|
As much as I love the APG, and do believe it is possibly the best RPG book ever written...there is one aspect of the game I feel is lacking...Unarmed combat. It is nearly impossible, or should I say improbable to play and unarmed character without levels in Monk. Yes, you can get maneuver feats and such, but you still end up with 1d3 damage (1d2 if small)... And the Monk, well he starts at level 1 with 1d6. Why is it so unreasonable to want a character who is capable of being effective at killing monsters with his fist.
So, I've been thinking of introducing a few new feats into my games to fill in the missing gap. They are called combat strike feats. Please tell me what you think... Overpowered? Underpowered? Not effective? Too much? Too little?
You are effective with your unarmed strikes.
Prerequisites: Improved Unarmed Strike, base attack bonus +6
Benefit: Your unarmed damage increases to 1d6 plus strength if your medium, or 1d4 damage if your small. This has no effect if you have levels in Monk.
Normal: Your unarmed attacks deal 1d3 damage if your medium, or 1d2 if your small.
You're unarmed strikes are highly lethal.
Prerequisites: Combat Strike, Improved Unarmed Strike, base attack bonus +11
Benefit: Your unarmed damage increases to 1d8 plus strength if your medium, or 1d6 damage if your small. This has no effect if you have levels in Monk.
You are a deadly force with your unarmed attacks.
Prerequisites: Improved Combat Strike, Improved Unarmed Strike, base attack bonus +16
Benefit: Your unarmed damage increases to 1d10 plus strength if your medium, or 1d8 damage if your small. This has no effect if you have levels in Monk.
|
I hope that you realize that a lvl 20 Fighter with 5 attacks would get an average of +15 damage on a full attacks with those 3 feats, meaning that you just blew 3 feats in order to get from very crap damage to very crap damage :)
HINT: In D&D, rolling more dice does not help. It's a good old fallacy of 3.5 Monk haters and evocation aficionados.
As much as I love the APG, and do believe it is possibly the best RPG book ever written...there is one aspect of the game I feel is lacking...Unarmed combat. It is nearly impossible, or should I say improbable to play and unarmed character without levels in Monk. Yes, you can get maneuver feats and such, but you still end up with 1d3 damage (1d2 if small)... And the Monk, well he starts at level 1 with 1d6. Why is it so unreasonable to want a character who is capable of being effective at killing monsters with his fist.
So, I've been thinking of introducing a few new feats into my games to fill in the missing gap. They are called combat strike feats. Please tell me what you think... Overpowered? Underpowered? Not effective? Too much? Too little?
You are effective with your unarmed strikes.
Prerequisites: Improved Unarmed Strike, base attack bonus +6
Benefit: Your unarmed damage increases to 1d6 plus strength if your medium, or 1d4 damage if your small. This has no effect if you have levels in Monk.
Normal: Your unarmed attacks deal 1d3 damage if your medium, or 1d2 if your small.
You're unarmed strikes are highly lethal.
Prerequisites: Combat Strike, Improved Unarmed Strike, base attack bonus +11
Benefit: Your unarmed damage increases to 1d8 plus strength if your medium, or 1d6 damage if your small. This has no effect if you have levels in Monk.
You are a deadly force with your unarmed attacks.
Prerequisites: Improved Combat Strike, Improved Unarmed Strike, base attack bonus +16
Benefit: Your unarmed damage increases to 1d10 plus strength if your medium, or 1d8 damage if your small. This has no effect if you have levels in Monk.
Not bad really considering all the feats you have to go through to get to that point. I think the name is a little to much of a misnomer though. Perhaps something with the word pugilist or something similar in the title.
|
|
Not bad really considering all the feats you have to go through to get to that point. I think the name is a little to much of a misnomer though. Perhaps something with the word pugilist or something similar in the title....
You are effective with your unarmed strikes.
