In effect, I'd like it to be able to work with spiked gauntlets, increasing them from 1d6 to 1d8, thus if you wanted to have a magic weapon, but still be all hand-to-hand-like the spiked gauntlets would carry your enchantment and the claws would still off their increase in damage.
Is that unbalanced? Does the way it's worded right now do that at all?
were lumiukko's ruled by santa in lapland ! And i really should have a orange pointed nose as a natural weapon, maybe beady black eyes too and definately snowhite skin with fire vulnerability.
No, I simply stole the word because it sounded appropriate and hadn't been used yet in D&D so far as I could tell. I really don't know much about finnish, lappish, sami, or scandanavian folklore so I don't know what rule any creature called a lumiukko might have in those realms. These guys were originally called Wendigo, but I realized I really didn't want them to be anything like the wendigo of legend or the wendigo of D&D so I found/stole a different name.
Shouldn't their racial power cause cold damage?
Yes. I guess I just missed a word.
EDIT: Fixed that and but in a revised and longer version of the claw proficiency. Gods I wish there was a simpler way to say what I want it to do.
I really don't understand why people are always so fascinated with the idea of giving a race natural weapons or improved unarmed attacks, but while it may have been perfectly acceptable in previous edition, it's really just not an appropriate racial feature in 4E. I've explain this too many times, so I'm just going to copy and paste my response from another thread (making slight adjustments for this particular case).
Okay, I see why you wanted to do this. Really, I do, and you're not the first person to try it. But honestly, it's just not a good idea for a variety of reasons.
A) Unarmed Attacks suck. Even adding the +2 proficiency bonus and some higher damage, almost every single other weapon in the game is superior in every single way. It's practically a useless feature.
B) Last time I told A to somebody, their solution was to give the race a better Unarmed Strike that was actually useful. Bad. Bad in a logical and conceptual way. You know what else has claws? Razorclaw Shifters. You know what else has natural weapons and natural attacks? Minotaurs. Do any of them get a bonus to unarmed strike in any form other than a racial power? No. They do not. It's mechanically inconsistent to only give superior unarmed strike to one race when there are a whole slew of races who should theoretically have it. That's one of the design consistencies for 4E PC races: No natural weapons.
C) Now, you may be asking yourself why this is. The reason is directly related to another of 4E's PC race design philosophies: Every race should be able to perform reasonably well as a member of any class. Improvement to unarmed strikes and such take a major benefit and focus of your race's design and makes it only apply to weapon-using classes that want to be in melee. This violates good design, because now if I want to play, let's just say an Invoker (which should be totally reasonable considering that +2 WIS), half my racial features are completely useless to me.
Now, many of the times this kind of thing comes up on home brew races put up for PEACH around here, the entire point behind the race was in fact to create a race with natural attacks. If that's the case here, I'm sorry, but it is what it is. If that's not the case here, and I hope it's not, then I highly recommend getting rid of this focus of your race and bringing in other parts of the flavor for racial features.
(Thought, it might be worth mentioning that if you want to improve your race's unarmed strike, I think it's reasonable to get away with that by making it a product of racial feats. In this case, give them a racial feat that will give their unarmed strike a proficiency bonus, etc.)
Seriously, you're much better off just removing it and giving them something else. It will be better for design and better for everybody's sanity.
EDIT: Unfortunately, that's not the only thing wrong with this race. Winter-Touched is a terrible feat to give out for free. Have you considered who this feat is useful to? Think about it. Most classes out there don't have any powers at all with the cold keyword. That means that these classes will need to spend money on specific items or on specific feats in order to benefit at all from this racial feature. A racial feature only useful to half the classes out there and completely useless to the rest without specific dedication towards it is a bad racial feature.
So now I have a question for you. What would you suggest that I could give them?
One of the things I was considering concerning the claw fighting was to instead make claw fighting a series of weapon mastery feats which would be available to a list of races.
That sounds great!
