Tempest/Unarmed Intended behavior?

[Thanimal]

Sorry to be posting this in a lot of places, but I am somewhat desperate to get an official Turbine answer, because a) this effects just about every Ranger build significantly and b) I strongly feel that Tempest should not work with unarmed. So my question is:

Are Tempest I and Tempest II supposed to work (i.e. increase off-hand attack percentage) when unarmed?

I don't care as much if it currently works, although I am mildly curious if anybody has taken the time to confirm Elyssaria's testing (which indicates that it does work with unarmed). What I want to know is if it's supposed to, in which case I will be crossing out every Ranger idea I've ever had, sell those goofy "weapon" things, and get down to the business of punching and kicking.

Please clarify ASAP! Thanks in advance!

[Xyfiel]

Do you feel it shouldn't because it doesn't make sense or because it is overpowered?

Mind you chance to proc attacks makes no sense either.

[TreknaQudane]

I strongly feel that Tempest should not work with unarmed.

I strongly feel that Tempest should not be a ranger exclusive. That doesn't change the fact it is nor the fact that it now works with Unarmed

[Thanimal]

Do you feel it shouldn't because it doesn't make sense or because it is overpowered?

Mind you chance to proc attacks makes no sense either.

Keeping in mind all of the following are my opinions, not facts:

- Thematically, I think unarmed is basically nonsense. Unarmed fighting techniques were invented by folks who couldn't obtain weapons. My wife is a black belt in kempo karate, and she completely laughs at the idea of unarmed being a favored style in DDO. Of course, there is the Legendary concept of a fighting monk, so I'm not completely opposed to having Monks in the game. But the idea that the "regular" D&D classes very often deal more damage unarmed just feels so wrong.

- D&D Rangers are all about two weapons. So it feels "extra wrong" on a Ranger.

- I'm almost sure that all optimized Rangers will be built for mainly unarmed if this remains. At least so far my numbers (and Elyssaria's in his Prodigy thread) suggest similar or better DPS on most builds, along with the Monk stance advantages. (Obviously every optimized Ranger already has at least 1 level of Monk, so no sacrifice there.) So it's ugly from a strategic diversity standpoint.

- It's a really big change, that Turbine should consider carefully -- not just drop in "accidentally." Tempest specifically did NOT work with unarmed since its inception. Indeed, the defensive portion of it clearly still does not work unarmed (the icon goes away), so it sure seems like the intent of Tempest still matches the original. This is why I want to hear from Turbine that they did this on purpose (and I wouldn't mind knowing why if so, but that would be gravy). I don't want to go and reroll (or at least re-equip) my characters with Ranger levels until I'm sure this is staying. And I am hoping it isn't.

- Having Tempest III be fundamentally different than Tempest I and II makes no sense. (It is clearly stated in U5 release notes that Tempest III only works with two weapons, and so far nobody has claimed otherwise afaik.)

[Thott]

The implication people are coming away with is that going unarmed is better than weapons for a tempest ranger, but this is not generally true.

Unarmed is only better (~9%) against 100% fort targets. Any khopesh build is going to beat unarmed against everything else. The reason the Prodigy build doesn't take a big hit in relative dps against low fort targets is 7 levels of rogue (and the assumption that someone else is tanking), not unarmed. Take out the rogue or the tank and a pure ranger (with khopesh of course) will outperform unarmed.

[Phidius]

If Eladrin came onto this thread and explicitly stated that Tempest was working with unarmed combat correctly, and that they specifically wanted the defensive "Shield of Whirling Steel" to be the only thing lost for unarmed combat...

What difference would it make? They could still change it out from under you at the drop of a hat.

Just keep buying those Turbine Points for reincarnation, and bankroll with the punches.

[Xaearth]

Keeping in mind all of the following are my opinions, not facts:

- Thematically, I think unarmed is basically nonsense. Unarmed fighting techniques were invented by folks who couldn't obtain weapons. My wife is a black belt in kempo karate, and she completely laughs at the idea of unarmed being a favored style in DDO. Of course, there is the Legendary concept of a fighting monk, so I'm not completely opposed to having Monks in the game. But the idea that the "regular" D&D classes very often deal more damage unarmed just feels so wrong.