Prerequisites: Improved Unarmed Strike, base attack bonus +6
Benefit: Your unarmed damage increases to 1d6 plus strength if your medium, or 1d4 damage if your small. This has no effect if you have levels in Monk.
Normal: Your unarmed attacks deal 1d3 damage if your medium, or 1d2 if your small.
You're unarmed strikes are highly lethal.
Prerequisites: Pugilist Strike, Improved Unarmed Strike, base attack bonus +11
Benefit: Your unarmed damage increases to 1d8 plus strength if your medium, or 1d6 damage if your small. This has no effect if you have levels in Monk.
You are a deadly force with your unarmed attacks.
Prerequisites: Improved Pugilist Strike, Improved Unarmed Strike, base attack bonus +16
Benefit: Your unarmed damage increases to 1d10 plus strength if your medium, or 1d8 damage if your small. This has no effect if you have levels in Monk.
I like that idea...calling them Pugilist Strike instead as modded above is better. Also, I might add these feats to the ranger natural combat focus.
I hope that you realize that a lvl 20 Fighter with 5 attacks would get an average of +15 damage on a full attacks with those 3 feats, meaning that you just blew 3 feats in order to get from very crap damage to very crap damage :)
HINT: In D&D, rolling more dice does not help. It's a good old fallacy of 3.5 Monk haters and evocation aficionados.
This is not just about being able to do the most damage. I believe he wants to have something that works for a concept that can be somewhat effective.
I hope that you realize that a lvl 20 Fighter with 5 attacks would get an average of +15 damage on a full attacks with those 3 feats, meaning that you just blew 3 feats in order to get from very crap damage to very crap damage :)
HINT: In D&D, rolling more dice does not help. It's a good old fallacy of 3.5 Monk haters and evocation aficionados.
This is all true. However at levels NOT 20th the actual damage die can and does matter. At level 1 you're rolling 1d3+4 (6)(maybe) and someone else is rolling 2d6+6 (13)or at least 1d8+4 (8.5). That's an enormous difference. At level 10, with good stat gear, an amulet of mighty fists +2 and power attack, you're rolling 1d3+14 (16) vs. 1d8+14 (18.5). The difference will always be the same, it just matters less as levels roll on. And that's just with a longsword, and not factoring difference in crits.
On the numbers side this can be quite effective when combined with the two-weapon chain feats. He would also be able to wear armor as well.
In addition he can almost never be disarmed unless they cut off his hands. Although I guess you can still use the stumps.
ROFL, I could just see it now.
Villian: DIS-ARM THEM!
minions pull out the amputation tools.
Hero Puglist: Noooooooooooooooooooo!
Why not just use SUPERIOR UNARMED STRIKE from 3.5's Tome of Battle?
It's cheaper and scales with the character's level.
Why not just use SUPERIOR UNARMED STRIKE from 3.5's Tome of Battle?
It's cheaper and scales with the character's level.
That is true.
I'd make it a scaling bonus.
The first feat is fine, the other could be a scaling bonus equal to maybe 4/5 of the monk, with the caveat that it does NOT transfer to the cestus. 1d8 at level 5 (where the requirement should probably be), 1d10 at level 10, 2d6 at level 15, 2d8 at 20. Since you'll still be a +1 or +2 behind from the AoMF being more expensive than a weapon, it'll average out. Two feats seem like a good cost for it. The basic damage bonus will be:
1: +1,5
5: +2,5
10: +3,5
15: +5
20: +7
+7 damage from 2 feats might seem much, but it's to a weapon that's craptastic to begin with (requiring a feat for proficiency, more or less) and can't be enchanted.
Brass knux from the Apg Can be enchanted making these feats viable combat choices for Fighters as well without sacrificing to much in the way of offense. True i could think of things better to do with 3 feats But Doing 1d10 + 15 (Figuring in probable Str bonus) damage + whatever other enchants are on your knuckles sounds pretty cool to me thematically.
|
|
What about increasing the damage a little (1d6 for the first feat, 2d4 the second, 2d6 for the third).
