Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Cactot" data-source="post: 2644712" data-attributes="member: 13700">But what order would you apply them?&nbsp; Would you not apply the adjustment to base damage before you apply the adjustment to size based damage?For example, if you upgraded to a long sword from a rapier (d6-&gt;d8) and were enlarged your damage would go to 2d6 correct?&nbsp; Becasue your attack was made more damaging AND you were enlarged, you effectively have a larger version of a more damaging weapon.&nbsp; These battlefists make the slam a more damaging weapon (d4-&gt;d8), which happens to be a natural weapon, which is affected by the INA feat therefore if your natural weapon dmg category were 1d8, it would upgrade to 2d6.&nbsp; It seems clear to me that for slam this would be a fair adjustment.&nbsp; I understand your argument as far as the double size increase for &quot;unarmed&quot; attacks, though it seems to me that they should be two seperate adjustments.&nbsp; The battlefists make your hands have spikes on them that cause your attacks to do as much damage as a barehanded person a size larger than you, the change is in the equipment, as your fists themselves are more brutally damaging due to sharp things being placed on them.&nbsp; On the other hand, the INA bonus damage is because you are better at using the weapons you have.&nbsp; Logically, when looked at in that fashion, they should stack.&nbsp; For example if you were to get a sharper sword (say adding +2 to damage) and at the same time get a feat that made you more skilled at using it to inflict damage (say weapon specialization for +2 dmg), the fact that you got a more damaging weapon would not negate the fact that you also became more skilled at using the weapon, nor would the fact that you became more skilled at using the weapon negate the fact that your weapon became a more damaging version of your original weapon.&nbsp; (I suppose an example using brass knuckles vs regular fists would have been a better example, but oh well, if you dont get my gist i will try again later)As i read it, INA makes you better at using your attacks, while battlefist makes your attacks more damaging.&nbsp; I realize logic and dnd often do not get along, but as i have never seen this covered by any official source i would be interested in hearing counterpoints as to why my reasoning does not stand up, if in fact it doesnt.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Cactot, post: 2644712, member: 13700"] But what order would you apply them? Would you not apply the adjustment to base damage before you apply the adjustment to size based damage? For example, if you upgraded to a long sword from a rapier (d6->d8) and were enlarged your damage would go to 2d6 correct? Becasue your attack was made more damaging AND you were enlarged, you effectively have a larger version of a more damaging weapon. These battlefists make the slam a more damaging weapon (d4->d8), which happens to be a natural weapon, which is affected by the INA feat therefore if your natural weapon dmg category were 1d8, it would upgrade to 2d6. It seems clear to me that for slam this would be a fair adjustment. I understand your argument as far as the double size increase for "unarmed" attacks, though it seems to me that they should be two seperate adjustments. The battlefists make your hands have spikes on them that cause your attacks to do as much damage as a barehanded person a size larger than you, the change is in the equipment, as your fists themselves are more brutally damaging due to sharp things being placed on them. On the other hand, the INA bonus damage is because you are better at using the weapons you have. Logically, when looked at in that fashion, they should stack. For example if you were to get a sharper sword (say adding +2 to damage) and at the same time get a feat that made you more skilled at using it to inflict damage (say weapon specialization for +2 dmg), the fact that you got a more damaging weapon would not negate the fact that you also became more skilled at using the weapon, nor would the fact that you became more skilled at using the weapon negate the fact that your weapon became a more damaging version of your original weapon. (I suppose an example using brass knuckles vs regular fists would have been a better example, but oh well, if you dont get my gist i will try again later) As i read it, INA makes you better at using your attacks, while battlefist makes your attacks more damaging. I realize logic and dnd often do not get along, but as i have never seen this covered by any official source i would be interested in hearing counterpoints as to why my reasoning does not stand up, if in fact it doesnt. [/QUOTE]

Verification