Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="DND_Reborn" data-source="post: 7822120" data-attributes="member: 6987520">Well, it was pretty simple to understand before, until the &quot;clarification&quot; came out. Look at it this way:Unarmed strikes were simple weapons. There is no reason other than niche protection and &quot;game balance&quot; to rule natural weapons and unarmed strike anything other than simple weapons. It makes sense for them to be simple weapons because they are part of the creature.As far as niche protection goes, in 5E it can be thrown out the window. Most classes have spell-casting variant archetypes, and most casters have combat-oriented variants. There is already TONS of overlap, even without multiclassing.For game balance, it isn't an issue really. There is nothing wrong with allowing anything you can do with a weapon in your hand applicable to an &quot;open&quot; hand. It fits a lot of fantasy genres and encourages diversity. Weapons are already too limited as it is--most players pick the optimal weapons for damage based on their character build. Why use a dagger when you can use a rapier? Both are finesse weapons and the rapier can do twice the damage! Even if you use the variant speed factor rules, the weapons are the same. Other than exceptions such as having a more concealable weapon or something for the option of ranged (bows are better for that... so meh), why bother taking a dagger over a rapier (or even a shortsword). You could basically reduce the weapon table to a dozen or so options, that is what most people play IME.So, I wanted an option for a brawler. Yeah, I know against most people say &quot;play a monk&quot; or pick up a sword, but in a game were you face a fair number of humanoids (like our table), a brawler should be a viable and fun option. The clarification and rewording in later prints hurts and complicates what was a simple idea.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="DND_Reborn, post: 7822120, member: 6987520"] Well, it [I]was[/I] pretty simple to understand before, until the "clarification" came out. Look at it this way: Unarmed strikes [I]were[/I] simple weapons. There is no reason other than niche protection and "game balance" to rule natural weapons and unarmed strike anything other than simple weapons. It makes sense for them to be simple weapons because they are part of the creature. As far as niche protection goes, in 5E it can be thrown out the window. Most classes have spell-casting variant archetypes, and most casters have combat-oriented variants. There is already [I]TONS[/I] of overlap, even without multiclassing. For game balance, it isn't an issue really. There is nothing wrong with allowing anything you can do with a weapon in your hand applicable to an "open" hand. It fits a lot of fantasy genres and encourages diversity. Weapons are already too limited as it is--most players pick the optimal weapons for damage based on their character build. Why use a dagger when you can use a rapier? Both are finesse weapons and the rapier can do twice the damage! Even if you use the variant speed factor rules, the weapons are the same. Other than exceptions such as having a more concealable weapon or something for the option of ranged (bows are better for that... so [I]meh[/I]), why bother taking a dagger over a rapier (or even a shortsword). You could basically reduce the weapon table to a dozen or so options, that is what most people play IME. So, I wanted an option for a brawler. Yeah, I know against most people say "play a monk" or pick up a sword, but in a game were you face a fair number of humanoids (like our table), a brawler should be a viable and fun option. The clarification and rewording in later prints hurts and complicates what was a simple idea. [/QUOTE]

Verification