Crit Substitution Idea (PEACH)

[nonsi]

.
This idea is something I’ve played with in the past.
I didn’t have it quite figured out back then, but I believe I got it right this time.
Tell me what you think.



- There are no longer Critical Hits. You no longer roll extra dice to calculate critical damage.
- Instead of crit threat/confirmation and damage-multipliers, a successful attack would deal extra damage according to how much it was successful beyond the to-hit DC (zero extra damage when attack-roll = AC). This value cannot exceed the attacker's BAB (prevents True Strike abuse and other loopholes).
- Each officially noted modifier in crit threat/multiplier attributed to a given weapon or the Keen property increases the extra damage by 50% (calculate fractions and round the result up).
- Rolling a natural 20 automatically maximizes the weapon's bace damage without rolling the dice.
- Power Attack is an open option rather than a feat, and it is capped at 1/4 BAB (rounded up), so that 2-handers wouldn't have too obvious an advantage over other weapon styles.


So, for instance, a 5th level bard attacking with a Keen Rapier and scoring an attack roll of 18 vs. AC 15 would result in damage as follows:

Step 1:
=====
Calculate damage normally – as you did in the past (1d6 + Str-mod + extra from feats + magical enhancements).

Step 2:
=====
The extra damage = 3 (18 - 15).
Since the Rapier is stated to have increased threat (18-20 instead of 20), you add 50% of 3 twice, meaning those 3 extra points become 6 (3 + 2 x 1.5).
Since the Rapier is Keen, you add 50% of 3 yet again.
You get a total extra damage of 7.5 (2.5 x 3) and you round it up to 8.

So the total damage equals 1d6 + 8 + Str-mod + extra from feats + magical enhancements.

That same, attack made with a regular quarterstaff, would leave that extra damage at 3 (1d6 + 3 + . . .)

Special: When attacking objects or opponents with no discernible anatomies, except for the Keen enhancement, you treat your attack roll as if it’s equal the target’s AC.


If that same 5th level bard would score 19 or more on his attack roll, the extra damage, being capped by the bard's +3 BAB, is calculated as if scoring 18 on the d20 roll.
If he scores 20, the damage calculation = 6 + 8 + Str-mod + extra from feats + magical enhancements (maximizing the d6 roll).


Think of it. It would...:
1. Reduce dice-rolls dramatically. You don’t cinfirm crit and you don’t roll for extra damage. You just need to do some arithmetics in your head (something that’s gonna come naturally after a few times – 2 sessions at most). It’s easy because the extra damage multiplier never changes for a given weapon (by type + whether or not it has the Keen enhancement).
2. Promote better weapon balance.
3. Scale nicely with BAB.
4. Spare those precious feat slots previously spent on PA, Improved Crit and other damage enhancers.
5. Eliminate every single melee character in the universe optimizing Str & taking PA.
6. Make Keen enhancement relevant all the time – including vs. creatures with no discernible anatomies.
7. Make a lot of sense. The better your attack roll is, the more you hurt your enemy. That’s why a single attack from a dagger could result in a scratch on your shoulder or a stab straight through the heart, even though its base damage is 1d4.
8. Make archery benefit just as much as melee would.
9. Make all crit rules/feats/features etc fly out the window – and that’s a lot of load on your head taken off. Anything (feat/feature/enhancement) that multiplies your weapon’s damage is calculated separately from the above (multiple multiplies are added rather than multiply further on, as usual).
10. Str-modifiers & enhancements are not calculated more than once. For 2-handers you could just add Str-bonus twice rather than 1-1/2.
11. There’s no more need for separation between enhancement bonuses to-hit and bonuses to damage. You just need enhancement bonuses to-hit.
.

[TuggyNE]

This is a pretty interesting idea, although I'd need to consider its ramifications some more.


6. Make Keen enhancement relevant all the time – including vs. creatures with no discernible anatomies.

I assume you're including keen edge, weapon of impact, and the impact weapon ability as well?

Also, I think keeping Improved Crit around would be useful to represent weapon masters that are good enough they don't need a special rapier to get extra damage.

[Othesemo]

I like it, personally, though I'm not certain about the balance. This seems like it would be very, very deadly in the hands of monsters with high HD. While it seems fine for PC use, I'd be hesitant to give it to a dragon.

[nonsi]

I assume you're including keen edge, weapon of impact, and the impact weapon ability as well?

Hard to tell right now. Can't remember what Impact stands for.
If it's corresponding to Keen Edge but for bludgeoning weapons, then yes.




Also, I think keeping Improved Crit around would be useful to represent weapon masters that are good enough they don't need a special rapier to get extra damage.

