So my question... If an unarmed fighter (with Unarmed Fighting Style) is wearing Adamantine Armour (Full Plate). Do they get the benefits that come with Adamantine weapons as detailed in XgtE, when they attack with their unarmed strikes?
As a follow up... If the fighter went the extra mile and got the armour coated in silver. Would these attacks ignore the damage immunities and resistances from nonmagical weapons?
If we were to go by RAW the answer to these is no. Because your body is not technically a weapon and neither is the armour.
Conversely... If I were to take a piece of that armour off and use it as an improvised weapon. With RAW, it would get the benefits.
I think, by the rules (RAW and RAI) no you wouldn't. The armour isn't a weapon, and (except where explicitly stated) makes no difference to your unarmed strikes. Even if it were allowed to count, the bonus is that it counts as a critical hit against objects. As a critical hit doubles the number of damage dice and unarmed strikes don't roll any damage dice, the effect would be limited only to situations where there is an additional bonus granted by a crit over and above that defined by the base rules.
Using it as an improvised weapon I still don't think, technically, would do so. This could be justified by the fact that the adamantine is used in armour to reinforce it against attacks by weapons, whereas in weapons it is used differently to enhance its ability to break objects.
As a DM, though, I would consider giving a bonus of some description if it were used in a manner I found creative, fun, and/or good thematic roleplay.
Note, just in case you missed it, an adamantine weapon only has any extra effect on objects, not creatures. Only mentioning this because I missed it when I first read the description and I feel it is very easy to miss.
Note, just in case you missed it, an adamantine weapon only has any extra effect on objects, not creatures. Only mentioning this because I missed it when I first read the description and I feel it is very easy to miss.
I did not miss this. I perhaps should have included that the unarmed fighter took the unarmed fighting style to make it clearer. I'll edit my post to reflect that.
Fair enough. With that there would be an advantage to it, but as previously mentioned I don't think the rules support your unarmed strikes gaining a bonus.
The DM can always overrule this and provide a bonus. I don't think there would be anything wrong in doing so. The effect is not likely to be overpowered, as it is only against objects, but it would definitely be up to an individual DM.
Note, just in case you missed it, an adamantine weapon only has any extra effect on objects, not creatures. Only mentioning this because I missed it when I first read the description and I feel it is very easy to miss.
Well, it does bypass resistances and immunizes of golems and some other constructs, so that's an effect on creatures.
I think, by the rules (RAW and RAI) no you wouldn't. The armour isn't a weapon, and (except where explicitly stated) makes no difference to your unarmed strikes. Even if it were allowed to count, the bonus is that it counts as a critical hit against objects. As a critical hit doubles the number of damage dice and unarmed strikes don't roll any damage dice, the effect would be limited only to situations where there is an additional bonus granted by a crit over and above that defined by the base rules.
Using it as an improvised weapon I still don't think, technically, would do so. This could be justified by the fact that the adamantine is used in armour to reinforce it against attacks by weapons, whereas in weapons it is used differently to enhance its ability to break objects.
To get the weapon benefits for either Adamantine or Silvered. It only requires a coating of it.
The mechanics (in-game terms) of striking someone with a weapon or an unarmed strike are exactly the same. The only difference is that one isn't considered a weapon.
It boils down to the fact the rules regarding unarmed strikes don't transfer well with the Unarmed Fighting Style or Martial Arts. You have trained to use your body as a weapon. But because the rules say your body is not a weapon you get no benefits from this training. It becomes an argument in semantics and technicalities that only exist because of this. I really wish WotC would fix this. It wouldn't cause any real imbalance if they did.
For the unarmed strike/coating/etc argument, I think we are coming down to realism vs mechanics. You could say that an unarmed strike from someone in full plate should do more damage than a person wearing no armour, because you are hitting them with the metal armour instead of just your hands/feet/head. The game doesn't work that way, though. Armour is armour, weapons are weapons. Your armour has no effect on your unarmed strikes unless, of course, the description of the armour specifically says it does. The description of Adamantine Armour doesn't say anything about having an effect on unarmed strikes.
If you want a realistic explanation, take the descriptions. The armour is reinforced with adamantine, whereas the weapons are coated with it. The reinforcement could be in many ways, and is not necessarily even applied to the surface of the armour: It could be ribbing on the inside, for instance. Reinforcing armour and coating weapons could well be completely different processes, and could even use different forms of adamantine (like different types of steel are used to make different things). This could well be why they produce different results.
