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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="DracoSuave" data-source="post: 5586767" data-attributes="member: 71571">'Situational' isn't the appropriate word when the 'situation' is 'my character fights in this style.'  It's no more 'situational' than a battlerager getting better with an axe, or Weapon Focus: Light Blades is for a rapier fighter.  Themes are supposed to be a lot more general than that.We're not arguing that.  What my point is... why tool around with the damage numbers for something when you don't have it figured out in relation to where strikers should be?  If weapon monk is too high, the solution is to nerf weapon monk.  If unarmed is too low, omly them is an appropriate solution is to give them more damage.  If the numbers are about right in the range, then unarmed should just get a minor benefit to attract players with tactics other than Moar DPR.The thing is, you haven't identified what -exactly- the problem is.  Is the problem that weapon monks do too much, unarmed does too little, or unarmed needs a little extra on the side?  As I don't believe monks do too much damage with weapons, or too little damage with unarmed, it's safe to assume they just need a little extra nudge to make those who want unarmed builds have something.Yes, but 'suboptimal' is a dangerous word.  'Optimal' applies in a world of minmaxing, but that is not the world all D&D players play in.  Fey pact warlocks were 'suboptimal' and yet they were attractive to many players because they enjoyed the tricks they brought to the table.The thing is, it's a bland flavorless option that doesn't make unarmed attractive except as an alternate way to add numbers.  What's the -flavor- of an unarmed monk?  What do they do that makes them competitive with weapon-users?  How do they work in terms of flavor, and how do you transpose that flavor to game-mechanics?If properly thought out, it shouldn't be as simple as 'add a basic attack and throw in some damage adders.'  That's not making unarmed attacks attractive, that's just creating a CharOp argument.Stone Fist is Strength based and the damage-heavy option.  Isn't that the build you want basic attack options for?  The other builds are based on keep-away.Agreed here, but if your options involve giving the unarmed monk the ability to do the same damage without the cost of having to acquire the items to make the damage, it's not balanced.  You're better off approaching it from a side angle.  I figure the entire thing could be solved by adding 'You get +1 to attack rolls when you are carrying no weapons' to the Improved Unarmed feat.  +1 attack will make unarmed a viable option, as that's something you simply cannot do through any weapon or magic property.  Then you'd be able to say what the unarmed advantage is:  The unarmed style allows one to focus their attacks with greater accuracy at the cost of the benefits a weapon brings to the table.Don't shy away from what unarmed attacks can't do.  Embrace the disadvantages it carries, and instead, offer something different.  That's where strong flavor comes from, and it creates something that engages the imagination more.  You're better off approaching it from the angle of making unarmed special, rather than making it equal.  Adding 'special' adds depth to the class, adding 'equal' just appeals to CharOp, and only long enough to determine whether unarmed is more damaging than weaponed.  If yes, then you've obsoleted weapon, which is bad, and if no, you've failed at your original goal.  Neither of these outcomes are desirable.</blockquote>

Verification