensively, (which'd take the '0.5 STR effort' to use, unless you have improved shield bash). This would make the shield no longer entirely passive, and make shield proficiency, as well as shields, more meaningful. True. I had a more complex system worked out in some thread I didn't subscribe to and which has now been lost to the ages which I thought highly of. Started from this concept of doubling the AC, and went from there. Basically, my big issue is passive defense. If you stand there like a lump, you die. Even in full plate with a tower shield. It takes skill to defend yourself, armor and shields just make it easier. You still need to actively use them both to protect yourself. And a +1 Dodge bonus is ridiculous. Classes should get some kind of defense bonus related to BAB. But doing so also starts to change the entire combat system in huge ways with unforeseen consequences. And now we're back to reinventing the wheel. Not saying it can't be done, but it would be a huge project, and would just end up being a houserule that almost everyone would ignore, so I don't feel like bothering.
jaelis 01-20-06, 01:05 AM	That's given me two ideas... Ack! You know you're in trouble when you say, "I don't like A because of B" and the response is "Wow, B! That's great!" But actually, that's a pretty neat system. I wouldn't want anything so complicated except in a martial-arts themed campaign. But I appreciate that it's logically clear and consistent. I like the idea of being able to treat your unarmed strike as different size categories, depending on the situation. I could definitely see how that could work. I think I like my thing better, but that's probably just because I wrote it. And Thorak, an elf can get a 15 dex and a pretty decent strength without much trouble. And he gets a bunch of other benefits from it too. I agree there's a cost, but maybe not as high as you're making it out to be. As for defending... am I the only person who thinks that "a bonus that stacks with all others" means that two defending weapons don't stack because the second bonus is not an "other" bonus, its the same bonus again? Eh, most likely.
jaelis 01-20-06, 01:18 AM	(note that my arguements are based on the actual RAW, not the houserule you're proposing)I had come to the conclusion that a strike with a gauntlet was not an unarmed strike at all. The idea was that a gauntlet strike is another subset of unarmed attacks, just like unarmed strikes and natural weapons are. Thus, hitting someone with a gauntleted hand is different than punching, just like making a hoof natural attack is different than kicking. So we have at least 3 different types of unarmed attacks: gauntlet strikes, unarmed strikes, and natural attacks. Gauntlet strikes follow the exact same rules as striking with a longsword or a battleaxe. They are no different at all (except for that they don't threaten). The only difference is that gauntlet is not only a weapon, it is an unarmed attack as well. However, a gauntlet strike is just as different from an unarmed strike as a longsword attack is. Unarmed Strikes follow mostly the same rules as weapons, but have some special rules of their own, such as how unarmed strikes are effectively made with the entire body, or that a monk deals more damage than normal with one. Natural Weapons follow completely different rules than normal weapons, and have their own special rules. The point: If you are wearing a uber enchanted gauntlet, and you make an unarmed strike (even if you designate that its a punch), then you don't get the bonuses from the guantlet. None. Likewise, if you make a strike with the gauntlet itself, you wouldn't gain any of the bonuses that may or may not apply to your unarmed strikes, such as weapon focus or the monk damage bonus, but you would still gain the bonuses from the gauntlet. The first line of the guantlet description, "This metal glove lets you deal lethal damage rather than nonlethal damage with unarmed strikes", does not mean at all that a gauntlet strike has anything to do with an unarmed strike. However senseless it may be, putting on a gauntlet changes all of your unarmed strike damage to lethal. If you wear a metal glove, it means your feet, your head, and your buttocks now deal lethal damage. That's what I had deciphered from the RAW... does anyone see any holes in this? Well, I don't think RAW is so clear on this. The rule you quote does say a gauntlet attack is still an unarmed strike, just with different properties. But the weapons table lists them as separate weapons, so that's kind of a contradiction. Many things work better if you say they are separate weapons, though. The unarmed strike description says it can be a punch, kick, headbutt, or other things. The gauntlet description clearly refers to just your hands, and also says "lets you deal lethal damage" with your unarmed strike, not "causes your unarmed strike damage be lethal", suggesting that the change is optional in some way. I think the most obvious interpretation is that if you're wearing a gauntlet, you do lethal damage with your punches, but still nonlethal with your kicks etc. (Which is a big part of what I don't like.) But it is open to interpretation. I wouldn't mix natural weapons into it, as you say, they have their own rules. I don't know why they list them as "armed unarmed attacks" in the combat section, it doesn't really seem to mean anything.