You have a lot more justification for this if you go Path of the Battlerager barbarian, which specifically says you can attack with your armor. That kind of implies no one else does, regardless of the description of unarmed strikes (and even that wording doesn't explicitly convey any of the armor's magical properties to your attacks with that armor). If you're just looking for a way for Unarmed Fighting Style to be relevant past level 6 or so, at least there's Insignia of Claws and Eldritch Claw Tattoo.
I think we are coming down to realism vs mechanics.
We are indeed. One of the big things with D&D is being able to visualise what's happening around you. And I struggle visualising unarmed strikes using D&Ds mechanics. Because they spectacularly fail to line up with reality. (Yes... Magic and monsters aren't real either but I can imagine them fine because I've seen them in movies etc)
We take on the roles of able bodied humanoids (most of the time) that do can do the same things we can do if not better. Actually a lot better, they're faster, stronger, smarter etc. Yet the mechanics of the game says an unarmed fighter cannot use their other arm to punch someone until level 5?! (Ok... They increased the damage die to offset this) But stick a weapon in their hand and their other arm works fine. How would you even begin to justify that in game terms?
Monks have Martial Arts which takes away a lot of the issues that come along with unarmed fighting. Magic, using your other arm. The Unarmed Fighting Style does not have that. So you have to look at how things would work theoretically. But the mechanics of the game take all that away because of technicalities like your body is not a weapon.
I digress though... I have some issues with the rules that govern unarmed strikes and they've come to the fervour with this new fighting style.
I do like your explanation in regards to the armour though. Even if I don't agree with it ;)
I think some of this may be down to visualising an unarmed strike as a single strike. I can't remember where I read it, but given we are talking of a period of 6 seconds, an attack with a weapon or unarmed strike could represent multiple "real" attacks, some of which actually cause "damage", some wear down the resilience of the opponent, some of which clash against armour or are parried, and some of which just miss. Unarmed strikes could also be coming from both hands.
So, it is not that you can only punch once in 6 seconds until you reach level 5, it's that at level 5 you gain the skill to potentially do twice the damage with them over the course of that 6 seconds.
You have a lot more justification for this if you go Path of the Battlerager barbarian, which specifically says you can attack with your armor. That kind of implies no one else does, regardless of the description of unarmed strikes (and even that wording doesn't explicitly convey any of the armor's magical properties to your attacks with that armor). If you're just looking for a way for Unarmed Fighting Style to be relevant past level 6 or so, at least there's Insignia of Claws and Eldritch Claw Tattoo.
This is true. Or I could chop off both my arms and replace them with Arcane Propulsion Armx2
So my question... If an unarmed fighter (with Unarmed Fighting Style) is wearing Adamantine Armor (Full Plate). Do they get the benefits that come with Adamantine weapons as detailed in XgtE, when they attack with their unarmed strikes?
You already seemed to answer your own question by stating that by RAW this does not work, since armor is not a weapon (unless you're trying to use part of it as an improvised weapon). However, much like Urth mentioned earlier, some DMs might be willing to allow it when used in unique and fun ways. That's supposed to be part of the fun of playing D&D and having a DM to make those calls, right? So you can do something outside the normal to accomplish interesting things.
However, as a DM, I wouldn't allow an Unarmed Fight Style to constantly use this tactic without doing something to make it much more feasible. A once (or twice) incident is one thing because you're being creative to get through a situation. Wanting to optimize off of the fact that your armor is a special material is another matter... Personally, I would probably work with a player in this situation to make some sort of modification to their armor to better allow for this to be a thing. Somewhat like having spikes added to the armor, you pay X-amount of gold to have your gloves/gauntlets and boots plated to allow the "unarmed" strikes to have the special metal incorporated into the attack. Suppose it becomes a little questionable about whether having your armor included into the attack is still unarmed, but you're not gaining any weapon damage per se, so I would say that it could still work.
Personally, I would probably work with a player in this situation to make some sort of modification to their armor to better allow for this to be a thing. Somewhat like having spikes added to the armor, you pay X-amount of gold to have your gloves/gauntlets and boots plated to allow the "unarmed" strikes to have the special metal incorporated into the attack.
