Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mustrum_Ridcully" data-source="post: 4463277" data-attributes="member: 710">I am still not sure how to apply this to the examples. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> Maybe it's too late or something or I am not seeing it in the right context.First off, it's not a free, it always costs a feat. A feat can buy you a Longsword or a Handaxe, or it can buy you a Rapier or a Bastard Sword. But it doesn't matter what kind of weapon you can use so far, you can get all these alternatives for the same price. So, should a unarmed strike be "balanced" against the Longsword or against he Bastard Sword?You say against the Longsword, because it otherwise makes fighting unarmed a non-issue and never a worse choice then picking a weapon.* I say that the scenario of unintentionally fighting unarmed is too rare to "force" someone intentionally fighting unarmed (for style reason) to get only a Longsword, while if he had to choose fighting armed with a bastard sword (for style reason), he'd get a better benefit from one feat.*presumably under the assumption that you don't have any weapon related special abilities, like Weapon Focus or several fighter powers that cease working with unarmed strikes? Should this matter? How much does it matter?</blockquote>