Unarmed Strike- The Feat

[Mr Howardson]

Is there any way we could possibly add a humble +2 bludgeon damage to any individual who takes this feat, and REMAINS UNARMED? Meaning, if they equip the sword, the bonus goes away.

 It makes sense and due to certain mechanical limitations, absolutely worthless with anyone wearing damage gloves.

[Pentaxius]

The DM's will eventually reward you with a nice pair of gloves for building a character centered around this fighting style !

suboptimal but stylish, flavourful builds tend to attract some love :)

[Vlaid]

I can definitely say as a fan of sub-optimal, stylish builds (gimps) that if you stick to it you'll get something to make it at least workable over time. Just have faith in the loot gods.

[Paha]

There are actually many, many types of gloves/gauntlets to be found in game already. Definitely not in that regard needed.

edit: And yes, only few rare are for monks. Others are open for all.

[Gippy]

The poster is referring to the fact that this feat does nothing, and would like to see it do /something./

It is not matter of getting loot or being rewarded, it is simply a useless feat.

I do not support this suggestion because then all monks would get +2 damage for free and I hate monks.

[Mr Howardson]

Gippy has it!

[Paha]

Oh.. Good point. I was thinking that one wants damage for it.

I forgot that it didn't actually do anything anymore. This one was my bad.

[Mr Howardson]

Perhaps giving PCs who take this feat the feat STUNNING FIST- a feat that can be taken by PCs who specialize in unarmed attacks (It isn't just a monk ability) to represent training and the ability to stun opponents briefly?

Wouldn't effect monks at all and would make for utility in being unarmed.

[Calixto]

Didn't it avoid provoking AoO when fighting unarmed?

[Teeth in a Bowl]

Didn't it avoid provoking AoO when fighting unarmed?

Wearing gloves/gauntlets does the exact same thing.

[Calixto]

Ahhh completely ignored that. Thanks!

Maybe the feat could make a character get the same kind of attacks than a monk, or anything else monks have? That way, monks wouldn't be stronger than they are now.

[Kotenku]

I would have assumed it would be easy to script it so that characters with the monk class don't get the additional +2 bludgeoning damage.

[Ebok]

It has been mentioned to me from DMs that this feat is an assumed must have for unarmed fighters and the use of gloves alone would be considered an exploit. I have always found this disturbing, as the former is actually punishment for the style and the later something that cannot be helped unless you are exquisitely aware of the meta-situation.  

Either acknowledge that the feat is meaningless and leave it at characters don't need to care about it... or give it Something that makes it do what you want it to do. If the team wants it to give some quality to unarmed fighters that puts them a step up... then they should do it.

That's my opinion anyway. If possible it would be nice if the feat gave you 1d6 instead of 1d3 unarmed damage--so the monk already had the benefit and others get a nice little perk. Dunno if it is possible, but I realize now I shouldve learned nwnscript forever ago. -.-