I like this idea, it makes sense. Probably not the full 500 gp as for a weapon, but maybe something between 100 and 300 gp to modify the gauntlets etc to supply the benefits of Adamantine weapons to unarmed strikes.
So my question... If an unarmed fighter (with Unarmed Fighting Style) is wearing Adamantine Armor (Full Plate). Do they get the benefits that come with Adamantine weapons as detailed in XgtE, when they attack with their unarmed strikes?
You already seemed to answer your own question by stating that by RAW this does not work, since armor is not a weapon (unless you're trying to use part of it as an improvised weapon). However, much like Urth mentioned earlier, some DMs might be willing to allow it when used in unique and fun ways. That's supposed to be part of the fun of playing D&D and having a DM to make those calls, right? So you can do something outside the normal to accomplish interesting things.
However, as a DM, I wouldn't allow an Unarmed Fight Style to constantly use this tactic without doing something to make it much more feasible. A once (or twice) incident is one thing because you're being creative to get through a situation. Wanting to optimize off of the fact that your armor is a special material is another matter... Personally, I would probably work with a player in this situation to make some sort of modification to their armor to better allow for this to be a thing. Somewhat like having spikes added to the armor, you pay X-amount of gold to have your gloves/gauntlets and boots plated to allow the "unarmed" strikes to have the special metal incorporated into the attack. Suppose it becomes a little questionable about whether having your armor included into the attack is still unarmed, but you're not gaining any weapon damage per se, so I would say that it could still work.
Yeah... I just wanted to know people's thoughts on it.
Monks get to bypass a lot of the issues regular unarmed fighters will come across. Thanks to Martial Arts & Ki-Empowered Strikes.
With the lack of items available to unarmed fighters to help augment their regular attacks. I have been looking at ways to see if I could find a "bypass" for the regular fighter that works without breaking the game too much.
Personally, I would probably work with a player in this situation to make some sort of modification to their armor to better allow for this to be a thing. Somewhat like having spikes added to the armor, you pay X-amount of gold to have your gloves/gauntlets and boots plated to allow the "unarmed" strikes to have the special metal incorporated into the attack.
I like this idea, it makes sense. Probably not the full 500 gp as for a weapon, but maybe something between 100 and 300 gp to modify the gauntlets etc to supply the benefits of Adamantine weapons to unarmed strikes.
Thanks! My initial thought was something like a very toned-down version of brass knuckles. The ultimate idea being that your adding small metallic discs or studs (i.e., adamantine, silver, or otherwise) to the knuckles so that the metal is present without being enough to actually increase the damage being delivered. Would be fairly inexpensive since you only need a little bit of the metal, but it wouldn't just be a completely free benefit either (unless it's just a one time deal).
I think there are many areas like this in the rules. They were overlooked (purposely or not), and that left them mechanically sub-optimal. This meant that few played them, so WoTC didn't bother improving them when they improved everything else, which left them even more sub-optimal.
Unarmed fighting is one of these (for everyone but monks, as you said). Grappling is another, and IMHO Two Weapon Fighting is another. They are all builds which, mechanically, are beaten by the other options the vast majority of the time (if not always).
That said, I often think that martial characters in general are overlooked in favour of their hand-waving nonsense-spouting magical cousins most of the time :P
Edit: In the list above, I mean making a build which specialises in the things mentioned, e.g. building a grappling specialist.
Monks get to bypass a lot of the issues regular unarmed fighters will come across. Thanks to Martial Arts & Ki-Empowered Strikes.
This is mostly true, but monks are basically designed to be an unarmed fighting class. Martial Arts and Ki-empowered strikes are there to help counterbalance with the fact that monks are limited to very few weapons and basically no armor or shields (unless they want to lose their material arts abilities). A 1st-level fighter with the Unarmed Fighting style could potentially do more damage (i.e., 1d8 + STR mod.) while wearing full plate armor...whereas the 1st-level monk is dealing 1d4 + mod. damage and must rely on good DEX and WIS bonuses to have a decent AC to avoid attacks.
