Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 true_blue Oct 27, 2004 11:28:37	One of my players was a Kapak draconian and asked me why they didn't have a claw attack when every other draconian did. I didn't really have an answer for him, looked up the Kapak in the Monster section to see if maybe it was left out in the Race section, but nothing was listed. Just was wondering if anyone had an idea why the Kapaks are the only ones who can't fight with their claws. I just find it.. weird.
#2 Sysane Oct 27, 2004 11:35:31	If I had to hazard a guess I would say game mechanics balance. If they had claws their ECL would have gone up making them a less viable choice for a PC race. That and their suppose to be rogues. Claws may hinder them in disabling traps and locks.
#3 true_blue Oct 27, 2004 11:45:36	Yea I thought of that too, but I guess I just don't see that 1d4 claw attack as a huge ECL increase. Any PC will use a sword anyways.. so I dunno. Yay a 1d4 or 2d4(2 claws) if I dont use a weapon. To me that doesnt really beef up the encounter. I just find it funny that they seemingly can't use their claws. Just seems weird to me.
#4 Sysane Oct 27, 2004 12:05:17	Yeah but look at it this way. Its like getting the improved unarmed attack feat for free. You have a lethal damage slashing attack that can't be disarmed. Thats a big racial perk. *edit* That also doesn't cause an AOO. Thats huge as well.
#5 raistlinrox Nov 03, 2004 12:10:36	But it's still only 1d4 damage. You can get a locked gauntlet to keep from getting disarmed and wield a sword!
#6 Sysane Nov 03, 2004 12:47:12	But it's still only 1d4 damage. You can get a locked gauntlet to keep from getting disarmed and wield a sword! Yeah, but what your missing is that its an ability your getting for just being a kapak. Your essentailly getting a feat for free. Two unarmed attacks that deal 1d4 leathal damage and don't cause an AOO is a formidable racial ability.
#7 true_blue Nov 03, 2004 13:16:21	I guess if you break down everything into numbers, maybe its a +1 more than what it should be or something like that. But come on.. I think most people could look past that and say...yea the Kapak should get to be able to use its claws. I think having one draconian who apparantly can't use his claws and the rest can is worse than the 1d4 potential damage it would do. But I guess it doesnt matter. Again I just find it funny that every other draconian can use their claws, but the Kapak doesnt not because of any in world explanation, but because.. "well.. it'd add another +1 LA!"
#8 Sysane Nov 03, 2004 13:27:34	I hear where your coming from. Like I said earlier in this thread, it could be that its their suppose to be the more "roguish" of the draconians and that claws may interfere with those skills.
#9 mizik Nov 03, 2004 18:07:37	maby cheak the errata Mabye they made a missprint. I was wondering this my self. But i don't think they left it out to lower the level equivlent. most weapons would out preforme those claws and only a few situations would it prove usefull but it is almost like carieing a dager (every adventure who knows what they are doing carries one) I myself think it is a missprint
#10 mizik Nov 03, 2004 18:16:50	just cheaked both wizards and dragonlances official websit.... Their is no errata so i gess it is a missprint
#11 Mortepierre Nov 04, 2004 3:08:26	.. or just the way it's supposed to work in the first place. I find it amusing that someone would argue that getting claws and natural attacks could be compared to buying a gauntlet. The former is something no one will be able to deprive you from (except by cutting your hands.. er.. claws), while the latter can be removed in the event, say, you're captured. What's more you had to pay for it, it's not an innate ability.
#12 true_blue Nov 04, 2004 3:48:40	Again, I understand the advantages of having claws and being able to use it opposed to maybe not having your weapon. My thing I was wondering about is I just found it really weird that the other 4 draconians have claw attacks and the Kapak for some reason didn't. Was wondering if anyone really had a constructive reason why they didn't. I had already thought of the ECL reason, but thought it was kind of funny to say "eh we didnt give him claws because "well.. it'd add another +1 LA!" I was actually hoping there was some in world explanation, but I highly doubt there is. I understand that some people can say "well just because they have it doesnt mean the Kapak should automatically get it". Which you are right. *I* just find it personally funny and was kind of wonderin if others though so too. I guess I just assumed each draconian would be able to use their claws. Basically the consensus is that they dont have it because of an added +1 LA. Which I just find as a stupid reason, but again thats my opinion. It'd be like taking away the sneak attack the Kapak gets because it adds another +1 LA (or is added in with the HD), or taking away the Baaz's Natural Armor because it adds another +1 LA, etc. I really hope that that isn't the reason why it wasnt included. Was kind of hoping Cam, Dragonhlem, etc would come along and just say it was an error and they have it heh. But as this thread has been goin on for a little, I'm sure that would have been done by now. Oh well.
#13 cam_banks Nov 04, 2004 8:20:01	I don't think it has anything to do with their level adjustment. Adding claws wouldn't necessarily increase their LA by +1, especially if they're only as dangerous as the baaz claws. I have a feeling the kapaks weren't originally given claws in 1st edition AD&D, just the bite and blades they've licked in order to pass on their venom. Realistically, they could have claws like all the other varieties. Cheers, Cam
#14 Mortepierre Nov 04, 2004 13:12:18	Isn't it linked to the fact that the first draconians to "infilter" human nations were Baaz? You can hide your ugly reptilian face under a large hood, but hiding clawed hands is harder.
#15 mizik Nov 05, 2004 0:52:25	uhhh.... how is it harder to hide claws that your face? you just need to put on gloves. hiding you face is much harder, you would need a very deep hood or a mask (which would draw alot of attention; since when do you see people walking around with masks?) Well I realy don't think claws would make any difrence (you need gloves to hide a draconians scaly hands any way) I don't think a 1d4 claw attack would add a +1 to level equivlent.
#16 Mortepierre Nov 05, 2004 3:55:22	uhhh.... how is it harder to hide claws that your face? you just need to put on gloves. hiding you face is much harder, you would need a very deep hood or a mask (which would draw alot of attention; since when do you see people walking around with masks?) Really? Take a look at, say, the troll's pic in MM. Are you saying that if he put gloves on, his "hands" would seem the same as yours or mine? (apart from being larger) I don't think so. People have got to realize that "claws" aren't just hands with nails a wee bit harder than ours. To inflict 1d4 pts of damage, you need something better than that. Besides, numerous DL novels set around the beginning of the WotL made references to "mysterious" or "masked" strangers asking questions around with a peculiar accent. Those were draconians, Baaz most likely. Since they weren't exposed, either they killed all witnesses (but then, who reported seeing them?) or their hood was enough.
#17 Sysane Nov 05, 2004 9:21:22	I don't think a 1d4 claw attack would add a +1 to level equivlent. By itself a claw attack doesn't seem like such a big thing but taking into account everything else a PC Kapak gets for racial abilities it may be a bit much. Needless to say, it comes down to the DM if he wants PC Kapaks to have functional claws or not.
#18 wolffenjugend_dup Nov 05, 2004 16:45:03	Kapaks are known for being archers; the only draconians to be known for using bows. Perhaps claws get in the way of that.