Weapons only. Natural attacks like claws and bites are considered to be unarmed strikes in this edition (and unarmed strikes are not weapons, no exceptions). Traps aren't weapons either so it won't protect against those.
Does the resistance confer total damage protection from physical weapons (there's no indication of how much damage it resists)? That would be a bit insane for a 1st level Barbarian to be able to walz through a dungeon unharmed, assuming his foes all used weapons.
Does the resistance confer total damage protection from physical weapons (there's no indication of how much damage it resists)? That would be a bit insane for a 1st level Barbarian to be able to walz through a dungeon unharmed, assuming his foes all used weapons.
It's in the 9th level ability. 3+Con modifier.
Useful when you decided "I don't the like the look of that bloke's face", and you decide to get into a knfie fight.
Not as useful if he decided to use his fists instead. Or if he brings his dog into the fight.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Useful when you decided "I don't the like the look of that bloke's face", and you decide to get into a knfie fight.
Not as useful if he decided to use his fists instead. Or if he brings his dog into the fight.
Or if he hits you with the dog! Many thanks guys, that makes a lot more sense.
I really don't like how raging resistance is working in the case of Fury Instinct.
Resisting weapon attacks but not natural attacks just doesn't make much thematic sense to me, maybe I'm in a minority, but I simply find it..weird.
I think it would have been better to just give them resistance to bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing. if that's too much let them choose 2 out of 3, as animal instinct gives you 2 out of 3.
It is really weird. Selectively applying resistances is annoying from a bookkeeping stance and I feel like it has pretty poor versimilitude.
It is really weird. Selectively applying resistances is annoying from a bookkeeping stance and I feel like it has pretty poor versimilitude.
Agreed. 'I fear no sword! OW that goblin kicked me in the shin OH THE AGONY..'
Although remembering the Invulnerable Rager from 1E (DR 1 per two levels -- that's come in so handy with my role as 'meatshield'), I wonder if they're trying to reserve that. 'You resist everything. Let's find a decent way to balance that..'
I am fine with fury's theme and the resistance. It is the instinct that doesn't require some secret blood line technique- you are just a guy with a chip on your shoulder, and likes to get into angry arguments that end in stabbing. You get good at brushing off cuts and clubs.
You are good when facing other guys in the bar, but you pretty much have little that makes you special when a wolf or a tentacle monster attacks.
Additionally...it is a pretty classic trope to have a monk that beats up an angry tough guy. Because let us be honest- relative few humanoid/humanoid-ish creatures will seriously fight you unarmed. At least when we aren't talking about bites and claws.
So if you are facing a lot of unarmed strikes, your campaign might be forcing you to fight a monastery.
I kind of would prefer just choosing 2 of 3 (B/S/P) but it's not like it's hard to use,
really it's usually clearer when somebody is attacking with a weapon before any damage type is specified,
and the general concept of it "resilient fighting other people with weapons" (not animals, monsters, etc) is clear enough.
regular fist fight already is de facto reduced VS weapons. way better than Spirit in non-Undead campaign.
and actually very good in plenty of campaigns with mostly "humanoid" opponents (incl. monsters who wield weapons).