So now I have a question for you. What would you suggest that I could give them?
Hey, I'm just a critic. :P
Seriously though, they're not my race, so I don't know. I just know what does work mechanically and what doesn't and why. But, if you've really given this race a lot of thought, then it should be cake for you to decide on another aspect of their concept that could be appropriate for mechanical representation. For example, if they live in cold, snowy, icy environments, might they have some kind of bonus to avoid difficult terrain because of their experience traversing slippery ice fields and deep snow? Or maybe they have some sort of bonus versus being slowed because of their experience with harsh blizzard winds and frigid temperatures inhibiting their muscles? I don't know, these are just examples, and they might not fit your concept at all.
I'm good at coming up with fluff, but the links between mechanics and fluff can elude me sometimes.
Would a +5 to saving throws against being slowed or immobilized be too powerful?
Just making it against slowed seems fairly weak, but both seems like it might be too strong...
Would dropping the bonus to +2 be better?
I don't know.
Crimson: I'd also appreciate if you could look at my other race the Naws for a critique as well.
Would a +5 to saving throws against being slowed or immobilized be too powerful?
Just making it against slowed seems fairly weak, but both seems like it might be too strong...
Would dropping the bonus to +2 be better?
This doesn't function properly. Races get saving throw bonuses very effect types, not conditions. Getting a saving throw bonus versus a condition gets conceptually confusing and mechanically ambiguous. If you want a bonus versus specific conditions, that's usually dealt with via bonus saves, such as the immediate save that a Dwarf gets versus being knocked prone or how Kalashtar get to make saves versus effects that are dazing or dominating them at the beginning of their turn instead of at the end.
Would a +5 to saving throws against being slowed or immobilized be too powerful?
Just making it against slowed seems fairly weak, but both seems like it might be too strong...
Would dropping the bonus to +2 be better?
If you instead said a +x racial bonus to saving throws against effects of cold powers you might be better off. As Crimson said if you just do effects then it becomes questionable at times, for instance why would this race easier escape a slowing spider web, or some power where the fluff says the earth reaches up and grabs you?
But I do have a problem with one thing crimson has said. On natural weapons I have issues with A, B, and C.
First off for A, 4e design seems to allow for useless features so long as they are pretty much fluff (and natural weapons even in 3e usually were), I'll point to eladrin and elf weapon proficiencies and rest my case there.
For B, just because you think one race should have something and it does not, this does not mean that no race should get it. If this logic were true the genasi would have never gotten a fortitude bonus because the dwarves didn't get one. Now I will grant you that this works the other way around too, take the kalashtar argument, just because most of the races with stats that boost the same defense got a nad bonus doesn't mean the kalashtar should get one if there is no fluff reason to give them one (and there isn't a reason, thus no ref/fort bonus for them and I for one am glad they didn't BS a reason to give them a NAD bonus like they did with the goliaths).
Finally C, once again I point to the racial weapon proficiencies of other races and rest my case. Reread A if you need more info on my reasoning.
First off for A, 4e design seems to allow for useless features so long as they are pretty much fluff (and natural weapons even in 3e usually were), I'll point to eladrin and elf weapon proficiencies and rest my case there.
And that's still not a good thing. Just because the designers screwed up with that doesn't mean we should let it slide when homebrew races screw up with it too. Instead of repeating their mistakes, learn from them.
For B, just because you think one race should have something and it does not, this does not mean that no race should get it.
I didn't say that.
If this logic were true the genasi would have never gotten a fortitude bonus because the dwarves didn't get one.
This is a very flawed comparison on multiple levels. First, the Dwarf does get a fortitude bonus; it's called +2 CON. Second, their giving some Genasi manifestations defense bonuses was a mistake to begin with because those are usually reserved for races that have both of their ability score bonuses going towards ability scores that boost the same defense; additional defense boosts were lazy and poorly thought out.
take the kalashtar argument, just because most of the races with stats that boost the same defense got a nad bonus doesn't mean the kalashtar should get one
No, they most definitely should have given the Kalashtar a defense bonus. It's not a fluff concern, it's a mechanical one. If they really couldn't decide which, they could have just said they get to pick either +1 Fortitude or +1 Reflex, just like they did for one of their skill boosts.
