Unarmed combat feats

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

While that's true, it's a non-sequiter: a Cleric could also get Shortbow or Warhammer for the same feat.

- - -

Anyway, the advantage for a Warlock or Wizard should be obvious: you can use a shield, implement, and your unarmed strike all at the same time. So IMHO an unarmed strike should be nowhere near as good as a superior weapon.

I disagree. The benefit for Warlock or Wizard might be there, but you could also just add a prerequisite to the feat (Str 13, Dex 13?) to make it less interesting for them. And then - how important is a Unarmed attack for Warlock or Wizard? Without the strength to back it up, it will still be mostly useless.

Honesly, I like the +2 / 1d4 implementation. Means you're better than anyone else who is unarmed, but you've still got a darn good reason to prefer using a weapon. And that's as should be.

I also liked what SW Saga did for martial arts: grant a bonus to Reflex defense. You might grant a bonus to AC and Reflex defense while wearing cloth or no armor.

Cheers, -- N

That's also a neat concept - but your concerns on unarmed strikes on Warlokcks/Wizards also apply in this case! They get an extra AC bonus others just won't get.

 

[Nifft]

I disagree. The benefit for Warlock or Wizard might be there, but you could also just add a prerequisite to the feat (Str 13, Dex 13?) to make it less interesting for them. And then - how important is a Unarmed attack for Warlock or Wizard? Without the strength to back it up, it will still be mostly useless.

Lack of Strength goes to almost all weapon proficiency feats -- the only exceptions are Superior light blades for a Rogue. I'm not seeing why unarmed attacks should be different. (And your specific corner case combo is already covered, since shield demand 13 Strength minimum.)

That's also a neat concept - but your concerns on unarmed strikes on Warlokcks/Wizards also apply in this case! They get an extra AC bonus others just won't get.

Untrue, due to correlation bias! The times where normal PCs (i.e. not one specific Wizard build) are most likely to get use from unarmed attacks is the same situation that they're most likely to be unarmored.

Also, Warlocks get Leather proficiency free, and for Wizards, Leather proficiency is a no-brainer feat. Giving +1 AC when in Cloth armor would go a long way to making Wizards consider Martial Arts instead.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Lack of Strength goes to almost all weapon proficiency feats -- the only exceptions are Superior light blades for a Rogue. I'm not seeing why unarmed attacks should be different. (And your specific corner case combo is already covered, since shield demand 13 Strength minimum.)

And I still think the difference is less relevant. My idea is to balance for those that are generally more interested to use an unarmed strike in the first place, and that will be martial types. For them, Combat Martial Arts will usually be worse then Weapon Proficiency in a superior weapon.

And the benefit of Arcanists exists with or without martial arts - they always have the option to pick a basic attack that plays to their strengths and allows them to use implement and shield. The Warlock even gets a magic item that will give them the same benefit as martial arts (and that is not the only feature of the Pact Blade).

Untrue, due to correlation bias! The times where normal PCs (i.e. not one specific Wizard build) are most likely to get use from unarmed attacks is the same situation that they're most likely to be unarmored.

Also, Warlocks get Leather proficiency free, and for Wizards, Leather proficiency is a no-brainer feat. Giving +1 AC when in Cloth armor would go a long way to making Wizards consider Martial Arts instead.

Cheers, -- N

Actually, we noticed that the devil is in the detail - a lot of interesting armor enhancements are only available for cloth armor. I can see this only becoming worse with the Adventurers Vault. (Unless they "forgot" about this hidden balance mechanism).

 

[Aventar]

If its the spell flingers that bothers you about the possibility of "monk feats" in 4E, then I suggest doing what I did and simply build a Monk class out of the Ranger. In place of their Fighting Style they get unarmed which increses their unarmed to d6 or d8 (your choice), and grants them +2 prof bonus. Then rename their abilities to Rapid Punch for Twin Strike, and stuff like Spin Kick for Dire Wolverine Strike etc. And for flavor you can maybe mix in place a few utility powers from the rogue (Im thinking tumble here). But thats just how I would handle the Monk for now. Same as the Cleri... er I mean Druid.

 

[Nifft]

And I still think the difference is less relevant. My idea is to balance for those that are generally more interested to use an unarmed strike in the first place, and that will be martial types. For them, Combat Martial Arts will usually be worse then Weapon Proficiency in a superior weapon.

Sure. Why is that bad? Weapons should make people more dangerous, right?

Actually, we noticed that the devil is in the detail - a lot of interesting armor enhancements are only available for cloth armor. I can see this only becoming worse with the Adventurers Vault. (Unless they "forgot" about this hidden balance mechanism).

Could you list some that jump out? I don't recall seeing a dearth of Leather armor enhancements, many of which couldn't be put on Cloth armors.

I mean, yeah, there's certainly a trade-off in terms of what you can buy, but I don't recall it being slanted specifically towards Cloth.

Cheers, -- N

 

[pukunui]

Whew! I've stirred up quite a lively debate!

I'm totally inexperienced when it comes to making my own stuff, so you guys have totally confused me but keep at it!

For the record, no one in my group actually wants to use these feats, so this is an entirely esoteric exercise. I was actually hoping to entice someone to try a bit of unarmed fighting but I don't know if anyone will (especially if I keep changing the mechanics). I think I'll just wait until we reach some sort of consensus here.

Also, I've cross-posted this on the WotC House Rules board as well. It's not quite as lively over there, but I've gotten a few good responses.

This is what people over there are suggesting:

Heroic, and make martial arts II add the hammer weapon group.

You could even go so far as to make MA III for increasing an addl die in Paragon, possibly even adding the High Crit property at the same time.

