[3.5] Unarmed Feat [PEACH]

[Temotei]

One-Two Punch [General]
You can quickly string together unarmed attacks, seemingly blending them into one.
Prerequisites: Str 13, Dex 15, Improved Unarmed Strike, Stunning Fist, base attack bonus +6 (or flurry of blows class feature)
Benefits: When you make a full-attack action while unarmed, you add a cumulative +1 bonus to damage and attack rolls per strike after the first. These bonuses continue to stack as long as your attacks are focused on one opponent, and no attacks miss. A character with this feat who hits an opponent with all attacks in a round would have damage and attack bonuses equal to +0/+1/+2/+3. The quickness of these strikes causes the enemy to be dazed if two or more attacks hit, unless they make a successful Fortitude saving throw of DC 10 + 1/2 BAB + Str modifier (if you are a monk, you may use Wis instead). For each attack that hits after the second, the DC goes up by 1. Mindless creatures are immune to the daze effect.
Special: A fighter may select One-Two Punch as one of their fighter bonus feats.
This feat only applies to unarmed attacks--no natural weapons (except the monk's unarmed attacks, which are sometimes counted as such).

[elliott20]

is doing so a standard action, a full action, or something you can tack onto a single attack?

[XxScarab]

What I could see working out well with this is rather than the damage improving by base, set it so each consecutive attack deals a cumulative +1 damage

In essence, a 20th level character with 5 attacks would deal a +1/+2/+3/+4/+5 damage off each attack in a full round action. To me, this is a better process with character's that aren't fighters. Makes it more available to characters of more than the melee classes with very little work. Also, the damage should reset each round in order to maintain game balance. As for the dazed status effect, set it so if they connect all attacks they make in a round (but if not, then the dazed should not apply or to a lesser version such as stunned or something else), they should have to make a static DC such as, STR + BAB + 1 for each successful attack landed in that action. Just my thought on it.

[elliott20]

I personally feel that this is basically the "snap kick" feat from ToB but not as clearly written.

the rules governing how this feat functions needs to be cleaned up or else you end up with a feat that ends up muddling up the ruling.

[Temotei]

I personally feel that this is basically the "snap kick" feat from ToB but not as clearly written.

There's some difference. Reread the entry for Snap Kick, then reread the new version of this, and tell me what you think. Suggestions are greatly appreciated. Also, I agree that it was poorly written. It should be better now.



is doing so a standard action, a full action, or something you can tack onto a single attack?

Please read the feat.


...lesser version such as stunned or something else

Advice taken on your points other than stunning. I'm still revising the daze DC.

EDIT: Now, if all attacks hit, they have to make a save or be dazed. If not all of the attacks hit, then they're dazzled unless they make the same save. Thoughts?

[Baron Corm]

The feat as you have it now says nothing about requiring you to strike unarmed :smallbiggrin:

The save DC you made is a little weird. (10 + 1/2 BAB + Dexterity modifier + number of attacks) would be more standard.

As for balance, it's adding an average of 2.5 to attack, so that portion is about 2.5x as good as Weapon Focus. The dazing effect is a nice touch and I think it's a balanced feat.

I don't think you should make creatures immune to critical hits immune to the daze. Any creatures who deserve to be immune to dazing already have that listed in their stat block.

Dazzling is a very weak condition, and it makes hitting with all 4 attacks a bit less special, so I would just drop that.

[Temotei]

The feat as you have it now says nothing about requiring you to strike unarmed :smallbiggrin:

The save DC you made is a little weird. (10 + 1/2 BAB + Dexterity modifier + number of attacks) would be more standard.

As for balance, it's adding an average of 2.5 to attack, so that portion is about 2.5x as good as Weapon Focus. The dazing effect is a nice touch and I think it's a balanced feat.

Thanks much. I accidentally deleted the requirement to be unarmed when I edited the feat. :smallsmile: Makes me think of Lightning Fists.

Thank you very much for solving that DC problem. It makes me feel much better to know it's fixed...