I for one am glad they didn't BS a reason to give them a NAD bonus like they did with the goliaths
That was completely necessary.
Finally C, once again I point to the racial weapon proficiencies of other races and rest my case. Reread A if you need more info on my reasoning.
And I'll once again point you that reply. Racial weapon proficiencies were a mistake. Don't repeat mistakes, learn from them.
One you realize that the official race aren't perfect it all becomes clear. ;)
But this is most definitely off topic, so if you really wish to debate the matter, please feel free to PM me, but I don't think this is the right place to do that.
The proper wording for what I think you want to accomplish is "effects resulting from powers with the cold keyword" but that sounds really cumbersome...
There is no such thing as a "cold effect". Cold is not an effect type. It's a damage type. (see PHB page 55)
The proper wording for what I think you want to accomplish is "effects resulting from powers with the cold keyword" but that sounds really cumbersome...
But is there also not strictly such a thing as a charm or fear effect either? There are powers with those keywords, but...
I could be wrong, please tell me if I am.
EDIT: Never mind. Actually reading my books is a good idea.
And to crimson, you may not have said it was a bad idea but you did more than a lot to imply that that was your position. Furthermore I don't think racial weapon proficiencies were a mistake, can you show me any reason that they were? I highly doubt you can, particularly since racial weapon proficiencies are simply a way of expressing a fluff feature and I can give you races across the board that have such features, from the dragonborn to the changeling. But here is where you and I differ most in design, you want to do things for the sake of mechanics regardless of whether or not there is any sense to them (like the goliath will bonus). I think that fluff and flavor are more important, this is a role playing game first and foremost not a math game, you seem to forget that, so does WotC at times, I've learned from that mistake.
Actually fear and charm are considered effect keywords, not damage keywords, however I don't think you should drop the concept just because crimson thinks the proper wording is "cumbersome"
Oh no, I wasn't suggesting that the concept should be dropped just because the wording would be cumbersome. I was just saying that the wording is indeed cumbersome is all. If I hated cumbersome wording enough to just drop things with them, half of my own homebrew stuff wouldn't be able to exist. It's only a problem if it's excessively cumbersome wording. ;)
Now the save bonus versus "cold effect" might still be a bad idea, but that wouldn't be why. The reason I say it may still be a bad idea is that the race is becoming much too specialized and narrowly focused. Cold resistance, cold power, bonus to saves versus cold... is this race really just going to be that cold race with no other interesting thing about it?
Of course, at this point, this is just my personal preference, so ignoring it won't necessarily make the race better or worse from a fluff or crunch perspective...
And to crimson, you may not have said it was a bad idea but you did more than a lot to imply that that was your position.
About the natural weapons or the cold effects thing? Natural weapons are bad idea, but I didn't mean to imply that about the cold effects thing.
Furthermore I don't think racial weapon proficiencies were a mistake, can you show me any reason that they were?
Actually, yes, and it's not hard at all. Remember one of the major design philosophies of 4E was that every race should be able to function reasonably as a member of any class and that races would not be pigeon-holed into any specific classes or roles. By extension, racial features that are useful to some classes and completely useless to others are a bad idea because they pigeon-hole races far too much into selecting particular classes. Racial weapon proficiencies are such a feature, they're useful for some classes (weapon-using ones) and completely useless to others (implement-only classes), and so the proficiency is useless unless you're a member of a few specific classes.
However, on top of that, almost every race who wants a particular weapon proficiency already has it anyways. At that point, the feature only becomes useful to very few classes (Cleric and Bard and even then only depending on your build). It really just is a useless waste of ink.
racial weapon proficiencies are simply a way of expressing a fluff feature
Racial feats would have been sufficient and much more appropriate from a design perspective.
and I can give you races across the board that have such features, from the dragonborn to the changeling.