Not really an apples to apple review, and the monk will ultimately surpass the fighter in unarmed fighting, because the monk should be better at the thing that they're specializing at. The fighter spent their time learning how to use weapons and armor and other various techniques, which is why they're a fighter versus a monk. So, to me at least, the Unarmed Fighting style is rather limited on the fighter class, except when the fighter doesn't have weapons readily available. Otherwise, that character should be using the weapons they learned about or have taken the path of the monk instead.
Having said all of that, I like your concept about the fighter trying to use their armor (or similar) to help with their unarmed attacks, because they are a fighter who is accustomed to using weapons. Monk truly is using their whole body as one weapon, but the fighter uses aspects of their armor to help their attack. It's part of why my examples above use the idea that the fighter would upgrade his gloves/boots/etc. to allow them to better augment his otherwise unarmed attacks.
I think there are many areas like this in the rules. They were overlooked (purposely or not), and that left them mechanically sub-optimal. This meant that few played them, so WoTC didn't bother improving them when they improved everything else, which left them even more sub-optimal.
Unarmed fighting is one of these (for everyone but monks, as you said). Grappling is another, and IMHO Two Weapon Fighting is another. They are all builds which, mechanically, are beaten by the other options the vast majority of the time (if not always).
My only issue with grappling is; in order to get the bonus action grapple, from things like Tavern Brawler. You are required to hit your target first.
Conversely... If I were to take a piece of that armour off and use it as an improvised weapon. With RAW, it would get the benefits.
I don't agree with this.
XGE says that only melee weapons and ammunition get the perk from being coated (nothing about improvised weapons).
PHG says "Often, an improvised weapon is similar to an actual weapon and can be treated as such. For example, a table leg is akin to a club. " ...but then it goes on to say "An object that bears no resemblance to a weapon deals 1d4 damage ". I think when it comes to using your armor pieces as weapons, that second sentence makes it pretty clear that improvised does not equal melee.
So if you're in a dungeon and decide to tell your party to take a break and hang for the 5 minutes it takes to doff you adamantine chest plate, so you can smash it against a door to see if crits....it does 1d4 damage...that's it. Then, of course, you get to spend the next 10 minutes putting your armor back on.
So my question... If an unarmed fighter (with Unarmed Fighting Style) is wearing Adamantine Armour (Full Plate). Do they get the benefits that come with Adamantine weapons as detailed in XgtE, when they attack with their unarmed strikes?
As a follow up... If the fighter went the extra mile and got the armour coated in silver. Would these attacks ignore the damage immunities and resistances from nonmagical weapons?
If we were to go by RAW the answer to these is no. Because your body is not technically a weapon and neither is the armour.
Conversely... If I were to take a piece of that armour off and use it as an improvised weapon. With RAW, it would get the benefits.
Thoughts?
Edit: Added the fighting style.
I think, by the rules (RAW and RAI) no you wouldn't. The armour isn't a weapon, and (except where explicitly stated) makes no difference to your unarmed strikes. Even if it were allowed to count, the bonus is that it counts as a critical hit against objects. As a critical hit doubles the number of damage dice and unarmed strikes don't roll any damage dice, the effect would be limited only to situations where there is an additional bonus granted by a crit over and above that defined by the base rules.
Using it as an improvised weapon I still don't think, technically, would do so. This could be justified by the fact that the adamantine is used in armour to reinforce it against attacks by weapons, whereas in weapons it is used differently to enhance its ability to break objects.
As a DM, though, I would consider giving a bonus of some description if it were used in a manner I found creative, fun, and/or good thematic roleplay.
Note, just in case you missed it, an adamantine weapon only has any extra effect on objects, not creatures. Only mentioning this because I missed it when I first read the description and I feel it is very easy to miss.
I did not miss this. I perhaps should have included that the unarmed fighter took the unarmed fighting style to make it clearer. I'll edit my post to reflect that.
Fair enough. With that there would be an advantage to it, but as previously mentioned I don't think the rules support your unarmed strikes gaining a bonus.
The DM can always overrule this and provide a bonus. I don't think there would be anything wrong in doing so. The effect is not likely to be overpowered, as it is only against objects, but it would definitely be up to an individual DM.
Well, it does bypass resistances and immunizes of golems and some other constructs, so that's an effect on creatures.
To get the weapon benefits for either Adamantine or Silvered. It only requires a coating of it.