No need - high BAB +Weapon Spec. already cover that angle quite nicely.
You wouldn't wanna take the sting out of Rapier, would you ?
Edit:
I didn't read that one correctly.
But still, my answer would still be "No".
There are already far too many combat options that cost you feats and most inexperienced players don't know that options are more valuable than a bit more damage.
Remember that with this revision, most hits would produce extra damage anyway.





This seems like it would be very, very deadly in the hands of monsters with high HD.

High BAB you mean. Certainly. If that's their shtick - it should be.




While it seems fine for PC use, I'd be hesitant to give it to a dragon.

I'm quite ok with this.
When you're fighting a dragon 4 stories high that weighs 10 tons - expect it to hurt bigtime when it takes a bite at you.
Dragons are spooned to be very scary.

[Amnoriath]

An interesting idea, however keen doubles your threat range so you would have a threat range of 17-20. While it is a small change I don't think you need to modify keen or impact as such. Maybe make another property to add to the multiplier? I haven't found one yet and it would be very welcome.
I don't like that you took away multiplication of base damage. It gives less of a reason to find bonuses to damage because not only are they less likely to stack it no longer multiplies, bonus die damage always stack. In general it throws favor to two-weapon builds because manufactured weapons mostly have better critical scores than natural weapons but also extra attacks.
Power attack is core to so many brute melee builds and a back up for other kinds of melee if they aren't lucky. If you remove this it shoves away some very good options needed to deal damage in many situations as they ascend in level. This is what fighting types are best at so majorly nerfing one kind of weapon style to benefit another just isn't a good fix.
I do think this could be an interesting feat for a duelist and/or archer though. These types often have more attack than they know what to do with.

[Yitzi]

An interesting idea, and vaguely similar to something I've been playing with for my own rebuild. Some other ideas that could go well with it:

1. Precision damage effects (e.g. sneak attack) increase the multiplier instead of adding separate dice of damage.
2. Use the armor-as-DR variant. This DR is applied before the extra damage, and if it reduces base damage to 0 then there is no extra damage. Weapon Finesse allows you to use the armor-to-AC version instead.
3 (this really is meant for if you're using idea 2 as well). All attack rolls are based on DEX, but the STR bonus to damage is doubled.

[RedWarlock]

I like it, it's a general concept I've used before. My own mostly scratch-built non-D&D system uses this on top of a 3d6x6 (on a 6, reroll and add) base attempt roll. No fixed upper end.

It does add a little more complexity to checks for individual attacks, meaning you can't just shoot for 'this-or-over' rolling any more. (I also use a lot less standard attacks, averaging only one or two, with no full attacks.) Keep that in mind.

I can't say for how expanded crits vs multipliers would work. Depends on what you feel needs upgrading. Maybe include base +damage, such as str bonus and enhancement and such, in what gets multiplied? Or rebalance the weapons.

It's probably not going to be a simple fix. (It never is..) If it was simple, they probably would've done it already.

[nonsi]

An interesting idea, however keen doubles your threat range so you would have a threat range of 17-20. While it is a small change I don't think you need to modify keen or impact as such. Maybe make another property to add to the multiplier? I haven't found one yet and it would be very welcome.

I know what Keen does according to the RAW, but why should I find another property. What's wrong with this modification ?




I don't like that you took away multiplication of base damage. It gives less of a reason to find bonuses to damage

Correct. Less of a reason to burn feats on numeric modifiers and more of a reason to invest feats on combat options.
This is a desired result in my view.




In general it throws favor to two-weapon builds because manufactured weapons mostly have better critical scores than natural weapons but also extra attacks.

two-weapon builds suck (less damage each, inferior attack rolls, require tons of feats...). They need all the love they can get.
Also, I don't see how that relates to natural attacks.




Power attack is core to so many brute melee builds and a back up for other kinds of melee if they aren't lucky. If you remove this it shoves away some very good options needed to deal damage in many situations as they ascend in level.

Ok, either you didn't fully grasp my concept or I didn't understand what you're describing here.
So let's use my rules and compare 2 regular weapons to one another: Greatsword vs. Rapier (please tell me if my example is of no relevance to your claim).
If on the average your attack beats your opponents' AC by less than 6, you'd gain better results by using the brute force weapon: the Greatsword.
If on the average your attack beats your opponents' AC by more than 7, you'd gain better results by using the weapon with the better multipliers: the Rapier.
At +6/+7 they even out: +3 or +4 in favor of the Rapier, but +1d6 in favor of the Greatsword.
This swap could be relevant throughout a warrior's adventuring career and change from one opponent to another.




This is what fighting types are best at so majorly nerfing one kind of weapon style to benefit another just isn't a good fix.
I do think this could be an interesting feat for a duelist and/or archer though. These types often have more attack than they know what to do with.
Could you give an example where my rules would consistently nerf one kind of weapon style ?