Cool. Baron Corm thinks it's a balanced feat. :smallbiggrin: Woot! I'm moving up!



Dazzling is a very weak condition, and it makes hitting with all 4 attacks a bit less special, so I would just drop that.

The dazzling was added because of a previous suggestion. I'll remove it for now. And probably forever, unless someone comes up with a good reason to keep it.


I don't think you should make creatures immune to critical hits immune to the daze. Any creatures who deserve to be immune to dazing already have that listed in their stat block.

I needed that input. :smallsmile:

Also, I just thought of this. Should there be a requirement for BAB? I'm thinking not, but it would fit with the fluff I put in there (stringing attacks).

[Icewalker]

Oooh, yeah, if there isn't a BAB requirement then it can be taken at a very low level, and you get people forcing saves vs. daze whenever their 'full attack' of one attack hits. It should require at least +6 BAB so you can't do it with just one attack, probably. Usually people will have it that BAB anyways, as it requires several feats for prerequisites, but it's a nice safety.

[Temotei]

Oooh, yeah, if there isn't a BAB requirement then it can be taken at a very low level, and you get people forcing saves vs. daze whenever their 'full attack' of one attack hits. It should require at least +6 BAB so you can't do it with just one attack, probably. Usually people will have it that BAB anyways, as it requires several feats for prerequisites, but it's a nice safety.

My thoughts.

[XxScarab]

I don't think you should make creatures immune to critical hits immune to the daze. Any creatures who deserve to be immune to dazing already have that listed in their stat block.

Dazzling is a very weak condition, and it makes hitting with all 4 attacks a bit less special, so I would just drop that.

Most of the creatures that are immune to critical hits are that way because they have no real nervous systems for vital strikes or things of that nature. By the same rationale, they wouldn't technically be capable of being dazed.

I do like the change up you did with the save DC, it does make a bit of sense. Not sure about using the dexterity modifier though. Reason I suggested strength was it would represent the force of the impact, not the speed.

[Godskook]

I recommend changing the wording from:

"you may add a cumulative +1 bonus to damage and attack rolls per strike"

to something like:

"Your penalty for iterative attacks when using this feat is -4"

Also, basing the DC on the number of attacks is a little goofy, since additional attacks aren't too hard to come by, if you're looking for them.

And then there is the question of how this interacts with true-natural weapons.

[Temotei]

And then there is the question of how this interacts with true-natural weapons.

Care to elaborate?


Also, basing the DC on the number of attacks is a little goofy, since additional attacks aren't too hard to come by, if you're looking for them.

I suppose it doesn't make much sense either. The blindingly fast blows seem so fast that they're one, but if that's the case, it doesn't make sense that more blows would make the daze effect more...effective, because it still seems like one blow. Advice taken.



"you may add a cumulative +1 bonus to damage and attack rolls per strike"

to something like:

"Your penalty for iterative attacks when using this feat is -4"

Hmm...I'll say something similar for attack rolls. Damage is staying though, unless someone comes up with a very good reason to get rid of it.

EDIT: It's wordier, but it follows your advice, while still mechanically doing the same thing.


Most of the creatures that are immune to critical hits are that way because they have no real nervous systems for vital strikes or things of that nature. By the same rationale, they wouldn't technically be capable of being dazed.

The dazing effect is supposed to happen because they're so...dazed...from the attacks being so crazily fast and increasingly powerful. So the nervous system argument wouldn't really work for that. I'll add that mindless creatures are immune, though, by the same logic.


I do like the change up you did with the save DC, it does make a bit of sense.

Agreed.


Not sure about using the dexterity modifier though. Reason I suggested strength was it would represent the force of the impact, not the speed.

Both would work for this feat's ability. Maybe I should allow either one (whichever is higher). Thoughts?

[XxScarab]

The dazing effect is supposed to happen because they're so...dazed...from the attacks being so crazily fast and increasingly powerful. So the nervous system argument wouldn't really work for that. I'll add that mindless creatures are immune, though, by the same logic.

Setting so mindless creatures such as most undead, constructs, and the such would be immune would work out. Suppose it sets up for definition on how the attack works exactly.


