Talk:Demon's Nail (3.5e Feat)

Ratings

	Ghostwheel dislikes this article and rated it 1 of 4.
	While I do think that this would make a better Moderate feat, the reason I dislike it is the needless book-keeping from Nail Spike and Get Over Here.

Balance

Might this be moderate-level? --Ghostwheel (talk) 11:05, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I doubt it, but how so? -- Eiji-kun (talk) 20:10, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

-1 penalty to stuff as a standard action, and 1 damage when removing weapons from body (which first you need to land) seem pretty weak for High level to me. The only decent maneuver is "Get Over Here" (which can be really strong in the right circumstances), but that's another standard action after you've embedded weapons into someone first. --Ghostwheel (talk) 20:40, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

You read it wrong, it's "They may tear any number of embedded weapons out as a move action, but deal themselves the same amount of damage the weapon did going in." That's quite potent, especially if one power attacked, sneak attacked, or whatnot. Note though that it's specific to Nail Spike, the other damaging options use just weapon damage + Str (or Dex), or twice original damage when saving vs Get Over Here. -- Eiji-kun (talk) 21:56, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

In that case, either don't remove the weapons, and simply fail the saving throw against GOH voluntarily. Sure, you're forced to move and take a -1 to stuff, but the enemy just wasted a standard action to move you, which might well be better than taking the damage. Plus, if a moderate-level character uses it, the damage won't be that big, just like the character's damage.

That said, I strongly dislike having to remember the damage as it went in. It's unnecessary book-keeping. Instead, I'd recommend having it scale with level, keeping in mind that the number of weapons embedded will quickly scale with TWF, BAB, etc. That way, you only need to keep track of the number of weapons, rather than the number, AND how much damage each does. --Ghostwheel (talk) 22:16, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, it's a tactical game. If you remove the weapons, you've burned a move action and they win. If you don't, they might hit you with the more dangerous burrowing and get over here options and win. Of course, the feat is designed to be comparable to other options you'd have (one certain one being maneuvers). Do you deal almost certain double damage, or do you full attack, possibly getting in more than 2 hits? Or a maneuver, which may or may not also deal more damage. Or do you debuff with burrowing to help your allies?

On the matter of remembering the damage, I waffled on it a bit but decided it was the best option. The other option, re-rolling, might slow things down with excessive dice rolls. However, I'll re-evaluate it and I might go back on that and just have you re-roll it. -- Eiji-kun (talk) 22:42, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Rerolling has the same problem--you need to remember all the stuff from your first attack. Did you smite? Get sneak attack? Did something activate? It's better, but flat damage would be the way to go IMO and rerolling means you need to spend a bunch of time at the table rolling. Every. Single. Attack that went in, which can take a while and slows the game down. And even with that, I still think this could be a very respectable Moderate-level feat that would scale with character level, but without anything else (in a vacuum) it isn't precisely H-level. That said, I'd still take it in an H-level game with the right character. --Ghostwheel (talk) 22:56, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Honestly just note the number on a sheet of paper. I mean if a player take this feat she will make sure to fo it as effeciently as possible. Kinda like the crusader's regaining random maneuvers. --Leziad (talk) 00:42, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I can see an entire class forcing that kind of book-keeping (and it's even less, since you can hit with multiple attacks per round with this). A single feat? Not so much. --Ghostwheel (talk) 09:34, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Just write down the fucking number, 3 damned seconds. Seriously people these days... --Leziad (talk) 10:49, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Assume rapid shot, TWF tree, and haste. At 16 BAB, that can easily come out to 9 attacks before maneuvers. So that's potentially 9 numbers, and needing to remember how much each one of them did.

Much, MUCH more than 3 seconds when playing face-to-face at a table. --Ghostwheel (talk) 11:43, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Not really, it will only take an additional fraction of the time it took to make those attacks. When you make tons of attacks you already slow the game down because of things like miss chances or striking at different targets already. This isn't any major bookeeping imo. It just need a blank sheet and a pencil, then you just write the number after the DM confirm the damage (so after DR and whatnot). It is in fact probably faster than having to do division or superposition of defenses. --Leziad (talk) 20:16, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

(reset) I dislike the idea of using the original damage. Any ability, smite, sneak attack, etc. modifiers to damage would no longer apply. So that would leave you with just weapon damage, plus any magical damage bonus enchanted on it. Also, even when 'ripping' out the weapons, the target isn't going to do it in the most destructive way it can, it will take some care in all but the most extreme circumstances. So it should just be average weapon damage plus any active applicable damage enchantments, per weapon. Now for having the weapons rip themselves out as part of a failed save on GOH, I would suggest maximum normal damage (plus enchantments) with an attack roll to determine possible critical. One roll to cover all embedded weapons to reduce rolling, the GOH is essentially a single attack maneuver dealing damage based on a variant number of embedded weapons. Elohim (talk) 17:04, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Two years late, but I am convinced of the argument. It is now base weapon damage. -- Eiji-kun (talk) 01:22, 5 April 2018 (MDT)