[nonsi]

1. Precision damage effects (e.g. sneak attack) increase the multiplier instead of adding separate dice of damage.

This will damage the vision of sneak attack, where the rogue's attack roll of 18 is better than the bard's attack roll of 18, because the rogue got to catch his opponent off-guard.
I don't see a way to capitalize on your suggestion without losing that flavor.




2. Use the armor-as-DR variant. This DR is applied before the extra damage, and if it reduces base damage to 0 then there is no extra damage. Weapon Finesse allows you to use the armor-to-AC version instead.

I haven't tried to use armor-as-DR, but I've seen quite a few discussions that said that it messes up balance quite a bit (too strong at low levels and too weak at high levels), so I got cold feet on that angle.




3 (this really is meant for if you're using idea 2 as well). All attack rolls are based on DEX, but the STR bonus to damage is doubled.

I'm a strong supporter for Dex to hit & Str to damage, but if you make it Str-mod x 2, then what in the game is left for using Str-mod x 1 ?

[nonsi]

I like it, it's a general concept I've used before. My own mostly scratch-built non-D&D system uses this on top of a 3d6x6 (on a 6, reroll and add) base attempt roll. No fixed upper end.

Probably my bad, but I haven't the faintest idea what the above describes.




It does add a little more complexity to checks for individual attacks, meaning you can't just shoot for 'this-or-over' rolling any more.

Yes, but working with your head is always way faster than rolling dice.




I can't say for how expanded crits vs multipliers would work. Depends on what you feel needs upgrading.

My suggestion has nothing to do with a need for upgrading.
The purpose is game-speedup and streamlining.
The other advantages I noted are basically just desirable by-products that I happened to notice later on.




Maybe include base +damage, such as str bonus and enhancement and such, in what gets multiplied? Or rebalance the weapons.

I don't understand the mechanics your proposing.
Could you rephrase.

[Amnoriath]

I know what Keen does according to the RAW, but why should I find another property. What's wrong with this modification ?



Correct. Less of a reason to burn feats on numeric modifiers and more of a reason to invest feats on combat options.
This is a desired result in my view.



two-weapon builds suck (less damage each, inferior attack rolls, require tons of feats...). They need all the love they can get.
Also, I don't see how that relates to natural attacks.



Ok, either you didn't fully grasp my concept or I didn't understand what you're describing here.
So let's use my rules and compare 2 regular weapons to one another: Greatsword vs. Rapier (please tell me if my example is of no relevance to your claim).
If on the average your attack beats your opponents' AC by less than 6, you'd gain better results by using the brute force weapon: the Greatsword.
If on the average your attack beats your opponents' AC by more than 7, you'd gain better results by using the weapon with the better multipliers: the Rapier.
At +6/+7 they even out: +3 or +4 in favor of the Rapier, but +1d6 in favor of the Greatsword.
This swap could be relevant throughout a warrior's adventuring career and change from one opponent to another.



Could you give an example where my rules would consistently nerf one kind of weapon style ?
1. The property already boosts damage and increases the chance of it happening under your rule. There isn't any need for more damage and just throws in more favor on a cheap property which is already good for builds that want to have a good critical score.
2. The point is that additional die damage is far more valuable now than bonuses because they always stack and deal more damage most of the time now because bonuses now don't and they don't always stack.
3. Yes two-weapon builds need feats but this doesn't change that at all. All you are doing is changing the damage system not how attacks are made or how many can be dealt at a specific time. You are comparing a duelist rapier vs. a greatsword, the worst kind of form against a good one with no extra abilities tied to it. In a two-weapon build you have more attacks to deal additional die of damage and higher chance of occurrence over all in the growth of characters. It relates because natural weapons have crappy critical scores and they almost always have to expend item slots to enhance them which can be used to fuel other abilities. Before they had an advantage of good base damage(INA..etc) and power attack but now they don't have power attack or multipliers from such.
4. Power attack gives a certain measure of higher damage to weapons with lower critical rating here though high critical chances, bonus die, and high attack become the name of the game in damage. Hundreds of points of damage gone which can apply to any weapon except for light manufactured weapons with one feat. It hurts the party and most melee builds everywhere by eliminating it. I sense ubercharger envy going on here keep in mind they need to be able to charge to use Power Attack with impunity without magical/supernatural abilities.

[nonsi]

1. The property already boosts damage and increases the chance of it happening under your rule. There isn't any need for more damage and just throws in more favor on a cheap property which is already good for builds that want to have a good critical score.

I'm not sure what you mean by "already". By RAW, it increases crit threat chances but has no effect on multipliers. With my approach it increases damage and has no effect on chances for extra damage.
Anyway, now I'm considering making Keen/Impact add 100% extra damage rather than 50%, because it's a one-time addition.