Both would work for this feat's ability. Maybe I should allow either one (whichever is higher). Thoughts?

So, when it comes to defining the effect of the damage, strength represents the power while dexterity shows the ability to confuse the target. I can see where you are going with either one, but because of the damage aspect of the attack I'd still go with strength. Maybe set up another feat that would allow them to set additional bonuses like an Improved One-Two Punch. Not sure exactly how to set that up though...

[Temotei]

So, when it comes to defining the effect of the damage, strength represents the power while dexterity shows the ability to confuse the target. I can see where you are going with either one, but because of the damage aspect of the attack I'd still go with strength. Maybe set up another feat that would allow them to set additional bonuses like an Improved One-Two Punch. Not sure exactly how to set that up though...

I'm not sure an Improved One-Two Punch would be needed. This feat is already serving its job well. If you elaborated more--after some thought--and had some thoughts for it...it might make sense.

EDIT: Changed to include Flurry of Blows as a prerequisite if you have it instead of BAB +6. So...monks. For everyone else, there's Mastercard bonus feats.

[XxScarab]

Wasn't really suggesting an improved feat, my brain was just kind of rambling a bit in an effort to figure out how to effectively utilize both attributes. I'm keeping my vote to strength for the modifier for the aforementioned reason.

[Temotei]

I'll wait and see. I'm definitely considering changing it to just Strength, don't worry. I just need some additional input.

[-Baldur-]

I'll wait and see. I'm definitely considering changing it to just Strength, don't worry. I just need some additional input.

Dude...this could make monks just that little bit more sexy huh? They're current attacks are useless. I like this, balanced, requires a lot of feats to get in to (a lot of auto-feats for monks) and improves the only attack they're even remotely good with.

Awesome job.

The dazed effect really is a nice touch too.

Reminds me of all those comedy shows where the character gets beaten and then sees little birdies. Nice touch!

[Solaris]

What I could see working out well with this is rather than the damage improving by base, set it so each consecutive attack deals a cumulative +1 damage

In essence, a 20th level character with 5 attacks would deal a +1/+2/+3/+4/+5 damage off each attack in a full round action. To me, this is a better process with character's that aren't fighters. Makes it more available to characters of more than the melee classes with very little work. Also, the damage should reset each round in order to maintain game balance. As for the dazed status effect, set it so if they connect all attacks they make in a round (but if not, then the dazed should not apply or to a lesser version such as stunned or something else), they should have to make a static DC such as, STR + BAB + 1 for each successful attack landed in that action. Just my thought on it.

Bolded 1: I'm thinking it could keep going up, just specify that it's only against the one target and resets if the character attacks someone else. Maybe a cap equal to the class level or some such.

Bolded 2: I agree. I think Strength is the best one for this DC.


I recommend changing the wording from:

"you may add a cumulative +1 bonus to damage and attack rolls per strike"

to something like:

"Your penalty for iterative attacks when using this feat is -4"

I disagree, I think the "cumulative +1 attack, +1 damage bonus per strike" was better wording. Reducing penalty for iterative attacks opens up the possibility that a character gets more of them.

[elliott20]

I think keeping it on a +1 damage, +1 to hit works better too. Though, there is something off about this feat. I can't put my finger on it but something just doesn't fit quite right somewhere.

[Temotei]

Maybe a cap equal to the class level or some such.

It wouldn't make sense to have a class level cap, because no class specifically gets the feat. It would make sense to have BAB as the cap, though. :smallsmile:


Bolded 2: I agree. I think Strength is the best one for this DC.

Alright...2 vs. 1. You guys win. :smalltongue:


I disagree, I think the "cumulative +1 attack, +1 damage bonus per strike" was better wording. Reducing penalty for iterative attacks opens up the possibility that a character gets more of them.

Good catch.



...there is something off about this feat. I can't put my finger on it but something just doesn't fit quite right somewhere.

If you think of anything, tell me. I'll be ready for changes, as always.


