PDA

View Full Version : New Feat idea/questions



WildBill
2006-03-20, 09:52 PM
I've never made a new feat and I don't have a great knowledge of 3.5 rules but here is my idea:
A feat for monk's and light weapon users that allows for the DEX bonus to be used for damage instead of strength.
The idea is that since the speed of an impact has a major impact on the force of the impact. Martial artists train their bodies to use only certain muscle groups when striking to increase the power of the strike. I think it should also apply to light weapons, because they don't take much strength to use, whereas doing so with a heavy weapon takes a great deal of strength.

Person_Man
2006-03-20, 09:59 PM
My personal opinion is that would be a really bad idea. You can already use Weapon Finesse or Intuitive Attack to switch out your Dex or Wis for your to hit bonus on certain weapons. Switching out Dex for Str for damage as well essentially allows a monk to dump Str entirely. Two feats could buy you 10 points or more of stats, especially considering the fact that monks rarely carry much equiptment.

Just my two cents.

WildBill
2006-03-20, 10:01 PM
I thought it would probably be overpowered as I phrased it, but I do think that something should enable a character like that to use speed based damage.

Catch
2006-03-20, 10:03 PM
I agree with Person_Man. Combine that with Vow of Poverty.... *shudders*

Sadly, I do believe there is a feat that lets you do so, though I'm totally unsure of name of the feat, or the book it's in. Which makes me totally useless by default. I'm pretty sure there is one, however.

Raolin_Fenix
2006-03-20, 10:13 PM
Just for the sake of argument, I'm going to throw out there the idea that monks should be able to drop Strength entirely (if they're willing to suck up two feats for it).

This is based on the fact that monks have so many required stats as it is. They need a lot of strength for their damage and attack, they need a lot of dex for their AC, they need a fair amount of Con so that they can stand on the front lines without dying on the first lucky critical, they need a lot of intelligence so that they can Hide, Move Silently, and do other things with some degree of success, and they need plenty of Wisdom so that they can boost their AC and power their monk attacks. The only one they can afford to drop is Charisma.

This is in contrast to Fighters/Barbarians, who basically only need either strength or dex, and can even get by without Con because of their high hitdie; Wizards/Psions, who only need intelligence; Sorcerors, Warlocks, and Bards, who basically only need charisma; and Clerics, who can get by with just a good Wisdom score. Not to mention most of the other classes; I can't think of one class besides the Monk that *needs* more than two (or can be quite comfortable with three) high ability scores, but the monk needs five of the six.

Arguably, they could drop Dex if they're going to boost their Wisdom instead. But there are any number of problems with that, like skill checks that need high dex if they're going to be even remotely useful.

tgva8889
2006-03-20, 10:21 PM
Wizards also tend to need high Constitution scores, and depending on your type of Wizard, Dexterity or Strength could be good. Same for Sorcerers. Warlocks want TONS of Dexterity so their weapon of choice hits sometimes, Bards usually want Constitution, Dexterity, and Strength as well as Charisma, Clerics want Strength as well as Wisdom, Druids are the same, though they want Dexterity and Charisma more than Strength, Paladins want Strength, Wisdom, and Charisma, and Rangers want Strength, Dexterity, Consitution, and Wisdom, and most want a somewhat good Charisma score also, as it helps with Handle Animal and Wild Empathy. Rogues probably want high Dexterity and some mixture of Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma, depending on their skill choices.

In other words, I disagree completely.

I do in fact wish for this feat to exist. It would allow for another archetype of Fighter completely. My Ranger would love this feat, as well as my Monks and Rogues and what not. But it would NOT be the type of feat everyone would want. Just one that would help create a whole new ballgame.

