Psychoactive Skin of the Claw

[Sophismata]

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]

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]

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]

It's a umd item for rogues that don't like shortswords

[Yuki Akuma]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Seems to be a pretty crappy item either way, actually....

[Sydonai]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.