Proposal: Dragon 367

elecgraystone said:

Well I have to admit, I don't see anything explicitly defensive in those weapons or in the offhand description/rules in the book. So a trident should be offhand since you can trap weapons in it's tines? It's more defensive that a spiked gauntlet, throwng hammer or a normal dagger. And if entangling weapons are explicitly defensive, what happened to the triple-headed flail? Why did it get the short end of the stick?

Click to expand...

YARGH it ate my post. Quick-ish recap:

Forgot about short sword and throwing hammer. You're right. I was thinking of off-hand as meaning "suitable for replacing a main gauche with in the standard sword-and-main-gauche setup", which is obviously wrong.

As written the claws only count as weapons for feats and powers, not class features. So no damage bonus from Tempest Technique.

Two-Weapon Ranger: as written, claws can't be used as a second weapon even though they count as light blades because this is a class feature, not a feat or power. If off-hand is added, they can be used with two-weapon ranger powers even for Archer and Beastmaster rangers (just like a short sword).

All two-weapon feats I can find talk about "wielding two weapons" or applying to "the weapon you're holding in your off-hand", not "a weapon with the off-hand keyword". So adding off-hand keyword wouldn't open up any new feats.

Only paragon path I can affind that's affected is Shock Trooper: Deadly Soldier increases damage die size "when you wield an off-hand weapon" - unclear whether that means "a weapon with the off-hand keyword" or "a weapon in your off-hand". (This should be clarified: what about a Ranger dual-wielding longswords who multiclasses into fighter and takes Shock Trooper?) As written does not apply to claws since this is a class feature. Shocking Skewer power is interesting: "must be wielding an off-hand weapon and have a hand free". Even if off-hand keyword is added, a Claw Fighter never has a hand free.

Bottom line: claw stats are identical to short sword except no off-hand. If off-hand is added, still inferior because can't be used with class features. If class features allowed, still inferior because can't be enchanted.

So I say make this change (my edits in italics):

Claw Fighter
Prerequisite: Gnoll
Benefit: You possess vicious claws, which you can use as weapons with a +3 proficiency bonus, 1d6 damage, and the off-hand keyword. For purpose of powers, feats, and class features, you can treat your claws as light blades, and you are considered to have a weapon in each hand. You cannot enchant your claws.

Click to expand...

This clarifies that claws can be dual-wielded, just like dual short swords. Otherwise, no effect at all on Two-Blade ranger, but Archer and Beastmaster rangers can use them as backup weapons with their two-weapon powers. It allows Tempest Fighters to get their damage bonus using their claws, and Shock Trooper to use Deadly Soldier with them, but still not Shocking Skewer.

Basically it becomes "spend a feat to gain two non-magical short swords which you can never lose except through surgery, even when you want to". Seems reasonable to me.

Yeah, I know what you mean. I just had my post eaten in another thread!

Two thumbs up for your revised feat. With the 'cannot enchant your claws', this feat is going to have very limited use after heroic. If someone takes this feat and actually wants to specialize in claw fighting, we might have to think about add on feats or a magic item that can boost the claws to hit to keep it up with magic weapons. It seems a shame to tell someone they HAVE to pick up a weapon to stay a viable character.

We might get something that enhances unarmed attacks or "natural weapons" when the monk comes out...

I too hopw something like that comes out, but we might need a stop gap until then. It's nothing we have to worry about right away, but it's something to keep in mind.

I too hope something like that comes out, but we might need a stop gap until then. It's nothing we have to worry about right away, but it's something to keep in mind.

I just wanna throw my support behind this getting approved, at least the gnoll racial stuff. I love gnolls to death and wanted to play one, but noticed that as par these rules you'd have to use the crap-tacular monster manual writeup for gnolls as characters. The Dragon article makes them far more viable.

To be honest, I haven't even read the other things in that article, so I don't know their power levels...but at least throw gnoll lovers this bone, yea? =O

I'll be monitoring this closely...I'll get my character up if/when gnolls become less crippled *fingers crossed*

*Bump*

Ok, taking a harder look at these now:

I think we should just skip the epic destinies as a matter of policy. They can be re-proposed when people approach epic level, and as I've never DM'd a game at that level I can't really judge their balance.

Is anyone concerned about Fast Manifestation? It seems like it awards an extra encounter power by changing your manifestation (a minor action).

Who plays the personality of an intelligent item? If a DM awards one to a character, all further DM's need to play it, or else the character plays their items themself. I don't think we really need a proposal for that - we've already got lots of characters who talk to the "voices in their head" and things like that. Are we just approving this specific list of intelligent items, or the entire concept? The specific items are pretty much identical to standard items except they give a skill bonus to certain situations. I don't think this even really needs a proposal - if a DM wants to grant an intelligent item to a character, they basically grant a standard item and need to work out the details of the item's personality, how it will interact and who will play it with the player. (So I guess I'd vote "yes" on the article, since it's pretty trivial, mechanically.)

From the Drow article, "Virulent Weapon" - poison applied to the weapon gets a +2 to the attack roll. Does that mean that you always get a +2 to an attack roll when using this weapon to do poison damage (with a Weapon-keyword power, for instance, or with the Gloves of Venom from the same article?)

I made my proposal to amend Claw Fighter above. The rest of the gnoll article is fine.

For the Swordmage article, Icy Sweep should be clarified that the target must be slid by the shortest, most direct path - otherwise a swordmage could slide an enemy 7 squares (in a circle around them), ending up right next to where it started but going through a giant field of hazards. Technically as written you could slide the enemy away from you and all around the map for an infinite distance, as long as it ends up back adjacent.

Ok, since there's been no further discussion, time to vote!

Epic Faerûn: NO.

Ecology of the Genasi: YES.

Intelligent items: YES

Children of Darkness: YES, with the clarification that Virulent Weapon definitely refers to "poison", the substance, not just poison damage.

Playing Gnolls: YES, with the following amendment to Claw Fighter:

Claw Fighter
Prerequisite: Gnoll
Benefit: You possess vicious claws, which you can use as weapons with a +3 proficiency bonus, 1d6 damage, and the off-hand keyword. For purpose of powers, feats, and class features, you can treat your claws as light blades, and you are considered to have a weapon in each hand. You cannot enchant your claws.

Click to expand...

Class Acts: Swordmage: YES, with the following amendment to Icy Sweep:

Icy Sweep Swordmage Attack 9
Daily ✦ Arcane, Cold, Weapon
Standard Action Melee weapon
Target: One creature
Attack: Intelligence vs. AC
Hit: 2[W] + Constitution modifier cold damage, and you slide the target into any square adjacent to you by the shortest available path.
Miss: Half damage, and do not slide the target.

Click to expand...

Bump. Are there no other votes for this? It's been pretty well discussed.