The mechanics (in-game terms) of striking someone with a weapon or an unarmed strike are exactly the same. The only difference is that one isn't considered a weapon.
It boils down to the fact the rules regarding unarmed strikes don't transfer well with the Unarmed Fighting Style or Martial Arts. You have trained to use your body as a weapon. But because the rules say your body is not a weapon you get no benefits from this training. It becomes an argument in semantics and technicalities that only exist because of this. I really wish WotC would fix this. It wouldn't cause any real imbalance if they did.
I'd missed the damage to golems etc., good catch.
For the unarmed strike/coating/etc argument, I think we are coming down to realism vs mechanics. You could say that an unarmed strike from someone in full plate should do more damage than a person wearing no armour, because you are hitting them with the metal armour instead of just your hands/feet/head. The game doesn't work that way, though. Armour is armour, weapons are weapons. Your armour has no effect on your unarmed strikes unless, of course, the description of the armour specifically says it does. The description of Adamantine Armour doesn't say anything about having an effect on unarmed strikes.
If you want a realistic explanation, take the descriptions. The armour is reinforced with adamantine, whereas the weapons are coated with it. The reinforcement could be in many ways, and is not necessarily even applied to the surface of the armour: It could be ribbing on the inside, for instance. Reinforcing armour and coating weapons could well be completely different processes, and could even use different forms of adamantine (like different types of steel are used to make different things). This could well be why they produce different results.
You have a lot more justification for this if you go Path of the Battlerager barbarian, which specifically says you can attack with your armor. That kind of implies no one else does, regardless of the description of unarmed strikes (and even that wording doesn't explicitly convey any of the armor's magical properties to your attacks with that armor). If you're just looking for a way for Unarmed Fighting Style to be relevant past level 6 or so, at least there's Insignia of Claws and Eldritch Claw Tattoo.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
We are indeed. One of the big things with D&D is being able to visualise what's happening around you. And I struggle visualising unarmed strikes using D&Ds mechanics. Because they spectacularly fail to line up with reality. (Yes... Magic and monsters aren't real either but I can imagine them fine because I've seen them in movies etc)
We take on the roles of able bodied humanoids (most of the time) that do can do the same things we can do if not better. Actually a lot better, they're faster, stronger, smarter etc. Yet the mechanics of the game says an unarmed fighter cannot use their other arm to punch someone until level 5?! (Ok... They increased the damage die to offset this) But stick a weapon in their hand and their other arm works fine. How would you even begin to justify that in game terms?
Monks have Martial Arts which takes away a lot of the issues that come along with unarmed fighting. Magic, using your other arm. The Unarmed Fighting Style does not have that. So you have to look at how things would work theoretically. But the mechanics of the game take all that away because of technicalities like your body is not a weapon.
I digress though... I have some issues with the rules that govern unarmed strikes and they've come to the fervour with this new fighting style.
I do like your explanation in regards to the armour though. Even if I don't agree with it ;)
I think some of this may be down to visualising an unarmed strike as a single strike. I can't remember where I read it, but given we are talking of a period of 6 seconds, an attack with a weapon or unarmed strike could represent multiple "real" attacks, some of which actually cause "damage", some wear down the resilience of the opponent, some of which clash against armour or are parried, and some of which just miss. Unarmed strikes could also be coming from both hands.
So, it is not that you can only punch once in 6 seconds until you reach level 5, it's that at level 5 you gain the skill to potentially do twice the damage with them over the course of that 6 seconds.
I do get that. To me though, it just feels like a cop out. I'm an unarmed fighter. I want to punch things. And the more I punch things, the better. :D
This is true. Or I could chop off both my arms and replace them with Arcane Propulsion Arm x2
You already seemed to answer your own question by stating that by RAW this does not work, since armor is not a weapon (unless you're trying to use part of it as an improvised weapon). However, much like Urth mentioned earlier, some DMs might be willing to allow it when used in unique and fun ways. That's supposed to be part of the fun of playing D&D and having a DM to make those calls, right? So you can do something outside the normal to accomplish interesting things.