Dude...this could make monks just that little bit more sexy huh? They're current attacks are useless. I like this, balanced, requires a lot of feats to get in to (a lot of auto-feats for monks) and improves the only attack they're even remotely good with.

Awesome job.

The dazed effect really is a nice touch too.

Reminds me of all those comedy shows where the character gets beaten and then sees little birdies. Nice touch!

Thank you very much. :smallbiggrin: I appreciate both your comments on balance and your compliments greatly.

[Solaris]

It wouldn't make sense to have a class level cap, because no class specifically gets the feat. It would make sense to have BAB as the cap, though. :smallsmile:

My bad. I'd meant character level - but BAB works better for it.

[Temotei]

Indeed. Thanks for the suggestion. It's up for possible use. I'll have to think about it. Sleep time now. :smallbiggrin:

[Baron Corm]

Eh, since this has Stunning Fist as a requirement, I don't see why the DC shouldn't be Wisdom-based. If you want to make it less for monks and more for fighters, I would take out the Stunning Fist prereq and make the DC based on Strength or Dexterity, whichever is higher. The comedy option being Strength, Dexterity, or Wisdom, whichever is highest.

As for the bonus damage remaining the next round, I think that maybe it should stay only for as long as you don't miss an attack (and are concentrating on one creature). That fits with the whole concept. It's creating a very Dragonball Z image in my head, but that's ok. The feat is also going from the realm of a decent feat to a very good feat, but that's ok too.

One thing you should just clarify is which part of the bonus damage is capped by your BAB. The total, the highest, or all of them? Can you get +20/+20/+20/+20 , +5/+10/+15/+20, or just +2/+4/+6/+8? I like the second one the best, personally. It requires 5 rounds of no missing to accomplish which balances the fact that you're adding a megaton of bonuses with a single feat.

[Godskook]

Care to elaborate?

Sure, things like bites, slams, tail slaps, etc, are all included in a full attack with your iteratives, albeit at their own penalties for being secondary or worse natural attacks. Does this feat give bonuses to these additional attacks? Or just the iteratives?

[Averagedog]

I would make the assumption it only affects your unarmed strikes. your claws, teeth, tail, gore, slam, or even wing buffets do not count as unarmed...

[Solaris]

I second it not adding to natural weapons. You get natural attacks even along with unarmed attacks, according to some interpretations of the rules.

[Temotei]

One thing you should just clarify is which part of the bonus damage is capped by your BAB. The total, the highest, or all of them? Can you get +20/+20/+20/+20 , +5/+10/+15/+20, or just +2/+4/+6/+8? I like the second one the best, personally. It requires 5 rounds of no missing to accomplish which balances the fact that you're adding a megaton of bonuses with a single feat.

The feat is now considerably more wordy, but the bonus damage is clarified.


Eh, since this has Stunning Fist as a requirement, I don't see why the DC shouldn't be Wisdom-based. If you want to make it less for monks and more for fighters, I would take out the Stunning Fist prereq and make the DC based on Strength or Dexterity, whichever is higher. The comedy option being Strength, Dexterity, or Wisdom, whichever is highest.

Monks are now allowed to use their Wisdom modifier, while everyone else uses Strength. Note: The text says "may use," so if a monk has more Strength than Wisdom, they can still do that.

The feat only counts towards unarmed strikes. No natural weapons, except for a monk's unarmed strikes.

EDIT: How's the new wording? For some reason, it seems off. Like I could shorten it, or something.

[XxScarab]