No, you can't, at least not those two particular examples. Dragonborn and Changelings have nothing comparable to racial weapon proficiencies that are either totally useless or useful for some classes but not for others. (But make no mistake, being less useful for some classes than for others is totally okay, so long as it's not totally useless)
But here is where you and I differ most in design, you want to do things for the sake of mechanics regardless of whether or not there is any sense to them (like the goliath will bonus).
This is not true. I want races to get features that are both flavor appropriate and well mechanically thought out whenever possible. Just one or just the other is not good enough.
But AGAIN, this is off-topic, so I suggest you PM me if you'd like to continue the conversation.
Tribal Fury: You gain a +2 racial bonus to damage rolls against enemies that have hit one of your allies since the end of your last turn.
I just looked at one of the feats I had written up for this race and wondered if it might not be acceptable as a race feature.
Tribal Fury: You gain a +2 racial bonus to damage rolls against enemies that have hit one of your allies since the end of your last turn.
That sounds like a great racial feature!
I might make it scale though, maybe boost it to a +4 bonus at 21st level.
Especially Tribal Fury's marking system. It doesn't seem to have any restrictions at all. What if everyone on your team was a Lumiukko? No matter who got attacked, everyone else would have a +2 bonus to damage against that target.
And it's really not that big a deal. It's comparable to the Gnoll's Blood Fury racial feature. Saying "what if everybody in the party is one???" works weirdly for every other race too. If everybody is a dwarf, don't bother with push. If everybody is a halfling, don't bother relying on opportunity attacks. If everybody is a Tiefling, don't bother with fire damage. If everybody is a Kalashtar, don't bother attacking Will.
I think they're perfectly fine as they are now.
reason: on other attacks you get a bonus of your magical item ...
Frozen Opportunity is IMO overpowered ... (hit with cold -> ~50% chance to immobilize )
I'dd scale the attack of snowstorm (ref to dragonborn)
The attack already does scale. What are you talking about?
The attack already does scale. What are you talking about?
The damage scales, but not the attack rolls. It really to increase to +4 at paragon and +6 at epic.
Really?
Free damage for just being in a group?
One of the things someone who's making his own race should do is envision a group all playing the race.
The damage scales, but not the attack rolls. It really to increase to +4 at paragon and +6 at epic.
. . . Yes, they already do so.
Hit: 1d6 + Wisdom modifier cold damage.
Increase to +4 bonus and 2d6 + Wisdom modifier cold damage at 11th level, and to +6 bonus and 3d6 + Wisdom modifier cold damage at 21st level.
. . . Yes, they already do so.
Hit: 1d6 + Wisdom modifier cold damage.
Increase to +4 bonus and 2d6 + Wisdom modifier cold damage at 11th level, and to +6 bonus and 3d6 + Wisdom modifier cold damage at 21st level.
Wow, how did I miss that?
. . . Tribal Fury isn't a mark.
And it's really not that big a deal. It's comparable to the Gnoll's Blood Fury racial feature. Saying "what if everybody in the party is one???" works weirdly for every other race too. If everybody is a dwarf, don't bother with push. If everybody is a halfling, don't bother relying on opportunity attacks. If everybody is a Tiefling, don't bother with fire damage. If everybody is a Kalashtar, don't bother attacking Will.
I think they're perfectly fine as they are now.
A detrimental effect happening to an enemy who chooses not to attack you as their target. That's... that's marking.
Almost all of those other racials are defensive in nature. The only one who has any offensive bonus is the Gnoll. At least then, even in a full group of gnolls you have to meet a condition. You have to bloody them.
In a full group of Lumiukko the enemies would have to not attack anyone in order to not trigger tribal fury.
I actually like the race as a concept, I just think it's a bit much.