You are effective with your unarmed strikes.
Prerequisites: Improved Unarmed Strike, base attack bonus +6
Benefit: Your unarmed damage increases to 1d6 plus strength if your medium, or 1d4 damage if your small. This has no effect if you have levels in Monk.
Normal: Your unarmed attacks deal 1d3 damage if your medium, or 1d2 if your small.
You're unarmed strikes are highly lethal.
Prerequisites: Pugilist Strike, Improved Unarmed Strike, base attack bonus +11
Benefit: Your unarmed damage increases to 2d4 plus strength if your medium, or 1d6 damage if your small. This has no effect if you have levels in Monk.
You are a deadly force with your unarmed attacks.
Prerequisites: Improved Pugilist Strike, Improved Unarmed Strike, base attack bonus +16
Benefit: Your unarmed damage increases to 2d6 plus strength if your medium, or 1d10 damage if your small. This has no effect if you have levels in Monk.
This damage is slightly higher and thus might be more effective. Not sure though, some of you guys felt the other feats were fine.
I think you were fine before mainly because as pointed out that brass knuckles and other such hand wear can add to the damage.
On Greater Improved Pugilist Strike (Combat though I would suggest lowering the BAB Pre-Req to +9 and lower Greater Pugilist Strike (Combat) to a BAB Pre-Req to a +12.
Also I might suggest switching the die damage of Greater Pugilist Strike (Combat) to a 1d12. Nobody ever give any kind of love to that die.
Actually, I think it would be fairly reasonable to make a pugilist variant for the fighter where he would go up in damage with unarmed strikes instead of getting weapon focus.
|
|
My friend just had this idea...and I too wanted to see what people thought. Instead, just make it one feat that scales based on base attack (because some people do have a point that 3 feats is too much).
You are highly effective with your unarmed strikes.
Prerequisites: Improved Unarmed Strike, base attack bonus +1
Benefit: Your unarmed damage increases to 1d6 plus strength if your medium, or 1d4 damage if your small. At base attack bonus of +6, increase it to 1d8 if your medium, or 1d6 if your small. At base attack bonus of +11 increase it to 1d10 if your medium, or 1d8 if your small. At base attack bonus of +16 increase it to 1d12 if your medium, or 1d10 if your small. This has no effect if you have levels in Monk.
Normal: Your unarmed attacks deal 1d3 damage if your medium, or 1d2 if your small.
Too much for one feat, or just right?
Too much for one feat, or just right?
Well:
SUPERIOR UNARMED STRIKE
Your unarmed strikes have become increasingly deadly, enabling you to strike your foes in their most vulnerable areas.Prerequisite: Improved Unarmed Strike, base attack bonus +3.
Benefit: You deal more damage with your unarmed strikes, as shown on the table below.
Character Level Unarmed Damage
3rd 1d4
4th–7th 1d6
8th–11th 1d8
12th–15th 1d10
16th–20th 2d6Special: If you are a monk, you instead deal unarmed damage as a monk four levels higher.
A lot of work for something that already exists...
|
|
Too much for one feat, or just right?Well:
A lot of work for something that already exists...SUPERIOR UNARMED STRIKE
Your unarmed strikes have become increasingly deadly, enabling you to strike your foes in their most vulnerable areas.Prerequisite: Improved Unarmed Strike, base attack bonus +3.
Benefit: You deal more damage with your unarmed strikes, as shown on the table below.
Character Level Unarmed Damage
3rd 1d4
4th–7th 1d6
8th–11th 1d8
12th–15th 1d10
16th–20th 2d6Special: If you are a monk, you instead deal unarmed damage as a monk four levels higher.
yes...but I'm not a fan of the feat as i feel it dwarfs the monk too much. Also, I don't like how its not based off of base attack bonus so a sorcerer will be just as damaging as a barbarian...
yes...but I'm not a fan of the feat as i feel it dwarfs the monk too much. Also, I don't like how its not based off of base attack bonus so a sorcerer will be just as damaging as a barbarian...
