Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Artoomis" data-source="post: 5586736" data-attributes="member: 111">Your argument was originally about having to give up something to get a feature.  Since we have shifted gears, I'll address the current argument.  The value of level 5 and level 10 feature varies from what I would consider near-useless to pretty darn good.  I think the ones I designed are on the better end.  A bonus to damage is pretty darn good, but it is situational in that you must be unarmed.  I need to continue to consider the appropriate power level for a theme.It may be that a better balancing factor woudl be to require, for the theme, that one have both hands free, but that may be overly restrictive. Yes it is different, but not "broken."  It is different because monks, by design, have a iconic unarmed attack that is never, ever the best choice or even equal to the best choice.  So, yes, the unarmed strike is broken because it is always a dumb (except perhaps for role-playing reasons) decision for a monk to be unarmed.</blockquote>Again, you miss the point, it seems.  The point is to actually make attacking unarmed a viable choice instead of always the sub-optimal choice.Giving more damage to an unarmed striker is an option - you may not find it particularly interesting, but it is instead of getting interesting powers and properties from weapons.  In my example, to go unarmed one gives up +2 damage (per Flurry target) and +1 AC/Reflex, not counting any feats. Still, perhaps the idea of imposing conditions is better than more damage.  Maybe.  It's worth more thought, at least.Bottom line:  Someone building a monk should have:1.  An option for a reasonable basic attack2.  An option for an effective unarmed strike that remains a reasonable choice vs. having  non-attack weapon powers/properties available, preferably without giving up all other monk build options[/QUOTE]

Verification