Nails aren't claws, so this whole question is a homebrew issue. Discuss it with your GM
Okay that's fair, I guess I was still just curious about the implications here in the way these things are written.
Search Posts
I have a semi-hypothetical question. Three feats in particular are at interest: Witch's Armaments, Sympathetic Strike, and Clawdancer Dedication. I am choosing to read the "Nails" weapon from Witch's Armaments as a Claw weapon for the purpose of this discussion, but I suspect this could come up in other scenarios. In this case, the Nails satisfy the pre-requisite to let me take the Clawdancer dedication. I am then curious about the interaction between being in say, Claw Stance, and then using Sympathetic Strike. The wording of Sympathetic Strike says I make "an unarmed Strike with one (of) your witch’s armaments." Claw Stance in this case utilizes my Witch's Armament as a pre-requisite. So the argument would be made that Frenzied Claw strikes are an unarmed attack being made with my witch's armament. Therefore, could I be in Claw Stance and make a Sympathetic Strike? Or is the intention that Sympathetic Strike can only use an unmodified version of my Witch's Armaments? Is that base strike the only one that counts for the feat? Or does a stance that utilizes the "claws" (nails) granted by Witch's Armaments still count as "an unarmed Strike with one (of) your witch's armaments?" Assuming my GM would already treat nails = claws, does it make sense within RAW to allow me to be in Claw Stance and use Sympathetic Strike?
We were already on hiatus from my 2e campaign, so I just decided I'd wait until SoM came out and to let everyone do re-speccing, because we learned a lot about the game and more options were going to change people's minds on what to be somewhat. (Also wanted to add Free Archetype rule) I do think that players should try and keep things as similar as possible. A total re-work should just be a new PC IMO.
Well, I like a lot of them. A few still feel useless, like Hunter. I don't see any reason to be a Hunter over a Ranger or Druid, depending on which you liked. The Skald also seems oddly specific, but if I ever wanted to play a Viking...The Slayer still comes across as not quite powerful enough, but other than that isn't bad.
I honestly didn't see a ton of magic items I liked, but there are cool ones. There's one that allows a light weapon to pretty much function like a Hidden Blade from Assassin's Creed, except magically, so it's harder to notice. Also, a Staff that is basically a Shovel that casts Create Hole. XD All in all, it's probably my favorite book since the Advanced Race Guide.
Why must you taunt us so? What do you want to know?
I think it's possible I got magically lucky. I pre-ordered the PDF and it let me download it a month ago. XD
My first DM does this, and I do too, which is that we don't confirm criticals. While having the chance to get an improved critical on the case of a double Nat 20, we feel like if you roll a Nat 20 on an attack, you get your critical. Especially in a hard battle where you might not be able to hit with most of your rolls, it sucks to get a Nat 20 and be denied your crit. We also only allow half or better rolls on Health. We also roll for ability scores, and re-roll 1's. Our campaigns usually aren't too focused on whether or not we win combat. It's more about story, and having characters who can't survive basic fights kinda sucks. |