Interesting take.
I can see where you are coming from, but I could see a Sorcerer/Dragon Disciple arguing that he should get just as much value from a feat spent as a Barbarian. Additionally, a Barbarian could be doing 2d6 + 18 with this feat. I don't see a Sorceror getting anywhere near that. Do you? I admit one might be able too though it might make for a poor Sorceror.
How do you feel that the feat "dwarfs the monk"? A monk (who normally maxes at 2d10) will deal damage as if he were 4 levels higher compared to 2d6 for the feat.
Call me crazy, but doesn't the Fighter (w/wpn training) *already* out-damage the HELL out of a monk?
I mean ... seriously - all the feats to basically TWF w/his hands (ie: flurry as a monk), full bab, wpn focus and specialization, and then add in wpn training ... even if the base die *is* 1d3 ... he out-damages the monk, no?
Level 20 fighter capstone = instant crits and +1 in damage multiplier, so unarmed for fighters suddenly hits 20 x3 (factor in Improved Crit: Unarmed) and it's 19-20 x3.
It's ... it's not much of a contest, I think. Fighter still owns in dpr, no?
1d3+str(what, we're picking +15 as the modifier, right?)+4(specialization)+4(training) = 24-26 damage per hit ... and having full bab, he's likely to hit more often. I mean, just on straight fighter "to hit" advantage, you've got a +2 (wpn focus and greater) and +4 more (wpn training) over a monk's "to hit" checks. So, the fighter gets a net of +6 *more* to spend/burn on say Power Attack and still manage good "to hit" results compared to a monk doing the same (+5 if the monk has Wpn Focus going on, but that's it).
Add in stuff like Weapon Supremacy from the PHBII, and it's another +2/+2 "to hit/damage" bonus to fighters only, so ... yeah.
Damage range is up to 26-28, and the "to hit" edge creeps up from +6 to +8 advantage to the fighter.
One more layer - critical feats that always favor the fighter for feat availability, and the restrictions placed on pre-req's to qualify (many require Fighter levels basically). The monk ... not so much will this be relevant, but for the unarmed fighter - some of them are literally encounter-changers.
A similarly built monk can get his hand damage, str mod ... and that's about it. {minus enchantments, etc - but that's a wash IMO as whatever is granted to the monk, the fighter can get, too for this comparison).
Monk damage range = 2d10+str (=15 again, yes?) = 17 - 35.
Keep in mind, though, the monks "to hit" ratio will be a bit less than that 35 on top of it all, though. He's playing at a -7 handicap MINIMUM (assuming he took wpn focus), let alone picked up Improved Crit: unarmed or something to try and keep up w/the fighter.
He has the potential to get up higher in raw damage, but his problem is landing those shots - the fighter leaves him in the dust, and once 20th kicks in, he's toast (the monk) the instant even 1 crit takes effect. If you just roll w/average results (10 damage on the roll), then it's actually the same in both cases 25 damage "average" overall.
Again, though, keep in mind the fighter has a 7 point edge in "to hit" over the monk, and has "field control" abilities in the form of critical feat chains and the like. If you factor in the level 20 stuff, the fighter just creams 'em THAT much more.
Now ... that all said and noted, I *do* like the idea of unarmed damage being a viable choice that improves for people that do not necessarily have to be fighters. I'm just saying that operating from the stance that 'fighter's can't compete w/the monk in dpr' is a crazy stance to take.
1d3+str(what, we're picking +15 as the modifier, right?)
+15? Where'd that come from?
Assuming the usual "infinitely benevolent GM" cheese, I count:
20 base
+5 levels
+5 wishes
+6 enhancement
+2 size (enlarged)
= 38 Strength, for +14 total. Is there something else that can be always-on for a fighter?