2. The point is that additional die damage is far more valuable now than bonuses because they always stack and deal more damage most of the time now because bonuses now don't and they don't always stack.

1. I believe that my example illustrated that it depends.
2. I'm not aware of cases where bonuses don't stack, unless you're talking about the same type of bonus gained for multiple sources, which I'm quite ok that they wouldn't stack.




3. Yes two-weapon builds need feats but this doesn't change that at all. All you are doing is changing the damage system not how attacks are made or how many can be dealt at a specific time. You are comparing a duelist rapier vs. a greatsword, the worst kind of form against a good one with no extra abilities tied to it. In a two-weapon build you have more attacks to deal additional die of damage and higher chance of occurrence over all in the growth of characters. It relates because natural weapons have crappy critical scores and they almost always have to expend item slots to enhance them which can be used to fuel other abilities. Before they had an advantage of good base damage(INA..etc) and power attack but now they don't have power attack or multipliers from such.
4. Power attack gives a certain measure of higher damage to weapons with lower critical rating here though high critical chances, bonus die, and high attack become the name of the game in damage. Hundreds of points of damage gone which can apply to any weapon except for light manufactured weapons with one feat. It hurts the party and most melee builds everywhere by eliminating it. I sense ubercharger envy going on here keep in mind they need to be able to charge to use Power Attack with impunity without magical/supernatural abilities.

I don't get it. Now one-handed weapons get bonus damage automatically. The previous PA additions are now automatic - how does that constitute as getting shafted ?

But yes, now PA needs to stay so that 2-handers don't get shafted. At least now it is not essential at all times.
Now you'd take it only if you build a 2-hander.

[Othesemo]

So, let's say that somebody had a keen rapier. True strike would suddenly grant approximately 50 extra damage per hit, and this combo would be available at, what, 5th level? At first level, one spell can grant about 40 extra damage. This strikes me as a problem.

[nonsi]

So, let's say that somebody had a keen rapier. True strike would suddenly grant approximately 50 extra damage per hit, and this combo would be available at, what, 5th level? At first level, one spell can grant about 40 extra damage. This strikes me as a problem.

Actually, the only real abuse in in the hands of a Duskblade, since full arcanes have tough time hitting anyway.
But if I have to choose between significant game mechanics and a single spell... the spell will go.

[Woodzyowl]

I hate to be nit-picky, but...

Step 2:
You get a total extra damage of 7.5 (2.5 x 3) and you round it up to 8.
does this rule specifically get an exception to the "Always round down" rule? Anyways, I do like the idea, though it seems like it makes buffing your to-hit the same as buffing your damage (which is interesting, but completely blows up several feats/chains, classes, etc.).

[Othesemo]

Actually, the only real abuse in in the hands of a Duskblade, since full arcanes have tough time hitting anyway.
But if I have to choose between significant game mechanics and a single spell... the spell will go.

And I assume that all of this (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=134446) will have to go as well?

[nonsi]

I hate to be nit-picky, but...

does this rule specifically get an exception to the "Always round down" rule?

I just wanted players to get the feeling they're getting their money's worth.
Rome will not rise or fall on that issue.
If its of any significance to anybody, round it down.




Anyways, I do like the idea, though it seems like it makes buffing your to-hit the same as buffing your damage (which is interesting, but completely blows up several feats/chains, classes, etc.).

With the elimination of crit multipliers, it might not be too terrible.

[nonsi]

And I assume that all of this (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=134446) will have to go as well?
Not necessarily. None of them comes anywhere near the abuseability of True Strike.
I mean, how many of them can you pile up together for prolonged periods ?

[Amnoriath]

Not necessarily. None of them comes anywhere near the abuseability of True Strike.
I mean, how many of them can you pile up together for prolonged periods ?

Tome of Battle, Kensai
Through the use of battle meditation, Swordsage weapon focus, blade meditation you can have an array of weapons which of strict buff characteristics for a cheap price that doesn't even cut into your gold.
Martial Discipline is one of them as it doesn't require you to use it to get the +1 bonus for having the ascribed discipline or the +3 when using a maneuver from that discipline.
Allow me to show you Shadow Hand or Tiger claw have an array of light discipline weapons including unarmed strike. Unarmed strike has at least 9 realistic strike zones(head, elbows, hands, knees, and feet) to add properties to. That means +1 property while just in a stance of said discipline gives you 27 bonus to attack from just the unarmed strike alone. Then get another martial discipline property another +27 on a boost. Then why not another for a strike. This doesn't include any other small weapons or natural attacks that may conveniently have aptitude as well. Equip a keen scimitar with a bloodstorm blade you just created instant death.

[Othesemo]

Not necessarily. None of them comes anywhere near the abuseability of True Strike.
I mean, how many of them can you pile up together for prolonged periods ?