This would make that whole path a whole lot more palatable. 3 Feats for a d8 hammer with the high crit property (at earliest 11th lv) that can't be taken away from you unless you're restrained. Yeah, I think that's reasonable, particularly since it won't ever be a magical weapon, unless you add some gloves to your campaign that add that trait to a fist weapon, and even then I think it still works.

Consider the following name changes though:
Pugilist (+2 prof, off-hand property), no prereq
Brawler (+1 die size, Hammer group), no prereq
Martial Artist (Paragon, +1 die size, High Crit), req both of the above

(EDITED the list above to reflect this paragraph and Wyld's note about off-hand below.)
I would even go so far as to change the benefits for Pugilist and Brawler (since Pugilist is more about talent and ability and Brawler would be more about raw power), and not require either as prereqs to the other, but still require both for Martial Artist.

Consider even adding an Epic Feat: Martial Artist Mastery for an additional die (not die size, making the fist weapon a 2d8). Though I'm not entirely sure that would be completely balanced, but considering it's epic level and doesn't allow for a magical version, it might be. Alternately, +1 die size and crit on 19 might be more balanced, particularly if you include those gloves that give magical properties and bonuses to a fist weapon.

I would also consider allowing the Paragon or Epic versions noted above to be allowed to be used with Sneak Attack. Gives the whole assassin feeling... or maybe something specific to the Shadow Assassin Paragon Path - not sure about that one.

Hmmm...

I'd go...

Improved Unarmed Attack
Prerequisites:
Benefit: Your unarmed attacks have a +2 proficiency and increase by one die sze in damage.

Brawler
Prerequisites: Improved Unarmed Attack
Benefit: Your unarmed attacks gain the Hammer group and the off-hand property. (Normally you can't "dual-wield" unarmed attacks...)

Eith the Martial artist feat as normal...

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Sure. Why is that bad? Weapons should make people more dangerous, right?

Not when talking about martial arts! Kickboxing is way more powerful then a european longsword, dude! The only weapon that could surpass that is the Katana!

Okay, a little less seriously: If I would create a Combat Martial Arts feat, it is because the characters that will have it will have the shtick of fighting unarmed. It is a stylistic choice, and such characters shouldn't have any reason to fight with weapons, aside from the different properties he can get that way perhaps.

And even if it wasn't - if it was a backup feat, does it make sense to reduce the benefit compared to a "real" weapon? Considering how seldom characters will be actually disarmed?

Could you list some that jump out? I don't recall seeing a dearth of Leather armor enhancements, many of which couldn't be put on Cloth armors.

I mean, yeah, there's certainly a trade-off in terms of what you can buy, but I don't recall it being slanted specifically towards Cloth.

Cheers, -- N

I can't at the moment, as I don't have my books with me. I mostly remember it from a discussion with the rest of my group about why not picking up leather armor proficiency for Wizards might still be a good choice.

 

[Nifft]

Not when talking about martial arts! Kickboxing is way more powerful then a european longsword, dude! The only weapon that could surpass that is the Katana!

But, like, dude... imagine a martial artist with a sword! HE COULD KICK YOU IN THE FACE WITH A SWORD! Dude. Seriously.

Okay, a little less seriously: If I would create a Combat Martial Arts feat, it is because the characters that will have it will have the shtick of fighting unarmed. It is a stylistic choice, and such characters shouldn't have any reason to fight with weapons, aside from the different properties he can get that way perhaps.

If it's a stylistic choice, it should have no mechanical advantage over other choices.

And even if it wasn't - if it was a backup feat, does it make sense to reduce the benefit compared to a "real" weapon? Considering how seldom characters will be actually disarmed?

Yes! Being disarmed should suck. Taking this feat makes it suck less, and that is still very much worth a feat.

A similar example: Acrobat Boots, which make standing up from prone a Minor action rather than a Move action. If you have them, you're still screwed by being prone: you grant CA, and you must spend an action to stand up. However, you're no longer as screwed as you otherwise would have been: you still have a Move and Standard action remaining.

Another example: the feat Escape Artist. Again, it still sucks to be grabbed, but you can escape it more easily and at a lower action cost. You are less screwed than you otherwise would have been.

IMHO, a single Martial Arts feat should be similar.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

If it's a stylistic choice, it should have no mechanical advantage over other choices.

That's why I compare it to what a similar feat would give me and gave it similar benefits.

Yes! Being disarmed should suck. Taking this feat makes it suck less, and that is still very much worth a feat.

Considering that being disarmed happens very little, but wanting to fight unharmed due to stylistic preferences, I think it is unfair to have it less effective then any other feat that gives you the weapon proficiency. You take the reduced damage/attack bonus your entire career as martial artist, while you gain the benefit very seldom as a "regular" warrior.

I think we have exchanged all the major pros and cons of either choice. Basically - make it worth as much as a martial weapon if you think the benefits of being impossible to disarm are worth it, give if the benefit of a superior weapon if you think disarms don't happen often enough to weaken a stylistic choice for fighting unarmed.

It's interesting how the context "who do you think will use this feat the most" can change our idea of balance of a feat. I suppose it is a good sign that "unarmed martial artist" might be best realized with a class variation instead of a mere feat? Like a Fighter that gives up his military weapon and heavy armor and shield proficiencies to gain a unarmed attack at +2/1d6/off-hand as his weapon, and a +2 bonus to AC when fighting unarmored.

 

[pukunui]

Aargh! I can't decide! Both of your arguments make sense to me.

Sigh ... maybe I'll just wait and see if there's anything for unarmed combatants in Martial Power.