Talk:Falcon Punch (3.5e Feat)

From D&D Wiki

Jump to: navigation, search

Not Bad[edit]

But it should be doing a ton of damage. Maybe even scaling. --Genowhirl 12:55, 1 May 2008 (MDT)

I agree. --Green Dragon 13:28, 1 May 2008 (MDT)

Needs moar blowing the universe up. --Shiranui Genkigami

A less obvious version - might actually be able to slip this by your DM[edit]

Fist of the Flaming Raptor [General][edit]

Unleashing a secret power known only to a select few, your roar of fury heralds the wrath channeled into your mighty fist. Wreathed in flames of pure, primal rage, the strike sends your unfortunate target flying.

Prerequisites: Power Attack, Improved Unarmed Attack, Stunning Fist

Benefit: As a full-round action that provokes attacks of opportunity, you may expend one or more uses of your stunning fist to make a single attack. This attack has a required verbal component, any loud shout of your choosing. On a successful hit, the attack deals (in addition to normal unarmed strike damage) 1d12 fire damage per use of stunning fist expended, stuns the target, and knocks the target 5' away from you per use of stunning fist expended, dealing falling damage if appropriate.


If we remove one line there shouldn't be a problem for having this page. I am against the deletion.-- Irykyl 08:17, 5 April 2012 (MDT)

I am also against the removal of the page, and even against the removal of the abortion effect, regardless of how laughable it is (It is laughable, not unusable, as we have actual pages for pregnancy buried in the wiki, here). No editor has the right to impose their moral or social views and expectations on the content of this site, nor censor it by those views alone. We have gods and classes who dedicated to genocide, whole guilds of murderous and treacherous characters, and even touch on other sensitive social issues in various pages across this site, and yet an abortion brings concerns regarding whether it is "family-friendly"? If we have to, we should mark the page with a disclaimer, similar but not necessarily limited to the "adult content" template, in order to warn users and cover our social obligations, but not engage in censorship on the grounds of the morality of the subject, itself. This is a wiki; It is meant to be encyclopedic in nature, and we owe it to our users to allow the presentation of any ideology as long as they adhere to our policies and are feasible in use. Jwguy 23:48, 5 April 2012 (MDT)
I'll just have to do my best to ignore it then. It's just that my wife is pregnant at the moment, and this article's detailed presence on my favourite website is making me unwell. It's not the subject matter itself, but the the tone in which its presented. I don't think an "adult content" disclaimer is suitable, since we're dealing with immaturity. How far can someone push this? "lol if you take my feat you get +100XP for every 5-year old girl you rape in the eye socket you do 4d6 damage if her parents are forced to watch"? That reads like my old school jotter. It's embarrasing. Anyway, carry on. Marasmusine 03:37, 6 April 2012 (MDT)
Hopefully, no-one will use this feat to falcon punch your wife, pregnant or not. And regarding the template, I meant something similar to it, warning that it "contains references that may be considered controversial and possibly offensive to some audiences" but doesn't reflect the views of the site as a whole. In reply to the "How far" question, it is the same as always on a wiki: As long as it adheres to policy and the consensus of the community allows it, then it stays. Besides, the April Fools tag essentially celebrates the ridiculousness of the article, as it does with so many, making its status as jotter the point.
That said, if you're withdrawing your objection, the previous consensus is once more established. Jwguy 04:17, 6 April 2012 (MDT)
Yeah, I've had my vent, thanks, I'll remove the deletion proposal. But I stand by my opinion that this reflects poorly on the hobby. Marasmusine 04:29, 6 April 2012 (MDT)
Maybe we should link to something like [1] so that people who haven't heard of the meme won't take this out of context. Marasmusine 04:32, 6 April 2012 (MDT)
I would support the inclusion of such a link, and I believe it will keep those outside of the know, within. I'll go ahead and add it. Jwguy 13:16, 6 April 2012 (MDT)
I am of the opinion that we should remove all the abilities from the pregnancy one down. They are all not funny, add nothing to this page, and just serve the purpose of getting readers angry. This page is about the video game punch, not some deep psychological questions about reproduction. --Green Dragon (talk) 13:54, 1 August 2017 (MDT)
Home of user-generated,
homebrew pages!