Starbuck_II
2006-03-20, 10:26 PM
I've never made a new feat and I don't have a great knowledge of 3.5 rules but here is my idea:
A feat for monk's and light weapon users that allows for the DEX bonus to be used for damage instead of strength.
The idea is that since the speed of an impact has a major impact on the force of the impact. Martial artists train their bodies to use only certain muscle groups when striking to increase the power of the strike. I think it should also apply to light weapons, because they don't take much strength to use, whereas doing so with a heavy weapon takes a great deal of strength.

Maybe like this:

Impact Speed [General]: Your fighting style allows you to strike faster than a bullet.
Prerequisites: Flurry of Blows, Dex 15+, Weapon Finesis
Benefit: You may use your Dexterity bonuses for damage instead of strength. You still take Str penalties for low Strength score.
Normal You use Str for damage with melee weapons.

So you need at least 10 strength or you take strength penalties. More balanced in point buy since you must spend 2 points still.

Raolin_Fenix
2006-03-20, 10:31 PM
Yes, yes, everyone has secondary things that they'd be plenty happy with, but the operative word in most of that post is "want." :P

Everyone likes Con, for example. I've never hit that point where I was like, "Man, I wish I didn't have so many hitpoints." My point is that if you play intelligently, while at the same time making use of most or all of a given class's abilities, most of the classes *need* only one high attribute. A very few *require* two, and by the time you get to three, you're out of the realm of necessity and into the realm of comfort.

Except for monks.

Now, the counter to my own argument that springs to mind is that monks aren't intended to do a massive amount of damage on their hits; they're intended to do a middling amount of damage with a lot of hits. Same reason they're stuck with medium attack-bonuses instead of getting a fighter-sized BAB. But I think two feats might be a good enough price to pay. This is just a personal judgement call on my part.

The_Logic_Ninja
2006-03-20, 10:37 PM
That feat would be enormously overpowered. I can't think of any rogue, swashbuckler, monk, etc. I'd play whom I *wouldn't* want to take it for.

WildBill
2006-03-20, 10:37 PM
Thanks for the feedback so far everybody. I like the idea of a STR penalty still applying, because it stops someone from playing a monk with a str of like 5 because they dont need equipment. But like I said I have seen (and felt) martial artists who couldn't bench 200lbs hit very hard.
And it gives monks more options which I think is good.

Starbuck_II
2006-03-20, 10:53 PM
That feat would be enormously overpowered. I can't think of any rogue, swashbuckler, monk, etc. I'd play whom I *wouldn't* want to take it for.
Multi-class Monks right? The feat would require Flurry of Blows asa prerequisite as the OP said a feat for monks.

The_Logic_Ninja
2006-03-20, 11:07 PM
Multi-class Monks right? The feat would require Flurry of Blows asa prerequisite as the OP said a feat for monks.


Yes, multi-class, or with a monk-like PrC (like Shou Disciple) that gets Flurry.

A monk/swashbuckler/duellist would be incredible with this.

WildBill
2006-03-20, 11:07 PM
The multiclass monk thing does raise a good balance point though, a single level of monk would allow a rogue to take this feat and use it with a monk weapon to deal an obscene amount of damage. And like I said, it takes a fair amount of training in real life to learn to do this, so maybe make it: allows a monk to add +1 damage per monk level up to max DEX bonus, STR penalty still aplies.

The_Logic_Ninja
2006-03-20, 11:13 PM
That's a little more reasonable, but it just means that the brokenness is now monk-only and waits until higher levels.
Monks already have nice enough damage (2d10 fists, eventually).

WildBill
2006-03-21, 12:11 AM
Eventually is the key word. A fighter at 20th level is doing WAY more damage with a greatsword. Figure you have a +5 greatsword, +4 from greater weapon specialization,and you have the fighter doing 2d6+9+STR compared to the monk doing 2d10+STR with a (most likely) much lower STR. So the fighter does 11-21+STR, while the monk does 2-20+STR. And the fighter will have more BAB to put into power attack. So the monk gets 3 attacks at +15 vs a +20 and a +15. With the ACs of 20th level opponents, the higher BAB, and the ability to make a single +20 attack and move makes a big difference compared to moving and making 1 attack at +15.
The lower in level the greater the disparity. So I feel the monk needs something to help close the gap, especially at lower levels.