- D&D Rangers are all about two weapons. So it feels "extra wrong" on a Ranger.

- I'm almost sure that all optimized Rangers will be built for mainly unarmed if this remains. At least so far my numbers (and Elyssaria's in his Prodigy thread) suggest similar or better DPS on most builds, along with the Monk stance advantages. (Obviously every optimized Ranger already has at least 1 level of Monk, so no sacrifice there.) So it's ugly from a strategic diversity standpoint.

Erm... You do realize that monk unarmed damage is tied directly to your levels in the monk class?
A Tempest II has at most 8 monk levels... that's 1d10 damage, 2d6 with past life, 2d8 with past life and Jidz while in earth stance.

Combine that with no greensteel... you really think that'd be better dps than a dual khopesh Tempest III?
Considering that greensteel khopesh is 1d10, 19-20 x3...

Edit: Looking again, that's not to mention that you'd be stuck with 2nd tier stances/strikes at best, and lose out on Touch of Death.

[Talon_Moonshadow]

Keeping in mind all of the following are my opinions, not facts:

- Thematically, I think unarmed is basically nonsense. Unarmed fighting techniques were invented by folks who couldn't obtain weapons. My wife is a black belt in kempo karate, and she completely laughs at the idea of unarmed being a favored style in DDO. Of course, there is the Legendary concept of a fighting monk, so I'm not completely opposed to having Monks in the game. But the idea that the "regular" D&D classes very often deal more damage unarmed just feels so wrong.

- D&D Rangers are all about two weapons. So it feels "extra wrong" on a Ranger.

- I'm almost sure that all optimized Rangers will be built for mainly unarmed if this remains. At least so far my numbers (and Elyssaria's in his Prodigy thread) suggest similar or better DPS on most builds, along with the Monk stance advantages. (Obviously every optimized Ranger already has at least 1 level of Monk, so no sacrifice there.) So it's ugly from a strategic diversity standpoint.

- It's a really big change, that Turbine should consider carefully -- not just drop in "accidentally." Tempest specifically did NOT work with unarmed since its inception. Indeed, the defensive portion of it clearly still does not work unarmed (the icon goes away), so it sure seems like the intent of Tempest still matches the original. This is why I want to hear from Turbine that they did this on purpose (and I wouldn't mind knowing why if so, but that would be gravy). I don't want to go and reroll (or at least re-equip) my characters with Ranger levels until I'm sure this is staying. And I am hoping it isn't.

- Having Tempest III be fundamentally different than Tempest I and II makes no sense. (It is clearly stated in U5 release notes that Tempest III only works with two weapons, and so far nobody has claimed otherwise afaik.)

This is a fantasy game.
Based on books and movies among other things.

Go watch any chinese Kung Fu movie. Those are the chars that Monks are based off of. Not RL Black Belts.

Now....if only they would remmeber that we are supposed to be able to create powerful fantasy archers as well.

[Absolute-Omniscience]

Erm... You do realize that monk unarmed damage is tied directly to your levels in the monk class?
A Tempest II has at most 8 monk levels... that's 1d10 damage, 2d6 with past life, 2d8 with past life and Jidz while in earth stance.

Combine that with no greensteel... you really think that'd be better dps than a dual khopesh Tempest III?
Considering that greensteel khopesh is 1d10, 19-20 x3...

Edit: Looking again, that's not to mention that you'd be stuck with 2nd tier stances/strikes at best, and lose out on Touch of Death.

Unarmed is good because of the innate overpowerness of the tod rings. Having these effects:
holy
Holy burst
Shocing burst
Greater bane

is far superior to
holy
acid burst (doesn't work against devils)
acid blast (samthing, and pretty much useless anyways)
slicing

That's 7d6 per hit, 1d10 and 3d6 more on crits for wraps
vs
2d6 +1d4 for weapon users.

And ofcourse, can always put icy and icy burst on those wraps as well, from Risia games. They also have higher attack rate.

The problem comes to gear, the unarmed guys requires a LOT more, but that doesn't mean it should be that much better.

[Xaearth]

Unarmed is good because of the innate overpowerness of the tod rings. Having these effects:
holy
Holy burst
Shocing burst
Greater bane

is far superior to
holy
acid burst (doesn't work against devils)
acid blast (samthing, and pretty much useless anyways)
slicing

That's 7d6 per hit, 1d10 and 3d6 more on crits for wraps
vs
2d6 +1d4 for weapon users.