Tony Vargas 01-20-06, 12:33 PM	Ack! You know you're in trouble when you say, "I don't like A because of B" and the response is "Wow, B! That's great!" But actually, that's a pretty neat system. I wouldn't want anything so complicated except in a martial-arts themed campaign. But I appreciate that it's logically clear and consistent. I probably wouldn't even have tried if I hadn't already done something vaugely like it for 1E. Statting various 'martial arts manuvers' as weapons, that is. But, it is the kind of thing that's too much to really be used. Like I said, I did something like this in 1E, and in a 5-year campaign, /one/ player picked one the manuevers as a weapon of proficiency. :rolleyes: I like the idea of being able to treat your unarmed strike as different size categories, depending on the situation. I could definitely see how that could work. Yeah, that was what got me on the idea. I never liked that 'unarmed strikes' were both light and eligible for power attack, but I understood how both should reasonably aply. By breaking the attacks into different categories, I could make a boxing-style 'jab' or a knee shot 'light' - suitable for use as an off-hand attack, and a roundhouse or flyling kick 'two handed' and thus unsuitable for TWFing at all, but with the commensurate power behind it. I guess it also makes a non-monk 'martial artist' a bit more do-able, though, obviously, he'd still have a lot of trouble with AC. As for defending... am I the only person who thinks that "a bonus that stacks with all others" means that two defending weapons don't stack because the second bonus is not an "other" bonus, its the same bonus again?No, but it seems to be a hard sell to the munchkin set. The rules do come right out and say that two unnamed bonuses from the 'same source' don't stack - and I see nothing wrong with ruling the defending enchantment a 'source.'
Tony Vargas 01-20-06, 01:01 PM	Because you're only having to coordinate the attacks from a single hand, not the attacks from two. Which is harder, having done a bit of it. That's the point. When you TWF you are coordinating the attacks from both weapons - to the consternation of your foe, as you have a chance of landing an extra hit on him, specifically because you're using both weapons in that, difficult, coordinated fashion. When you just swap out an attack in a full attack sequence to use a different available weapon than the one you were fighting with, it's not coordinated, but serial. You attack with one, then attack with another. It's no different than changing weapons - you don't gain the benifit of TWFing (the extra attack), you don't suffer the penalties (and, really, shouldn't even suffer the reduced bonuses) of TWFing. I'd agree with you in spirit, that any ready weapon should be useable when possible, but the system started by limiting your valid weapons wielded, and that's a limitation I'm trying to work with.I don't see where the system does that. First of all, it doesn't define 'weilded.' Secondly, it provides hands-free weapons like armor spikes, weapons you don't have to draw or drop to swap out, like the spiked gauntlet, and quickdraw, which lets you change weapons mid-stream. Finally, what it /does/ do, is differentiate among individual weapons based on how many 'hands' it takes to use them, and how 'heavy' they are - without much consistency. The 3.0 weapon sizes actually made more sense, to me at least, but, aparently, I was the only one. :( Otherwise, we've got to completely trash the TWF rules completely and come up with something more like the Flurry rules from the KOTOR games (and possible Star Wars d20, which I imagine they're based on). Like I said, no real problems with it, I just think it's yet another step away from the D&D paradigm. But it's just as easy to redefine "wield" to be what standard English means, to actively use. So if you're not deliberately trying to use the weapon, you're not wielding it and can't gain the benefit. And also rewrite the