However, as a DM, I wouldn't allow an Unarmed Fight Style to constantly use this tactic without doing something to make it much more feasible. A once (or twice) incident is one thing because you're being creative to get through a situation. Wanting to optimize off of the fact that your armor is a special material is another matter... Personally, I would probably work with a player in this situation to make some sort of modification to their armor to better allow for this to be a thing. Somewhat like having spikes added to the armor, you pay X-amount of gold to have your gloves/gauntlets and boots plated to allow the "unarmed" strikes to have the special metal incorporated into the attack. Suppose it becomes a little questionable about whether having your armor included into the attack is still unarmed, but you're not gaining any weapon damage per se, so I would say that it could still work.
I like this idea, it makes sense. Probably not the full 500 gp as for a weapon, but maybe something between 100 and 300 gp to modify the gauntlets etc to supply the benefits of Adamantine weapons to unarmed strikes.
Yeah... I just wanted to know people's thoughts on it.
Monks get to bypass a lot of the issues regular unarmed fighters will come across. Thanks to Martial Arts & Ki-Empowered Strikes.
With the lack of items available to unarmed fighters to help augment their regular attacks. I have been looking at ways to see if I could find a "bypass" for the regular fighter that works without breaking the game too much.
Thanks! My initial thought was something like a very toned-down version of brass knuckles. The ultimate idea being that your adding small metallic discs or studs (i.e., adamantine, silver, or otherwise) to the knuckles so that the metal is present without being enough to actually increase the damage being delivered. Would be fairly inexpensive since you only need a little bit of the metal, but it wouldn't just be a completely free benefit either (unless it's just a one time deal).
I think there are many areas like this in the rules. They were overlooked (purposely or not), and that left them mechanically sub-optimal. This meant that few played them, so WoTC didn't bother improving them when they improved everything else, which left them even more sub-optimal.
Unarmed fighting is one of these (for everyone but monks, as you said). Grappling is another, and IMHO Two Weapon Fighting is another. They are all builds which, mechanically, are beaten by the other options the vast majority of the time (if not always).
That said, I often think that martial characters in general are overlooked in favour of their hand-waving nonsense-spouting magical cousins most of the time :P
Edit: In the list above, I mean making a build which specialises in the things mentioned, e.g. building a grappling specialist.
This is mostly true, but monks are basically designed to be an unarmed fighting class. Martial Arts and Ki-empowered strikes are there to help counterbalance with the fact that monks are limited to very few weapons and basically no armor or shields (unless they want to lose their material arts abilities). A 1st-level fighter with the Unarmed Fighting style could potentially do more damage (i.e., 1d8 + STR mod.) while wearing full plate armor...whereas the 1st-level monk is dealing 1d4 + mod. damage and must rely on good DEX and WIS bonuses to have a decent AC to avoid attacks.
Not really an apples to apple review, and the monk will ultimately surpass the fighter in unarmed fighting, because the monk should be better at the thing that they're specializing at. The fighter spent their time learning how to use weapons and armor and other various techniques, which is why they're a fighter versus a monk. So, to me at least, the Unarmed Fighting style is rather limited on the fighter class, except when the fighter doesn't have weapons readily available. Otherwise, that character should be using the weapons they learned about or have taken the path of the monk instead.
Having said all of that, I like your concept about the fighter trying to use their armor (or similar) to help with their unarmed attacks, because they are a fighter who is accustomed to using weapons. Monk truly is using their whole body as one weapon, but the fighter uses aspects of their armor to help their attack. It's part of why my examples above use the idea that the fighter would upgrade his gloves/boots/etc. to allow them to better augment his otherwise unarmed attacks.
My only issue with grappling is; in order to get the bonus action grapple, from things like Tavern Brawler. You are required to hit your target first.
I don't agree with this.
XGE says that only melee weapons and ammunition get the perk from being coated (nothing about improvised weapons).
PHG says "Often, an improvised weapon is similar to an actual weapon and can be treated as such. For example, a table leg is akin to a club. " ...but then it goes on to say "An object that bears no resemblance to a weapon deals 1d4 damage ". I think when it comes to using your armor pieces as weapons, that second sentence makes it pretty clear that improvised does not equal melee.
So if you're in a dungeon and decide to tell your party to take a break and hang for the 5 minutes it takes to doff you adamantine chest plate, so you can smash it against a door to see if crits....it does 1d4 damage...that's it. Then, of course, you get to spend the next 10 minutes putting your armor back on.
Guide to the Five Factions (PWYW)
Deck of Decks