Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="MechaPilot" data-source="post: 6789268" data-attributes="member: 82779">For me, a feat really only needs to come into play when you want to do something that is more powerful than what you could otherwise do.I have to correct you about one thing: the attack is not an "unarmed attack."  It does not automatically apply every time you punch, kick, or slap someone.  It specifically involves prayer during the touch which makes it more like a melee cantrip.  It also doesn't scale with level and is purchased by discarding proficiency with all weapons.  This makes it blatantly inferior to existing melee cantrips like shocking grasp.I would agree with your assessment that it is more than fluff, but I don't consider it feat-worthy because 1) it is inferior to an existing option: melee cantrips, and 2) you pay for it by accepting disadvantage with all weapons when you give up all your weapon proficiencies.Regarding the divine grace as armor concept, it is important to be aware that we have two different models based on different editions.  I first came up with this concept in 3e, and I have since adapted it for 5e.  Naturally, the concept requires different mechanical tweaks to fit in with each of those editions.  In 3e, I simply called armor divine grace.  In 5e, I have opted to go with a form of unarmored defense that uses the following formula: 8 + proficiency bonus + Cha modifier; although 8 + Wis modifier + Cha modifier could work equally well.You did mention that the barbarian and the monk have the unarmored defense abilities.  I am forced to ask myself if unarmored defense should be considered to be class exclusive.  I do not believe that it should be.  Unarmored defense is intended to replace the use of AC.  This mechanic fits with the monk and the barbarian based on assumptions about those classes.  However, are those assumptions really so much more different than the assumption behind the character concept that I proposed?  I don't personally think so; naturally, opinions may vary.</blockquote>

Verification