Unarmed Rogue AV & MP (Look its a monk!)

[Gruns]

Hmm...

(Snip)

"As if you were" armed with a club DOES NOT EQUAL being armed with a club.

(Snip)

Umm.. Of course it does. At least as far as anything that cares about whether or not your are attacking with a club is concerned... Otherwise, what is the point of saying it? If Belt of the Brawler wanted you to simply deal 1d6 damage with +2 proficiency with unarmed attacks, they'd have said that. I'm not sure I understand why you think it wouldn't apply here...
Later!
Gruns

 

[Saeviomagy]

I can't see how you'd read it to be any other way than the OP stated.

Personally I think there should be a feat that says "Choose a melee weapon, your unarmed strike now counts as that weapon for all purposes, including (but not limited to) damage, proficiency bonus, enchanting and the number of hands it takes to wield. Your unarmed strike cannot make a ranged attack.", and that would open up monk-like attacks to every class that uses a melee weapon.

 

[weem]

@Saeviomagy

I can't see how you'd read it to be any other way than the OP stated.

I explained how, so you have indeed seen it. You may not agree with it (as I'm sure you don't) but it's there With that said, just remember my original comment...

That is how I read it currently in my highly distracted state. My mind could be changed for sure if I saw something more I might be missing, but at the moment I don't see it.

-- that's how I saw it last night during my first take

@Gruns

Umm.. Of course it does. At least as far as anything that cares about whether or not your are attacking with a club is concerned... Otherwise, what is the point of saying it? If Belt of the Brawler wanted you to simply deal 1d6 damage with +2 proficiency with unarmed attacks, they'd have said that. I'm not sure I understand why you think it wouldn't apply here...

Hmmm... yea, I don't know... I guess I was looking at it in the most simple way...

It says "When you use those weapons" (club or mace) - and we're talking about using Spiked Gauntlets (not a club or mace). The Belt does not say anything (to me) that would lead me to believe it is over-riding that simple statement. It says "as if you were using" which to me says "you aren't using".

They may have worded it that way so that it would be clear (yea right) that your fists were still pounding out damage as opposed to, say, slicing or piercing... or perhaps it was so that it was clear that it was not magical damage... or perhaps so that it would be clear the damage could still be increased by a damage category in the case of use by a Bugbear/Minotaur, etc. Who knows.

I don't know, I'm not WoTC and I'm just throwing out thoughts/impressions as they come to me as I mentioned above and as I also stated, a ruling for my games has not been set in stone in this case and in fact I would allow it as the OP posted (even if it seemed to me it was not the intention).

I was explaining it to a friend last night that as far as damage output it didn't really matter to me as there are other ways (obviously) to achieve the same damage output - I don't see (yet) anything overpowered, etc that would keep this off my table.

With that said, I can see your point, why would they not then just say it did extra damage.

 

[weem]

One more thing...

@Saeviomagy

Personally I think there should be a feat that says "Choose a melee weapon, your unarmed strike now counts as that weapon for all purposes, including (but not limited to) damage, proficiency bonus, enchanting and the number of hands it takes to wield. Your unarmed strike cannot make a ranged attack.", and that would open up monk-like attacks to every class that uses a melee weapon.

I like this as a rogue playing player (2 rogues in 2 different campaigns). As a DM, I'm not so sure I like the idea of potentially increasing already high weapon damages (using a Maul perhaps) when using Bugbears, etc AND being able to add in Sneak Attack damage, etc.

 

[-Avalon-]

Add to that a magical shuriken, and Voila!!

A NINJA!!!!

 

[LightPhoenix]

I'm going to have to agree with everyone on the club being usable with Rogue powers via Ruthless Ruffian. The intent of the belt is that your arm functions as a club, instead of functioning as an arm. That comes with all the advantages of using a club; proficiency bonus, damage, etc.

Add to that a magical shuriken, and Voila!!

Add to that a dinosaur and voila! Er... ninjas riding dinosaurs.

 

[Klaus]

That's a nice RAW-way of making it. Me, I've already created a feat ("Martial Arts") that gives the character to be proficient in unarmed strikes, and to treat them as light blades for power purposes.

 

[Saeviomagy]

One more thing...

@Saeviomagy


I like this as a rogue playing player (2 rogues in 2 different campaigns). As a DM, I'm not so sure I like the idea of potentially increasing already high weapon damages (using a Maul perhaps) when using Bugbears, etc AND being able to add in Sneak Attack damage, etc.

It counts for ALL purposes, so if you're a rogue (for instance) and you choose to go with a maul, you
1) Are not proficient with it
2) Are not using a sling, light blade or crossbow to make your attacks, and thus get none of your powers NOR your sneak attack damage.

You would only choose to have your unarmed attacks count as a maul if you were a fighter or some other class who could already use a maul.

As a rogue, you might choose a rapier as your unarmed strike, but you would then also have to take superior weapon proficiency to get your proficiency bonus.

So - the only potential balance problem the feat has is that you cannot be disarmed, your weapon is concealed and you can effectively quickdraw whatever weapon you choose. I think that's probably a feat's worth: being weaponless or having your weapon concealed is something that's totally campaign specific and quite situational, and quickdraw is more powerful than this feat. Together they probably work out about right.

As of yet, I'm not sure whether the feat needs a section on "what happens when you take this feat multiple times". I like the potential of allowing the feat to be taken multiple times for a different weapon each time. I'm not sure how you'd handle enchantments or switching between 'styles' in that case. I think it's probably ok to allow free action switching as long as you're strict on certain things (ie - no free actions after you decide whether a power is valid, but before you evaluate it's effects, so you can't use a "must be wielding two weapons" power and then switch to a maul before you roll damage).

 

[RyvenCedrylle]

::closes eyes... winces.. turns head.. but opens the can of worms anyway::

As a DM, if a PC using this rule was struck by a power that disarmed them, I would still have to mechanically consider them 'disarmed' - i.e. use a minor action to retrieve the 'weapon'. Maybe their gauntlet got dented or their wrist sprained.. might be something as simple as 'that parry shifted your fighting stance and you need to reset yourself.' Flavor as desired. I'm fresh from the 'can you use Phantom Chasm on a dragon?' thread in the House Rules forum, so this is a retread for me.

 

[Foxman]

Add to that a magical shuriken, and Voila!!

A NINJA!!!!

Call the short sword a ninjatō and now your rockin

Oh and for fun?

Flaming Armwraps
You can will your arms to burst into flame.
Level: 5
Price: 1000 gp
Item Slot: Arms
Enhancement: +1 attack rolls and damage rolls to unarmed attacks
Critical: +1d6 fire damage
Power (At-Will • Fire): Free Action. All your unarmed damage is fire damage. Another free action returns the damage to normal.
Power (Daily • Fire): Free Action. Use this power when you hit with an unarmed attack. Deal 1d6 fire damage, and the target takes ongoing 5 fire damage (save ends).

FLAMING NINJAS!!!!