Point is, it is much, much easier to break/abuse this system than the previous one. I can't recall ever seeing a terribly powerful crit fisher build, but with this system it would be quite possible to stack to hit up to absolutely ludicrous levels and then go about killing things by poking them softly.

Or what about touch attacks? For example, take Emerald Razor from ToB (lets you make a single attack with your weapon as a melee touch attack). Off of the top of my head (using the elite array for simplicity)-

Strongheart Halfling Swordsage 4/Rogue 1

Str 10
Dex 17+1+2
Con 14
Int/Cha to taste
Wis 13

Feats: Weapon Finesse, Shadow Blade, Adaptive Style, WF (Rapier) (From Swordsage)

Items: +1 Rapier, Gloves of Dex +2, 3,000 gp misc. gear

Attack: +1 Rapier +13 Melee (1d4+7 (1 wis, 5 dex, 1 magic))

So, let's say the halfling uses Cloak of Deception at the beginning of his turn. He now has +15 to hit, and his enemy is flatfooted (he uses Assassin's Stance, incidentally). He then uses Emerald Razor on his enemy (let's say a winter wolf). He now has a +15 to hit AC 9, and deals an extra 3d6 sneak attack damage.

Let's say he rolls a modest 10 on his attack roll. He deals 1d4+7 base damage, or 8.5. He then gets an extra 32 damage from the crit rules, bumping it up to 33.5 damage on average. He also gets 3d6 sneak attack damage, for an extra 9.5, bringing the total up to 51, or enough to bring the winter wolf down to exactly 0 hp.

Glancing through an index of CR 5 creatures, there are very few who can survive being hit that hard more than once, and a fair number who can't survive it at all. Of course, CR 5 is meant to be an appropriate challenge for 4 5th level adventurers, not one, so this guy's already a bit ahead of the power curve.

This took about 30 minutes to completely write, and I didn't actually have to use Person_Man's thread on optimizing. Hell, I've probably missed dozens of options that I would have used if I were actually making a character.

[nonsi]

Allow me to show you Shadow Hand or Tiger claw have an array of light discipline weapons including unarmed strike. Unarmed strike has at least 9 realistic strike zones(head, elbows, hands, knees, and feet) to add properties to. That means +1 property while just in a stance of said discipline gives you 27 bonus to attack from just the unarmed strike alone. Then get another martial discipline property another +27 on a boost. Then why not another for a strike. This doesn't include any other small weapons or natural attacks that may conveniently have aptitude as well. Equip a keen scimitar with a bloodstorm blade you just created instant death.

1. And you're ok with this ?
2. You can google it (or apply whatever smart search mechanism you can dream of) from here to kingdom come, but you won't find me saying anything in favor of ToB, so it's not really a factor to regard in this discussion.

[Othesemo]

1. And you're ok with this ?
2. You can google it (or apply whatever smart search mechanism you can dream of) from here to kingdom come, but you won't find me saying anything in favor of ToB, so it's not really a factor to regard in this discussion.

I used two books, both of which are freely available, to create my example. Not exactly googling to kingdom come.

And whatever you think of ToB, you can't just wave your hand and hope that it goes away.

[Amnoriath]

1. And you're ok with this ?
2. You can google it (or apply whatever smart search mechanism you can dream of) from here to kingdom come, but you won't find me saying anything in favor of ToB, so it's not really a factor to regard in this discussion.

1. I am okay in pointing out how it exploits your system far better because that extra attack is at least 1 attack to 2 damage now at full efficiency.
2. Actually I discovered it on my own before in just looking at the books. I just chimed in on the internet when I wrote the response. Also ToB is very popular and is used a lot because fighting types need a bit more flexibility than just damage. It should be taken into consideration when you offer a fix even if you don't like it. Fixes are suppose to accommodate what is wrong in the system, having a fix that requires banning other official material just so it works fairly isn't a good fix.

[Seerow]

Allow me to show you Shadow Hand or Tiger claw have an array of light discipline weapons including unarmed strike. Unarmed strike has at least 9 realistic strike zones(head, elbows, hands, knees, and feet) to add properties to. That means +1 property while just in a stance of said discipline gives you 27 bonus to attack from just the unarmed strike alone. Then get another martial discipline property another +27 on a boost. Then why not another for a strike. This doesn't include any other small weapons or natural attacks that may conveniently have aptitude as well. Equip a keen scimitar with a bloodstorm blade you just created instant death.


I'm pretty sure unarmed strike doesn't work that way. You can't declare every part of your body you strike with as a separate weapon. You have a single unarmed strike.

[Amnoriath]

I'm pretty sure unarmed strike doesn't work that way. You can't declare every part of your body you strike with as a separate weapon. You have a single unarmed strike.