Okay, so here is the original feat description,

One-Two Punch [General]
You can quickly string together unarmed attacks, seemingly blending them into one.
Prerequisites: Str 13, Dex 15, Improved Unarmed Strike, Stunning Fist, Weapon Focus (unarmed), Base attack bonus +6 (or Flurry of Blows special ability)
Benefits: When you make a full-attack action while unarmed, you add a cumulative +1 bonus to attack rolls per strike. For example, a 13th level fighter could make 3 attacks, at +13/+8/+3. With this feat, this would change to +14/+10/+6. Damage increases at a rate of +1/+2/+3/+4 for attacks and keeps stacking up to your base attack bonus, as long as you focus the attacks on one opponent, and you don't miss with any attacks. For example, a 20th level fighter who hits the opponent with all four attacks for three rounds would have damage bonuses equal to +3/+6/+9/+12. The quickness of these strikes causes the enemy to be dazed if all attacks hit, unless they make a successful Fortitude saving throw of DC 10 + 1/2 BAB + Str modifier (if you are a monk, you may use Wis instead). Mindless creatures are immune to the daze effect.
Special: A fighter may select One-Two Punch as one of their fighter bonus feats.
This feat only applies to unarmed attacks--no natural weapons (except the monk's unarmed attacks, which are sometimes counted as such).

This is what I would do as a rewrite:

One-Two Punch [General]
You can quickly string together unarmed attacks, seemingly blending them into one.
Prerequisites: Str 13, Dex 15, Improved Unarmed Strike, Stunning Fist, Weapon Focus (unarmed)
Benefits: When making a full-round attack action while unarmed, you add a cumulative +1 bonus to attack and damage rolls per strike for each successful attack beyond the first. The quickness and power of these strikes causes the enemy to be dazed unless they make a successful Fortitude saving throw of DC 5 + 1/2 BAB + Str modifier + 1 for each successful attack in that action. Monks may substitute their wisdom modifier in place of their strength bonus if higher. Mindless creatures, such as unitelligengt undead and constructs, are immune to the daze effect.
Special: A fighter may select One-Two Punch as one of their fighter bonus feats.
This feat only applies to unarmed attacks--no natural weapons (except the monk's unarmed attacks, which are sometimes counted as such).

I know its not directly how you changed it, but I'm sticking with this working a little better. So, quick analysis of the save DC... a fighter that reaches 20th level with a +5 Str mod that connects with five attacks in one round when using one-two punch would end up having a save DC of 25. While its not a bad DC, most enemies you face at that point would easily make the DC. If you bumped it to 10 base would make the DC 30. That would be my suggestion. Also, changing it from "a 13th level fighter could make 3 attacks, at +13/+8/+3. With this feat, this would change to +14/+10/+6" to for each successful attack beyond the first makes more sense to me. I see this as more a momentum sort of thing as opposed to a constant bonus.

Also, I removed the flurry of blows class ability as an alternative to a base attack bonus because multi class monk/fighter (with fighter being the first class so the monk can progress as normal) would easily have access to this feat by 3rd level.

This is the build for it:

1st Lvl Fighter: Improved Unarmed Strike, Weap Focus (Unarmed)
2nd Lvl Monk: Stunning Fist (Bonus)
3rd Lvl Character: One-Two Punch


Only reason I see this being a problem would allow a monk to gain this feat a full three levels before the fighter. Now, if that is the intent then it really wouldn't be all to terrible. At that point you could remove the base attack bonus requirement entirely because the Stunning Fist feat for non-monks is a +8 Base Attack Bonus.

[Temotei]

This is the build for it:

* 1st Lvl Fighter: Improved Unarmed Strike, Weap Focus (Unarmed)
* 2nd Lvl Monk: Stunning Fist (Bonus)
* 3rd Lvl Character: One-Two Punch


Only reason I see this being a problem would allow a monk to gain this feat a full three levels before the fighter. Now, if that is the intent then it really wouldn't be all to terrible. At that point you could remove the base attack bonus requirement entirely because the Stunning Fist feat for non-monks is a +8 Base Attack Bonus.

The monk is indeed able to take it earlier, and that was my intent. Sort of like Stunning Fist. The reason I have +6 BAB as a requirement is because of the multiclassing thing. If a fighter or barbarian wanted to remain pure, though, the BAB +6 is there for them. :smallamused: As written now, a human monk gets:

* Improved Unarmed Strike (monk bonus)
* Stunning Fist (monk bonus)
* Flurry of Blows (monk class feature)
* Weapon Focus (human bonus)
* One-Two Punch (1st level)


A fighter has to wait until level 6, unless they multiclass into monk.