The_Logic_Ninja
2006-03-21, 12:22 AM
On the other hand, the monk gets mobility, AC, excellent saves, spell resitance, etc. etc. Monks get pretty damn great at higher levels. This is... pretty over the top.

Person_Man
2006-03-21, 12:33 AM
Eventually is the key word. A fighter at 20th level is doing WAY more damage with a greatsword. Figure you have a +5 greatsword, +4 from greater weapon specialization,and you have the fighter doing 2d6+9+STR compared to the monk doing 2d10+STR with a (most likely) much lower STR. So the fighter does 11-21+STR, while the monk does 2-20+STR. And the fighter will have more BAB to put into power attack. So the monk gets 3 attacks at +15 vs a +20 and a +15. With the ACs of 20th level opponents, the higher BAB, and the ability to make a single +20 attack and move makes a big difference compared to moving and making 1 attack at +15.
The lower in level the greater the disparity. So I feel the monk needs something to help close the gap, especially at lower levels.

Except the Monk also gets extra attacks, better skills, and more special abilities then you can shake a stick at. A fighter is "supposed" to do more damage. He's a fighter. Monks are supposed to flurry/trip/stun/grab and do lots of other cool manuevers, plus he gets fast movement and special abilities/immunities, that would be much more difficult or impossible for a Fighter to buy with feats. When Class A can do all the stuff that Class B is intended to do best BETTER, then something is broke.

Also, I agree with Logic Ninja, which is interesting, since we almost always disagree for some reason. A Monk/Swashbuckler/Duelist with your theoretical feat and the Carmendine Monk Feat (Champions of Valor - lets you use Int instead of Wis for AC bonus, and lets you count one Monk ability as 2 levels higher) could Max out Dex and Int, dump Str Wis and Cha, have an AC of 40+, and get his Dex AND Int bonuses to damage. Obscene.

tgva8889
2006-03-21, 12:39 AM
You could change the feat requirements. To turn it into a Monk-only feat.

Special: You may only take this feat if you do not have levels in any class other than Monk and prestige classes.

That could be worded better, but it gets the needed information across. You all have problems with this being on a non-monk, so be it.

And for the record, technically no class *needs* any high scores. You could have a 12-intelligence Wizard. Just like you could have a 12-dexterity monk. They just might not be nearly as good. Also, because a monk has ALL those skills, you can mix and match. The super dextrious monk, the wise monk, whatever. An un-intelligent wizard is useless. An unwise monk is not. They still get benifits even without the high wisdom. An unintelligent wizard does nothing. A monk with a strength of 8 doesn't suck, because they get weapon finesse and nothing is really wrong. You still (eventually) get the 2d10 or whatever fists.

Ted_Stryker
2006-03-21, 12:49 AM
You could change the feat requirements. To turn it into a Monk-only feat.

Special: You may only take this feat if you do not have levels in any class other than Monk and prestige classes.

That could be worded better, but it gets the needed information across. You all have problems with this being on a non-monk, so be it.
What happens in the case of multi-classing after taking the feat? For this to really do what you intend, I think you would also have to stipulate that any non-Monk/PrC levels (EDIT--taken after taking the feat) mean you lose the benefits of the feat.

WildBill
2006-03-21, 12:51 AM
What happens in the case of multi-classing after taking the feat? For this to really do what you intend, I think you would also have to stipulate that any non-Monk/PrC levels (EDIT--taken after taking the feat) mean you lose the benefits of the feat.
That sounds like a better way to ward off abuse.

tgva8889
2006-03-21, 12:51 AM
I thought that if you didn't qualify for a feat, you lose the benifits. Re-worded:

Special: You may only use the benifits of this feat as long as your only levels are in the Monk class or prestige classes.