Which can be used with any of those regions, some weapon properties do not apply specifically to weapons. A classic example is defending.

[Seerow]

Which can be used with any of those regions, some weapon properties do not apply specifically to weapons. A classic example is defending.

Point is you can't enchant one hand separately from another. In fact I'm pretty sure by default you can't even enchant your unarmed strikes (hence the amulet of natural attacks).

Trying to say you can enchant each part of your body separately to get a bunch of stacking bonuses is pure munchkinry. You can achieve similarly silly results even in core only (say doing the same thing but with the Defending property).

[Amnoriath]

Point is you can't enchant one hand separately from another. In fact I'm pretty sure by default you can't even enchant your unarmed strikes (hence the amulet of natural attacks).

Trying to say you can enchant each part of your body separately to get a bunch of stacking bonuses is pure munchkinry. You can achieve similarly silly results even in core only (say doing the same thing but with the Defending property).

I used the kensai for this example it has specific and very favorable rules in enhance natural attacks(100% cost+10% per additional natural weapon). It gives an example of monk imbuing multiple parts of his body.
As I said before here he gets return in damage for the extra boost in attack. Otherwise he just had a pile of attack which could be used PA but only up to his lower BAB and/or maybe disarm.

[nonsi]

I used two books, both of which are freely available, to create my example. Not exactly googling to kingdom come.

And whatever you think of ToB, you can't just wave your hand and hope that it goes away.

I just don't care about ToB. I ignore it entirely.





Also ToB is very popular and is used a lot because fighting types need a bit more flexibility than just damage. It should be taken into consideration when you offer a fix even if you don't like it. Fixes are suppose to accommodate what is wrong in the system, having a fix that requires banning other official material just so it works fairly isn't a good fix.


Call me a megalomaniac if you will, but I strongly believe this (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=13182574&postcount=1) is a better solution to all 3.5e's melee issues than ToB (on most if not all aspects).
If you wish for a detailed explanation why, you're more than welcome to that discussion.






As I said before here he gets return in damage for the extra boost in attack. Otherwise he just had a pile of attack which could be used PA but only up to his lower BAB and/or maybe disarm.

Now that this came up, I wouldn't automatically rule out the idea of capping the extra damage with BAB.
This could prevent quite a bit of munchkinism.

[nonsi]

I'm pretty sure unarmed strike doesn't work that way. You can't declare every part of your body you strike with as a separate weapon. You have a single unarmed strike.

Thanks for the interpretation. I hadn't realized he meant stacking enhancements on different body parts (which both is impossible and that fact that enhancements of the same type never stack).

[SowZ]

You wouldn't need to make DEX to hit rolls. This already has the effect of making Dex more important by making AC more important.

[Seerow]

Call me a megalomaniac if you will, but I strongly believe this is a better solution to all 3.5e's melee issues than ToB (on most if not all aspects).
If you wish for a detailed explanation why, you're more than welcome to that discussion.


I disagree on this count. I mean, your fix helps increase average damage and make attack bonuses more important, but the big thing that ToB offers isn't more damage, it's increased mobility and flexibility of martial classes, which this change doesn't affect at all.


I'm still on the fence as to whether I like this or not. At face value it seems interesting, gain a free power attack automatically at the maximum value you could have taken with every hit, without any of the need for guess work or math. You hit by more, you deal more damage. It's simple and clean.

But ultimately, it is just power attack. You have effectively allowed high crit weapons equal access to it vs what two handers traditionally get, which is good and solves some of the problems with different fighting styles... but in exchange you've removed critical hits, which potentially weakens the average damage dealt.

You've also made secondary attacks far less effective, because now no matter what those secondary attacks are dealing less damage per hit, where before they would deal the same damage per hit, they'd just hit less often. If you got a high enough attack bonus, you could have the first 2-3 hits all going about the same, now your secondaries are always weaker.


And of course this all ignores that the most effective melee combatant is still a Cleric, Druid, or Wizard Gish. If your intent was just to help balance out fighting styles, this helps some. If your intent was to "fix the problems with melee" as the statement I quoted alleges, this falls far far short of the mark.

[Amnoriath]

Thanks for the interpretation. I hadn't realized he meant stacking enhancements on different body parts (which both is impossible and that fact that enhancements of the same type never stack).

Enhancement bonuses never stack with each other, untyped ones do. The example used in explaining martial discipline clearly explained you can have multiple kinds of itself keyed to different disciplines and that they stacked. Also yes they can both the Kensai and Necklace of Natural attacks explain how.
Okay, I think the question what is this suppose to fix?

[Amnoriath]

I disagree on this count. I mean, your fix helps increase average damage and make attack bonuses more important, but the big thing that ToB offers isn't more damage, it's increased mobility and flexibility of martial classes, which this change doesn't affect at all.