TWF rules, explicitly, to trigger off wielding, rather than making the extra attacks. Either way, you're re-writing or re-interpreting some rule, somewhere. So, I think, we need to look at the results. If we go with a hard definition of wielding, you might have a situation like: A character with TWF is holding a long & short sword (fairly standard). He moves 15' to attack an enemy, since he knows he'll only get one attack, he obviously doesn't take the -2 for TWFing to attack with his longsword, since he, well, can't TWF as part of a standard attack. Then the enemy in question successfully disarms him of his long sword, and a second enemy grapples him, which should provoke an AoO. Though he's holding a razor-sharp shortsword at the ready (and nothing else), there's no chance of that sword finding it's way into the grappling foe, because the sword isn't 'wielded.' That just doesn't strike me as sensible. If you're using 24 point buy, sure. And all your other stats are 8. Nice Con. And with higher point buys, it just extends to other stats. Nod, point buys up to 32 aren't unusual, nor are random stat generation systems like 4d6-drop-one. It's possible to get a 15 DEX and a very high STR, the question I guess, is how good should that really be? Does investing in 15 DEX and a feat entitle you to dishing out doubled STR bonus damage, however high your STR may go? I wasn't saying you can't do it, just that it's expensive in ways that can't be ignored or completely corrected. Sure, any abusive combo sacrifices something to collect the needed elements, it just gives a payoff that's disproportionate for what it gives up. A high STR, 15 DEX, TWF & and exotic double-weapon is a pretty steep investment, but it gives you the ability to make a meaningful full attack at low levels, with a mild penalty and good damage - and to make single high-damage attacks when full attacks aren't an option. The same stats, TWFing, and a THW & 'body weapon,' OTOH, is less of an investment, gives you a comparable advantage in terms of full attacking - though with much more damage on the primary attack, and a bit less on the secondary - and superior performance when not full attacking. Clearly the two aren't balanced. Yes, you could 'fix' that by beefing up double weapons. But, IMX, power inflation is a bad thing, so the more prodent thing to do would be to 'nerf' the overpowered combo. In addition, double weapons are clearly meant to be used that way in the game, while 'body weapons' as secondary weapons with a THW as primary are at best an open loophole. Basically, my big issue is passive defense. If you stand there like a lump, you die. Even in full plate with a tower shield. It takes skill to defend yourself, armor and shields just make it easier. You still need to actively use them both to protect yourself. Nod. D&D does abstract 'skill in defense' to hit points. Fighters get a lot of 'em, wizards few. D&D also doesn't have any sort of system for becoming fatigued from combat - again, hit points cover it. Hit points cover a lot - way too much for any meaningful degree of realism. But, they do enable a few cinematic touches. When you're facing a horde of lesser enemies in a game that doesn't use any such abstractions, for instance, you're fine - you're cutting them down, and they're not touching you - until one of them get's lucky and kills you. In D&D, you're cuttin them down and they're scratching you - and you have a pretty darn good idea when you should bug out. Story-wise, that's "run! there's too many of them!" Classes should get some kind of defense bonus related to BAB. But doing so also starts to change the entire combat system in huge ways with unforeseen consequences. True both times. One possible way to deal with the former while avoiding the latter is to give out a named defensive bonus that'd overlap with the more common existing AC buffs - justifying a skill-based 'enhancement' bonus to armor or shields may be a stretch, but perhaps 'deflection?'