And ofcourse, can always put icy and icy burst on those wraps as well, from Risia games. They also have higher attack rate.

The problem comes to gear, the unarmed guys requires a LOT more, but that doesn't mean it should be that much better.

Methinks calculating time spent beating on pit fiends is starting to mess with your head.

Anyone that thinks mineral II weapons are dps shouldn't be talking about dps.

[Teharahma]

Don't forget monk get their full STR bonus off their off-hand aswell..

[Absolute-Omniscience]

Methinks calculating time spent beating on pit fiends is starting to mess with your head.

Anyone that thinks mineral II weapons are dps shouldn't be talking about dps.

ANd what do you use against ADQ, you know that SP and dps heaviest fight in the game, the one with DR?

Even if you use lighting II it's still a hell of a lot less dmg per hit than unarmed. Not counting the crits obviously.
The thing is, it's just too close in the dps race, a 2 level monk splash should do close-to or more damage with unarmed than with exotic weapons.

[Deathseeker]

While I think the calculations being done on unarmed Tempests are interesting, they lead me to two thoughts on this...

1. This is why we won't see Greensteel Handwraps
2. I'll find this to be a balance issue when I start seeing a ton of unarmed Tempest/Monk/Rogues flying around the server

At this point, I think it's a cool build concept thats very viable, but I wouldnt go so far as to say it's worthy of addressing.

[kernal42]

- Having Tempest III be fundamentally different than Tempest I and II makes no sense. (It is clearly stated in U5 release notes that Tempest III only works with two weapons, and so far nobody has claimed otherwise afaik.)

This is true. I imagine this description is meant to stress the "Two", not the "Weapons", so Tempest III folks don't go off thinking they can get double strike when using sword and shield. This is a feature irrelevant for the tempest I and II bonuses. However, the fact that this implies (and appears to be implemented) to also require weapons is, as you mention, inconsistent.

Cheers,
Kernal

[Montegue]

I am amused by the thread itself. A man playing a living robot talking about realism.

[Matuse]

D&D Rangers are all about two weapons. So it feels "extra wrong" on a Ranger.

No, Drizz't is all about two weapons, since this is a drow characteristic. In 3.0, WotC allowed this idea to infect the ranger class itself.

Prior to Drizz't, rangers had no compelling reason for two weapons.

[Hydro]

Lol a thread about unarmed combat being more powerfull then Greensteel. Not saying I dont agree just never thought I would see a unarmed combat is OP thread...

While you guys discuss this I will go back to playing my OP monk

[toughguyjoe]

No, Drizz't is all about two weapons, since this is a drow characteristic. In 3.0, WotC allowed this idea to infect the ranger class itself.

Prior to Drizz't, rangers had no compelling reason for two weapons.

I would also submit that part of the Two Weapon Fighting leaking into the ranger class also came from some of the more "Min-Max" type PNP players, who usually took good selections for favored enemies and dual wielded to take advantage of more attacks.

I see lots of Rogues dual wielding both in DDO and PNP as well, so its safe to assume that if you get additional damage per attack some players will want to make characters who attack as much as possible

However. Its just SO COOL to dual wield scimitars and have purple eyes!

[THOTHdha]

I see lots of Rogues dual wielding both in DDO and PNP as well, so its safe to assume that if you get additional damage per attack some players will want to make characters who attack as much as possible

Except that in 3.5 Rogues did not get to deal sneak attack damage more than once per round. It may be safe to assume that many people will 'go where the numbers lead', but you can also assume that many people will just do what they feel like.

[TiranBlade]

Except that in 3.5 Rogues did not get to deal sneak attack damage more than once per round. It may be safe to assume that many people will 'go where the numbers lead', but you can also assume that many people will just do what they feel like.

Actually them only getting sneak attack once per round is in accordance with being seen, if the target if flanked however every strike becomes a sneak attack, at least thats what I remember, pulling open my PHB v.3.5 now.

EDIT: Read through the rules on sneak attack, and there is NO limit on the number of times you can apply sneak attack per round, just per attack.