I'm still on the fence as to whether I like this or not. At face value it seems interesting, gain a free power attack automatically at the maximum value you could have taken with every hit, without any of the need for guess work or math. You hit by more, you deal more damage. It's simple and clean.

But ultimately, it is just power attack. You have effectively allowed high crit weapons equal access to it vs what two handers traditionally get, which is good and solves some of the problems with different fighting styles... but in exchange you've removed critical hits, which potentially weakens the average damage dealt.

You've also made secondary attacks far less effective, because now no matter what those secondary attacks are dealing less damage per hit, where before they would deal the same damage per hit, they'd just hit less often. If you got a high enough attack bonus, you could have the first 2-3 hits all going about the same, now your secondaries are always weaker.


And of course this all ignores that the most effective melee combatant is still a Cleric, Druid, or Wizard Gish. If your intent was just to help balance out fighting styles, this helps some. If your intent was to "fix the problems with melee" as the statement I quoted alleges, this falls far far short of the mark.
This I can pretty much all agree with.

[nonsi]

Enhancement bonuses never stack with each other, untyped ones do. The example used in explaining martial discipline clearly explained you can have multiple kinds of itself keyed to different disciplines and that they stacked. Also yes they can both the Kensai and Necklace of Natural attacks explain how.

As far as I'm concerned, there's no such thing as untyped bonuses, only bonuses that - due to poor wording - don't label the associated type.

[nonsi]

I disagree on this count. I mean, your fix helps increase average damage and make attack bonuses more important, but the big thing that ToB offers isn't more damage, it's increased mobility and flexibility of martial classes, which this change doesn't affect at all.


First thing's first, the word "this (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=13182574&postcount=1)" was a link.
Crit Substitution is still WIP, so I don't wave any banners about it ATM.
I definitely value people presenting reservations, so that the final "product" doesn't contain loopholes (or at least not more than the official material comes to replace).




But ultimately, it is just power attack. You have effectively allowed high crit weapons equal access to it vs what two handers traditionally get, which is good and solves some of the problems with different fighting styles... but in exchange you've removed critical hits, which potentially weakens the average damage dealt.

Average potential damage per hit, yes, but not average accumulated damage (because you don't need guessing and you don't need to rely on specific d20 values).




You've also made secondary attacks far less effective, because now no matter what those secondary attacks are dealing less damage per hit, where before they would deal the same damage per hit, they'd just hit less often. If you got a high enough attack bonus, you could have the first 2-3 hits all going about the same, now your secondaries are always weaker.

1. It makes sense. Your best momentum is on your first attack.
2. Again, I believe that the fact that extra damage isn't depended upon crit makes it at least an even trade.




And of course this all ignores that the most effective melee combatant is still a Cleric, Druid, or Wizard Gish. If your intent was just to help balance out fighting styles, this helps some. If your intent was to "fix the problems with melee" as the statement I quoted alleges, this falls far far short of the mark.

Combine these rules with My Warrior + nix Transformation & Divine Power spells and Natural Spell feat, and you go a long long way in fixing melees.

[Othesemo]

I just don't care about ToB. I ignore it entirely.

Call me a megalomaniac if you will, but I strongly believe this (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=13182574&postcount=1) is a better solution to all 3.5e's melee issues than ToB (on most if not all aspects).
If you wish for a detailed explanation why, you're more than welcome to that discussion.

That's dandy. However, a lot of people love ToB, and very, very few people realize that your homebrew exists. If you want your homebrew to be usable, you should try to make it compatible with existing material. Otherwise, the chances of anyone actually using your homebrew are slim, at best.


Now that this came up, I wouldn't automatically rule out the idea of capping the extra damage with BAB.
This could prevent quite a bit of munchkinism.

You don't need munchkinism to break this. You just need to be remotely competent and have access to one or two sourcebooks. The example I came up with earlier required absolutely no book combing or anything like that. I just named a few things off of the top of my head and voila, one-hit-kills coming from a plucky halfling rogue.

[nonsi]

That's dandy. However, a lot of people love ToB, and very, very few people realize that your homebrew exists. If you want your homebrew to be usable, you should try to make it compatible with existing material. Otherwise, the chances of anyone actually using your homebrew are slim, at best.

I definitely put a lot of effort to keep it isolated.
So far, I haven't encountered any reason to believe it isn't.




You don't need munchkinism to break this. You just need to be remotely competent and have access to one or two sourcebooks. The example I came up with earlier required absolutely no book combing or anything like that. I just named a few things off of the top of my head and voila, one-hit-kills coming from a plucky halfling rogue.