Thorak 01-20-06, 02:44 PM	That's the point. When you TWF you are coordinating the attacks from both weapons - to the consternation of your foe, as you have a chance of landing an extra hit on him, specifically because you're using both weapons in that, difficult, coordinated fashion. When you just swap out an attack in a full attack sequence to use a different available weapon than the one you were fighting with, it's not coordinated, but serial. You attack with one, then attack with another. It's no different than changing weapons - you don't gain the benifit of TWFing (the extra attack), you don't suffer the penalties (and, really, shouldn't even suffer the reduced bonuses) of TWFing. I see your point, I imagine you see mine. I wish D&D were more specific and clear about which of us was "right", but them's the breaks. I'd have less problems with it siding conclusively with you than I do with the uncertainty there is now. I don't see where the system does that. First of all, it doesn't define 'weilded.' Secondly, it provides hands-free weapons like armor spikes, weapons you don't have to draw or drop to swap out, like the spiked gauntlet, and quickdraw, which lets you change weapons mid-stream. Finally, what it /does/ do, is differentiate among individual weapons based on how many 'hands' it takes to use them, and how 'heavy' they are - without much consistency. The 3.0 weapon sizes actually made more sense, to me at least, but, aparently, I was the only one. :( The "handedness" of weapons needs to be renamed. As written, a two-hander, if you can wield it in one hand somehow, still does 2x Str damage, for instance. And a longsword wielded in two hands doesn't help resist a disarm. I disagree with both, but that's how it's written at present. Either way, you're re-writing or re-interpreting some rule, somewhere. So, I think, we need to look at the results. If we go with a hard definition of wielding, you might have a situation like: A character with TWF is holding a long & short sword (fairly standard). He moves 15' to attack an enemy, since he knows he'll only get one attack, he obviously doesn't take the -2 for TWFing to attack with his longsword, since he, well, can't TWF as part of a standard attack. Then the enemy in question successfully disarms him of his long sword, and a second enemy grapples him, which should provoke an AoO. Though he's holding a razor-sharp shortsword at the ready (and nothing else), there's no chance of that sword finding it's way into the grappling foe, because the sword isn't 'wielded.' That just doesn't strike me as sensible. I see your point. This is why I don't like the current system; no matter how we interpret it, it ends up being silly somewhere. Nod, point buys up to 32 aren't unusual, nor are random stat generation systems like 4d6-drop-one. It's possible to get a 15 DEX and a very high STR, the question I guess, is how good should that really be? Does investing in 15 DEX and a feat entitle you to dishing out doubled STR bonus damage, however high your STR may go? If we allow for the removal of the off-hand penalties as well, sure. I, for one, think 3.5 still needs an Ambidexterity feat. The benefit would be to remove the -4 to hit from just attacking with the off-hand, and to negate the 0.5x Str modifier off-hand weapons are forced to have, though light weapon wouldn't be improved, only one-handed ones. Then TWFers have just as much access to 2x Str damage as anyone. Yes, you could 'fix' that by beefing up double weapons. But, IMX, power inflation is a bad thing, so the more prodent thing to do would be to 'nerf' the overpowered combo. In addition, double weapons are clearly meant to be used that way in the game, while 'body weapons' as secondary weapons with a THW as primary are at best an open loophole. I will admit that I'm trying to beef up physical combat a wee bit. Spellcasters already have the pinnacle of power, this isn't going to be a huge benefit to them in most cases, and it will help bring the mundane classes a bit closer to their power level. Since a Cleric or Wizard isn't game-breaking, I don't see why this would be. CRs and experience may need a wee adjustment, though. Nod. D&D does abstract 'skill in defense' to hit points. Fighters get a lot of 'em, wizards few. D&D also doesn't have any sort of system for becoming fatigued from combat - again, hit points cover it. Hit points cover a lot - way too much for any meaningful degree of realism. But, they do enable a few cinematic touches. When you're facing a horde of lesser enemies in a game that doesn't use any such abstractions, for instance, you're fine - you're cutting them down, and they're not touching you - until one of them get's lucky and kills you. In D&D, you're cuttin them down and they're scratching you - and you have a pretty darn good idea when you should bug out. Story-wise, that's "run! there's too many of them!" My issue is that if you let a 1st level farmer beat on a full-plate, tower-shield master-of-arms, who's trying to do nothing but defend himself, the farmer will eventually hit him, and will eventually kill him. Which I just don't see happening in most cases. If there's more of them, sure, but not when it's just the one; the other guy is too skilled for the farmer, and can easily see and counter his attacks. True both times. One possible way to deal with the former while avoiding the latter is to give out a named defensive bonus that'd overlap with the more common existing AC buffs - justifying a skill-based 'enhancement' bonus to armor or shields may be a stretch, but perhaps 'deflection?' Or as a Dodge bonus. And make sure that you lose the bonus when denied your Dexterity to AC.