* Weapon Focus (fighter bonus)
* Improved Unarmed Strike (monk bonus)
* Stunning Fist (monk bonus)
* Flurry of Blows (monk class feature)
* One-Two Punch (3rd level)


The other chosen feats don't matter in this case. The pure monk has a two-level lead on the fighter for the feat, unless the fighter is also pure. Totally intentional.

EDIT: The 13th level fighter was just an example to show what the bonuses would do in a situation.

[XxScarab]

Okay, that makes sense. Its a decent enough feat to build for at 1st level. Still would pull out the flurry of blows and the base attack bonus requirement and just work with the Stunning Fist, monk's gain it for free at 1st level and most melee classes wouldn't be able to gain Stunning Fist until 8th level. Thoughts on the rest of the rewrite?

[Temotei]

The base DC for the save is already 10. :smallconfused: You wrote it as 5 in your rewrite. Not my fault! :smallwink:

Your fix is considerably shorter. And it gave me an idea of how to rewrite it.

[XxScarab]

Right, I should have clarified that. I was looking at ways of redoing the save DC that would maintain the balance without making it to favorable for the attacking character .

[Temotei]

I just thought of this...should I say a monk with only one attack normally has to use flurry of blows to get the benefits of the feat?

[XxScarab]

I would go with no since it specifies having to use a full round attack action in order to gain its effects. Especially if you stick with what I was suggesting about the to hit and damage bonuses staging up with each additional attack beyond the first. If they use it as a standard (i.e. single attack) then they wouldn't gain the benefits of the feat anyway.

[Temotei]

Right. But technically, they don't need to flurry when they use a full-attack action. I mean, with this feat, it would hardly make sense not to flurry, but...still.

[XxScarab]

Its true, they don't need to utilize a full attack to flurry. Thats why I suggested the bonuses stacking up after the initial attack. Like I've said before, to me this feat should represent the momentum and increased power of multiple consecutive attacks as opposed to how hard a character can strike with one attack. In my opinion, thats what Stunning Fist and (if you play Pathfinder) Scorpion Style, Gorgon's Fist, and Medusa's Wrath are for. This allows for more customization to the unarmed attacks past the standard lot we normally have available.

[Temotei]

Thats why I suggested the bonuses stacking up after the initial attack.

I'm so confused. I've written it so the bonuses increase as you make more attacks in a round, and they stack with each other. A monk who decides to attack with only one strike would get +1 each round, instead of +1/+2, which adds up to +3. That's two damage lost, plus the attack bonuses provided.

[XxScarab]

Maybe I can clarify what I am seeing with the feat. You have the attacks listed as gaining the bonuses on the first attack and each additional attack thereafter. My thought is with the feat being a build up attack with the bonuses being granted after the first attacK.

Assuming a level 13 Fighter as per your examples in the feat, the attack and damage progressions for the two different thoughts would read something like this:

Yours: +14/+10/+6 with a +1/+2/+3 to damage respectively
Mine: +13/+9/+5 with a +0/+1/+2 to damage respectively
Normal: +13/+8/+3

So, thats where we are seeing it differently. To me, someone that doesn't utilize a full-attack round action would not gain the to hit or damage bonuses from the feat. Hopefully that clears it up a bit.

[Temotei]

Ohhh...I see. Hehe. That makes sense now. Hmm...and your way makes more sense, too. It's mechanically inferior, obviously, but if the first attack in a full-attack action gets +1, why shouldn't a standard attack get the +1 too? Is that your point of view? :smallsmile: Makes soooooo much more sense now. I'll change it for now. If someone objects, it can always be changed back, with good reason as backup of course.

[XxScarab]

It's mechanically inferior, obviously, but if the first attack in a full-attack action gets +1, why shouldn't a standard attack get the +1 too? Is that your point of view?

Yeah, thats actually exactly what I was thinking. Glad we managed to clear that up.:smallwink:

[Temotei]

Yeah, thats actually exactly what I was thinking. Glad we managed to clear that up.:smallwink:

As am I. :smallsmile: