Dagger VS Punch Dagger

[Grayson01]

Does anyone have a Prefrence for the Punch Dagger over the Dagger? Anyone ever made a build they enjoyed quite a bit with a character with a Punch Dagger?

[Shinken]

Does anyone have a Prefrence for the Punch Dagger over the Dagger? Anyone ever made a build they enjoyed quite a bit with a character with a Punch Dagger?

Punch dagger looks a lot cooler. Rules-wise, the dagger is just plain better - it can be thrown and if you can get a kaorti resin dagger, it does x4 critical damage. Also, there are lots of specific daggers and it's a very common weapon, so choosing it for weapon specific feats is better (evne though weapon specific feats are nothing to write home about).
I'm a fan of katars ever since I played FFVIII, but the dagger is cleraly superior.

[JeminiZero]

Not to mention it can do slashing or piercing damage, in case you have to go up against Zombies.

[Theprettiestorc]

All that said, as a DM, I'd personally allow for a punching dagger to count for unarmed feats, just as a cestus would. Since you're still fighting using an unarmed style, a katar essentially gives piercing damage to your strikes, adding to the force from your fists. There's no reason why you shouldn't be able to punch something better without a dagger at the critical point, either.

[ericgrau]

It's slightly better for coup de graces but slightly worse overall. Mostly it doesn't make much difference one way or the other.

[HighWater]

Except (as already managed) for the extra damage on a guaranteed crit against piercing-sensitive targets, it seems to be strictly inferior.
Thought for a moment it might be easier to conceal, but that goes for all daggers, so no advantage there either!

[HaikenEdge]

Maybe it's because I'm a little OCD, but I prefer punch daggers when I'm being grappled, and daggers in non-grapple combat.

[Shinken]

All that said, as a DM, I'd personally allow for a punching dagger to count for unarmed feats, just as a cestus would. Since you're still fighting using an unarmed style, a katar essentially gives piercing damage to your strikes, adding to the force from your fists. There's no reason why you shouldn't be able to punch something better without a dagger at the critical point, either.

I wouldn't. Unarmed combat is not just punching, it's punching, kicking, grappling, elbowing and all that stuff. If you restrict yourself to the kind of punching attacks you can do with a katar, you're not fighting unarmed anymore - you're wielding a katar.

[Theprettiestorc]

I wouldn't. Unarmed combat is not just punching, it's punching, kicking, grappling, elbowing and all that stuff. If you restrict yourself to the kind of punching attacks you can do with a katar, you're not fighting unarmed anymore - you're wielding a katar.

That said, rules specifically state that unless you're a monk, you're hitting things with your hands. Most citizenry wouldn't use more than their fists anyway, because it's hard to coordinate other things.

[Zaq]

Basically, katars are cooler, but there's next to no mechanical reason to actually pick them over daggers.

Which is why it's best to refluff your little heart out.

[DarkSonic1337]

I wouldn't. Unarmed combat is not just punching, it's punching, kicking, grappling, elbowing and all that stuff. If you restrict yourself to the kind of punching attacks you can do with a katar, you're not fighting unarmed anymore - you're wielding a katar.

Please let melee have nice things?