PDA

View Full Version : Psychoactive Skin of the Claw



Sophismata
2010-04-27, 07:45 AM
Was this pointlessly nerfed in the MIC? As far as I can tell, the MIC version replaces the XPH version.

For those who don't know what I'm talking about, the Skin of the Claw (XPH) allows a Psychic Warrior to use Claws of the Beast as a free action (instead of a swift action), and costs 16000 gp.

The MIC version gives the wielder two 1d6 claws as a swift action, and costs 12000 gp. Psychic Warrior only.

I suppose the MIC version would jive better with existing psychoactive skins, being a generic-use item available to anyone, if it didn't also have the psychic warrior requirement.

(In the end though, Claws of the Beast lasts hours per level, so it may well be a redundant point.)

KillianHawkeye
2010-04-27, 08:02 AM
It doesn't seem like a very big change. They pretty much just made it cheaper (from 16k down to 12k). As for the free action/swift action thing, that more accurately reflects the claws of the beast power, which is listed as using swift actions in the SRD. Since I'm pretty sure that swift actions weren't around when they made the XPH, I'm guessing they errata'd claws of the beast and forgot to do the same to the skin of the claw.

It's pretty much equivalent, otherwise. Especially considering that since the original version could be used at-will as a free action, it might as well just be on all the time at that point.

ZeroNumerous
2010-04-27, 08:27 AM
It's pretty much equivalent, otherwise. Especially considering that since the original version could be used at-will as a free action, it might as well just be on all the time at that point.

Except the skin maxes at 1d6 while Claws of the Beast can be empowered for more dice per claw.

Escheton
2010-04-27, 08:32 AM
It's a umd item for rogues that don't like shortswords

Yuki Akuma
2010-04-27, 09:12 AM
It doesn't seem like a very big change. They pretty much just made it cheaper (from 16k down to 12k). As for the free action/swift action thing, that more accurately reflects the claws of the beast power, which is listed as using swift actions in the SRD. Since I'm pretty sure that swift actions weren't around when they made the XPH, I'm guessing they errata'd claws of the beast and forgot to do the same to the skin of the claw.

Swift actions were introduced in the Miniatures Handbook - before the XPH was written.

Hell, the XPH introduced immediate actions itself!

KillianHawkeye
2010-04-27, 09:50 AM
Except the skin maxes at 1d6 while Claws of the Beast can be empowered for more dice per claw.

Yes, but that only means a high level Psychic Warrior would be better off manifesting with his own power points. No matter which version of the skin you use, you get 1d6 claw damage. That's why I didn't mention it.


Swift actions were introduced in the Miniatures Handbook - before the XPH was written.

Hell, the XPH introduced immediate actions itself!

Oops, stupid bad memory. I thought they were first printed in one of the Complete Xs.

Sophismata
2010-04-27, 11:39 AM
Yes, but that only means a high level Psychic Warrior would be better off manifesting with his own power points. No matter which version of the skin you use, you get 1d6 claw damage. That's why I didn't mention it.

The original version didn't cap your damage. It enhanced your Claws of the Beast power, allowing you to manifest it as a free action instead of a swift action.

KillianHawkeye
2010-04-27, 08:44 PM
The original version didn't cap your damage. It enhanced your Claws of the Beast power, allowing you to manifest it as a free action instead of a swift action.

Huh.

The way I read it, the item was the thing granting the power (since there's no requirement that the Psychic Warrior wearing it actually knows claws of the beast). Which would mean, since it's a ML4 item, that you gets claws which deal 1d6 damage.

But I can see how it might be interepretted to work that way. Hmm....

Sophismata
2010-04-28, 07:27 AM
But I can see how it might be interepretted to work that way. Hmm....

Oh, wow, I never even considered that particular reading. In light of that, it makes sense, though it's a pretty crappy item (especially if it's psywar only).

KillianHawkeye
2010-04-28, 09:02 AM
Seems to be a pretty crappy item either way, actually.... :smallwink:

Sydonai
2010-04-28, 02:25 PM
It is meant to be read as "Only Psychic Warriors can create ____", not "Only Psychic Warriors can use ____".......I think, I'll have to read it again.

Lycanthromancer
2010-04-28, 02:30 PM
There really aren't many psychoactive skins that are worth the exorbitant price tag. There's the psychoactive skin of proteus (totally worth 84,000g) and the psychoactive skin of ectoplasmic armor (but not the MIC version, which sucks).

All of the others are WAY too expensive.

Sophismata
2010-04-28, 05:54 PM
There really aren't many psychoactive skins that are worth the exorbitant price tag. There's the psychoactive skin of proteus (totally worth 84,000g) and the psychoactive skin of ectoplasmic armor (but not the MIC version, which sucks).

All of the others are WAY too expensive.

Speaking of that, why'd they nerf the ectoplasmic armour? Did someone at WotC actually stop and think, "You know, this ability is actually too strong and might be ruining player's games"..?

Lycanthromancer
2010-04-28, 06:00 PM
Speaking of that, why'd they nerf the ectoplasmic armour? Did someone at WotC actually stop and think, "You know, this ability is actually too strong and might be ruining player's games"..?Apparently they thought that having monks actually be able to use items to boost their "already sky-high AC" [sic] was massively overpowered.

Because, y'know, they're more powerful than wizards and all.

Draxar
2010-04-28, 07:14 PM
Apparently they thought that having monks actually be able to use items to boost their "already sky-high AC" [sic] was massively overpowered.

Because, y'know, they're more powerful than wizards and all.

There's still places where the MIC version can be useful – if you're a class without arcane spell failure, light or no armour proficiency, which doesn't care about armour check, then it's a cheap way of getting a fair bit more armour. Yeah, that's fairly conditional, but it still can be quite handy.

Lycanthromancer
2010-04-28, 07:16 PM
There's still places where the MIC version can be useful if you're a class without arcane spell failure, light or no armour proficiency, which doesn't care about armour check, then it's a cheap way of getting a fair bit more armour. Yeah, that's fairly conditional, but it still can be quite handy.Divine casters are the only ones I can think of off-hand. Druids would find it quite good, since it only takes a standard action to don, even in animal form.

Otherwise, mount barding. And that's about it, far as I can tell.

Draxar
2010-04-28, 09:40 PM
Divine casters are the only ones I can think of off-hand. Druids would find it quite good, since it only takes a standard action to don, even in animal form.

Otherwise, mount barding. And that's about it, far as I can tell.

I agree on druids, it's fairly awesome for them I had a master of many forms with whom I realised just after he died how handy it would be. The potential character I'm looking at taking it with is a Truenamer.

Hypothetically it could work for a bard or a warmage, as they ignore the spell failure of light armour, and the bard could take it off for stuff that requires a lack of armour check penalty.

One of the things is that it's useful at low levels, as it's quite cheap, for characters to whom getting that much armour at that level is worth it.