tiluvias99 01-20-06, 06:09 PM	Well, I don't think RAW is so clear on this. The rule you quote does say a gauntlet attack is still an unarmed strike, just with different properties. But the weapons table lists them as separate weapons, so that's kind of a contradiction. Many things work better if you say they are separate weapons, though. The unarmed strike description says it can be a punch, kick, headbutt, or other things. The gauntlet description clearly refers to just your hands, and also says "lets you deal lethal damage" with your unarmed strike, not "causes your unarmed strike damage be lethal", suggesting that the change is optional in some way. I think the most obvious interpretation is that if you're wearing a gauntlet, you do lethal damage with your punches, but still nonlethal with your kicks etc. (Which is a big part of what I don't like.) But it is open to interpretation. I wouldn't mix natural weapons into it, as you say, they have their own rules. I don't know why they list them as "armed unarmed attacks" in the combat section, it doesn't really seem to mean anything.Just wondering, where did you get the idea that a gauntlet sttack is still an unarmed strike? I see nothing that points to this conclusion you've made. The rules for the gauntlet say that attack with a gauntlet is an unarmed attack, not an unarmed strike (thats the "A strike with a gauntlet is otherwise considered an unarmed attack" part). It just happens to modify your unarmed strikes as well (thats the "This metal glove lets you deal lethal damage rather than nonlethal damage with unarmed strikes" part). I agree with you about the "lets you deal lethal damage rather than nonlethal damage" part, that seems kind of odd. Considering that, I change my previous statement to say: "The first line of the guantlet description, "This metal glove lets you deal lethal damage rather than nonlethal damage with unarmed strikes", does not mean at all that a gauntlet strike has anything to do with an unarmed strike. However senseless it may be, putting on a gauntlet allows you to change all of your unarmed strike damage to lethal if you so choose. If you wear a metal glove, it means your feet, your head, and your buttocks now deal lethal damage or non-lethal damage, whichever you choose." The rest would still stand. Yeah, that was what got me on the idea. I never liked that 'unarmed strikes' were both light and eligible for power attack, but I understood how both should reasonably aply. By breaking the attacks into different categories, I could make a boxing-style 'jab' or a knee shot 'light' - suitable for use as an off-hand attack, and a roundhouse or flyling kick 'two handed' and thus unsuitable for TWFing at all, but with the commensurate power behind it.I did somewhat of the same thing in the house rules I designed, in my sig. It's quite a bit different than yours though, and far simpler (and probably a lot easier to implement).Basically, my big issue is passive defense. If you stand there like a lump, you die. Even in full plate with a tower shield. It takes skill to defend yourself, armor and shields just make it easier. You still need to actively use them both to protect yourself. And a +1 Dodge bonus is ridiculous. Classes should get some kind of defense bonus related to BAB. But doing so also starts to change the entire combat system in huge ways with unforeseen consequences. And now we're back to reinventing the wheel. Not saying it can't be done, but it would be a huge project, and would just end up being a houserule that almost everyone would ignore, so I don't feel like bothering.I completely agree. In the house rules referenced before, I did two things: all characters would get a dodge bonus to AC equal to 1/3 their BAB, rounding up (1/2 seemed to high and 1/4 seemed to low). I also did this: All characters, regardless of race of class, gain this feat as soon as they meet the prerequisites. Elaborate Parry You can block incoming blows my sacrificing your own attacks. Prerequisites: Combat Expertise, BAB +3 Benefit: Any time you make a full-attack action, you may choose to sacrifice any of the attacks in order to gain special options. If you are melee attacked before your next turn, then you may make an opposed attack role, at the same attack bonus as the attack sacrificed. You must choose to do so before his attack roll is rolled. If you succeed, your opponent's attack is negated. If you fail, then the attack hits (but only if it would have hit you normally). For example, when making a full attack, a character with an AB of +14/+9/+4 could sacrifice his +14 attack