Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="CapnZapp" data-source="post: 4604316" data-attributes="member: 12731">Generally this reads very well. I'm sure any kinks has been ironed out a long time ago.However, I have a few questions:What is the benefit of the benefit? As far as I am aware, 4E damage types include Acid, Cold, Fire, Force, Lightning, Necrotic, Poison, Psychic, Radiant, and Thunder. Not Bludgeoning, Piercing or Slashing. Isn't this leftovers from 3E that should be removed?Regarding Special: Isn't this a bit too sweeping... I could be wrong, but theoretically this feat would allow a Fighter to take the Swordmaster Path paragon path and use features such as Steel Grace or Steel Blitz (p88) unarmed, yes?Generally, do you really need those two last sentences?(As clarifications, they're okay. As special cases, however, they're too specific. If the latter, it would be better if the general rule was phrased in such a way as to negate the need for special rules for specific classes. Otherwise, the rule will possibly need amendments for each new class published...)One more thing: How does this (=&quot;A ranger can use unarmed attacks in place of wielding two melee weapons&quot;) interact with the Ranger's Two-Blade Fighting Style, if at all?Thanks,Zapp</blockquote>

[QUOTE="CapnZapp, post: 4604316, member: 12731"] Generally this reads very well. I'm sure any kinks has been ironed out a long time ago. However, I have a few questions: What is the benefit of the benefit? As far as I am aware, 4E damage types include Acid, Cold, Fire, Force, Lightning, Necrotic, Poison, Psychic, Radiant, and Thunder. Not Bludgeoning, Piercing or Slashing. Isn't this leftovers from 3E that should be removed? Regarding Special: Isn't this a bit too sweeping... I could be wrong, but theoretically this feat would allow a Fighter to take the Swordmaster Path paragon path and use features such as Steel Grace or Steel Blitz (p88) unarmed, yes? Generally, do you really need those two last sentences? (As clarifications, they're okay. As special cases, however, they're too specific. If the latter, it would be better if the general rule was phrased in such a way as to negate the need for special rules for specific classes. Otherwise, the rule will possibly need amendments for each new class published...) One more thing: How does this (="A ranger can use unarmed attacks in place of wielding two melee weapons") interact with the Ranger's Two-Blade Fighting Style, if at all? Thanks, Zapp [/QUOTE]

Verification