Pre-20th, I wonder how the extra attack for a ki point plays out...
I don't know - 2nd post in from someone else? I was just running w/the same number.
Honestly, the # is kind of irrelevant as it's applied equally to both a monk and a fighter, so whatever - the range would be the same.
:shrugs:
Again, not against the concept, but just pointing out that the fighter will out hit and out damage a monk if his focus is unarmed combat.
Firstly, I'm all about unarmed loved. Monk's are my favorite class to play and they are solid choices in my experience.
Now, that aside, a few issues that I would like to raise with the OP:
- Characters can simply buy a monk's robe (13000gp) to get 1d8 unarmed attacks (and a couple of other bonuses). This in itself negates the need for a progressive feat chain for unarmed damage.
- If you only consider raw damage, Fighters specializing in unarmed combat have a greater damage output than monks do
- Rogues can be made to be very effective unarmed combatants as well when building around flanking. Coupled with a monk's robe, two-weapon fighting and an amulet of mighty fists they have very competitive unarmed combat prowess
Finally, if you are making an unarmed damage progression feat; I would advocate keeping it simple:
You are trained in the ways of unarmed combat.
Prerequisite: BAB 6
Benefit: You may use the unarmed damage of a monk of half your level.
1d3+str(what, we're picking +15 as the modifier, right?)+15? Where'd that come from?
Assuming the usual "infinitely benevolent GM" cheese, I count:
20 base
+5 levels
+5 wishes
+6 enhancement
+2 size (enlarged)= 38 Strength, for +14 total. Is there something else that can be always-on for a fighter?
Pre-20th, I wonder how the extra attack for a ki point plays out...
Also note the weapon specialization and greater specialization (+4 combined) and the weapon training (+4 more, including +4 to unarmed attacks). Finally consider that the bonus to attack from weapon training can be burned away again and used on power attack to instead gain an additional +12.
That nets about +22 (with much higher + to attack), or +34 (power attack)
i had a monk all lined up, now i wanna play a unarmed fighter...
I remember seeing a monk vs fighter match once. I think Goku beat Nappa...
hehehe.
I like playing monks. And its not all about the damage. Its about playing what works for you and what you like. If its pure damage, do the full math before jumping to conclusions about damage dice. A monk is special when it comes to growing his unarmed attacks, and other classes shouldnt be able to pull this off so easilly :P
but would have Goku have won (as easily) if Nappa were at his Max hp???
and by that time Goku was many lvs. higher...
but would have Goku have won (as easily) if Nappa were at his Max hp???
and by that time Goku was many lvs. higher...
This is why i never liked Goku too much, he is always levels above the rest. Or levels past whoever he is fighting :P
My friend just had this idea...and I too wanted to see what people thought. Instead, just make it one feat that scales based on base attack (because some people do have a point that 3 feats is too much).
You are highly effective with your unarmed strikes.
Prerequisites: Improved Unarmed Strike, base attack bonus +1
Benefit: Your unarmed damage increases to 1d6 plus strength if your medium, or 1d4 damage if your small. At base attack bonus of +6, increase it to 1d8 if your medium, or 1d6 if your small. At base attack bonus of +11 increase it to 1d10 if your medium, or 1d8 if your small. At base attack bonus of +16 increase it to 1d12 if your medium, or 1d10 if your small. This has no effect if you have levels in Monk.
Normal: Your unarmed attacks deal 1d3 damage if your medium, or 1d2 if your small.Too much for one feat, or just right?
I think this looks really good for brawlers. :)
"You're" is not "your"! Aaargh!
I'm all for the "half a monk" idea. I'd probably make it look something like this:
Greater Unarmed Strike
Prerequisites: Improved Unarmed Strike
Benefit: Your unarmed strike damage increases to that of a monk of 1/2 your character level (minimum 1). If you have levels in monk, you may add 1/2 your levels from other classes to your effective monk level for the purpose of determining your unarmed strike damage.