and his +4 attack and would just make his +9 attack on his full attack. The first time he is attacked before his next turn, he makes an opposed attack roll at +14, and if he wins, the opponent's attack is negated. The second time he is attacked before his next turn, he makes an opposed attack roll at +4, and if he wins, then the attack is negated. This ability is not restricted to sequential attacks. The fighter could also have not attempted an opposed attack roll against the first attack, could have made an opposed attack roll at +4 against a second attack, and could have made an opposed attack roll at +14 against a third attack. Normal: You cannot block incoming attacks. Special: Shields, in addition to providing a flat bonus to AC, can also be used for this option. When a shield bash attack is sacrificed, he gains a bonus on his opposed attack roll equal to the shield's AC bonus. Note that unless a character has the "Improved Shield Bash" feat, then if he sacrifices his attack, then he does not gain the Shield's AC bonus to his normal AC. If you use the "Fight Defensively" option, then you gain the AC bonus from fighting defensively on your opposed attack rolls. If you use the "Total Defense" action, then you gain a number of clock attempts equal to the number of attacks you could have made with a full-attack, at the same attack bonuses. The AC Bonus from Total Defense applies to your opposed attack rolls. This ability can be used in conjunction with all abilities that grant extra attacks (such as two-weapon fighting, natural secondary attacks, etc.), so any number of attacks can be sacrificed. I thought those two ideas (the AC bonus and the Elaborate Parry mechanic) covered pretty much all the bases for "Active Defense". ACs would be only marginally higher (a +20 BAB character would only have a +7 bonus to AC), and the "Elaborate Defense" feat seems like a balanced feat, though it would change common combat completely. Thorak and Tony Vargas seem to have everything covered on the TWF rules, I have nothing to add there except my agreement that ideally, certain changes should be made.
jaelis 01-20-06, 09:23 PM	Just wondering, where did you get the idea that a gauntlet sttack is still an unarmed strike? I see nothing that points to this conclusion you've made. The rules for the gauntlet say that attack with a gauntlet is an unarmed attack, not an unarmed strike (thats the "A strike with a gauntlet is otherwise considered an unarmed attack" part). It just happens to modify your unarmed strikes as well (thats the "This metal glove lets you deal lethal damage rather than nonlethal damage with unarmed strikes" part). I agree with you about the "lets you deal lethal damage rather than nonlethal damage" part, that seems kind of odd. Considering that, I change my previous statement to say: "The first line of the guantlet description, "This metal glove lets you deal lethal damage rather than nonlethal damage with unarmed strikes", does not mean at all that a gauntlet strike has anything to do with an unarmed strike. However senseless it may be, putting on a gauntlet allows you to change all of your unarmed strike damage to lethal if you so choose. If you wear a metal glove, it means your feet, your head, and your buttocks now deal lethal damage or non-lethal damage, whichever you choose." The rest would still stand. Maybe I didn't quite understand the first time around. So you're saying that a gauntlet has two effects. First, it allows your unarmed strike to do lethal or nonlethal damage as you wish. And second, you can actually make a distinct unarmed attack with the gauntlet. So if you're wearing a +1 gauntlet, you could either make an unarmed strike with no bonus (but you could do lethal damage), or you could make a gauntlet attack with +1 bonus. Yeah, OK, that's probably the straight way to read it.
Anshin Mandango 01-21-06, 03:33 PM	Classes should get some kind of defense bonus related to BAB. But doing so also starts to change the entire combat system in huge ways with unforeseen consequences. d20 modern does this with a class defense bonus stat for each class that scales along with bab, saves and everything else. usaually at 1/2 hit die for martial classes (fighter,barb,ranger,paladin in D&D terms), 1/2hit die+3 for particulary defense minded or agile classes (rogue, monk), and as far as i can tell, 3/8 bab for non-martial classes (cleric, wiz, druid, sorc) but i'd probabally drop that to 1/3 hd because such classes in D&D have plenty of other ways to increase ac such as spells, wildshaping and whatnot, that, and it's easier to calculate.