You mentioned touch attacks, but other than through the Deft Strike feat (again, putting ToB aside, which I'm not too familiar with), which requires a standard action, I don't know of other forms of touch attack where you should apply extra damage (touch-delivered spell effects of course don't count).

[Othesemo]

You mentioned touch attacks, but other than through the Deft Strike feat, which requires a standard action, I don't know of other forms of touch attack where you should apply extra damage.

Heartseeker Amulet? Flame Blade? Warlock? Psyrokineticist? Wraithstrike? Spot the Weak Point?

[Seerow]

You mentioned touch attacks, but other than through the Deft Strike feat, which requires a standard action, I don't know of other forms of touch attack where you should apply extra damage.


Wraithstrike is a pretty common one. Also Brilliant Energy weapons aren't quite the same thing, but close enough to get a similar effect.


I'd also note that NPCs will all be getting significantly increased damage out of this. They may not have the improved crit for increased multipliers, but a lot of them tend to have higher hit bonus for their CR than the same level PCs, and their secondary attacks don't get worse with each additional attack.

[nonsi]

You wouldn't need to make DEX to hit rolls. This already has the effect of making Dex more important by making AC more important.

Str still reigns supreme when it comes to most opposed checks such as trip, bull rush and grapple.

[Othesemo]

Oh, btw, I redid the build thing I suggested earlier to not have any ToB. Let me know what you think.

Strongheart Halfling Rogue 3/Hit and Run Fighter 2

Str 10
Dex 17+1+2
Con 14
Int/Cha/Wis to taste


Feats: Dervish Dance, Weapon Focus (Scimitar), Craven, [any feat]

Items: +1 Scimitar, Gloves of Dex +2, Heartseeker Amulet

Attack: +1 Scimitar +12 (+1 Size, +4 BAB, +5 Dex, +1 Magic, +1 WF) Melee (1d4+6)

So, let's say the halfling gets his level 5 wizard buddy to cast 'blink' on him. For the next five rounds, he gets +2 attack and all opponents are flat-footed, which allows him to add his dex to damage again, for a base damage of 1d4+11. So, perhaps this ToB-free halfling finds himself fighting a winter wolf, and so he attacks, activating his Heartseeker Amulet.

Let's say he rolls a modest 10 on his attack roll. He deals 1d4+11 base damage, or 13.5. He then gets an extra 26 damage from the crit rules, bumping it up to 39.5 damage on average. He also gets 2d6+2 sneak attack damage, for an extra 9, bringing the total up to 48.5, or almost enough to kill the winter wolf in one hit.

Glancing through an index of CR 5 creatures, there are very few who can survive being hit that hard more than once, and a fair number who can't survive it at all. Of course, CR 5 is meant to be an appropriate challenge for 4 5th level adventurers, not two, so this guy and his wizard buddy are already a bit ahead of the power curve.

This took about 30 5 minutes to completely write edit, and I didn't actually have to use Person_Man's thread on optimizing. Hell, I've probably missed dozens of options that I would have used if I were actually making a character.

[nonsi]

Oh, btw, I redid the build thing I suggested earlier to not have any ToB. Let me know what you think.

Strongheart Halfling Rogue 3/Hit and Run Fighter 2

Str 10
Dex 17+1+2
Con 14
Int/Cha/Wis to taste


Feats: Dervish Dance, Weapon Focus (Scimitar), Craven, [any feat]

Items: +1 Scimitar, Gloves of Dex +2, Heartseeker Amulet

Attack: +1 Scimitar +12 (+1 Size, +4 BAB, +5 Dex, +1 Magic, +1 WF) Melee (1d4+6)

So, let's say the halfling gets his level 5 wizard buddy to cast 'blink' on him. For the next five rounds, he gets +2 attack and all opponents are flat-footed, which allows him to add his dex to damage again, for a base damage of 1d4+11. So, perhaps this ToB-free halfling finds himself fighting a winter wolf, and so he attacks, activating his Heartseeker Amulet.

Let's say he rolls a modest 10 on his attack roll. He deals 1d4+11 base damage, or 13.5. He then gets an extra 26 damage from the crit rules, bumping it up to 39.5 damage on average. He also gets 2d6+2 sneak attack damage, for an extra 9, bringing the total up to 48.5, or almost enough to kill the winter wolf in one hit.

Glancing through an index of CR 5 creatures, there are very few who can survive being hit that hard more than once, and a fair number who can't survive it at all. Of course, CR 5 is meant to be an appropriate challenge for 4 5th level adventurers, not two, so this guy and his wizard buddy are already a bit ahead of the power curve.

This took about 30 5 minutes to completely write edit, and I didn't actually have to use Person_Man's thread on optimizing. Hell, I've probably missed dozens of options that I would have used if I were actually making a character.

22 - 11 = 11 actually, making it +22 rather than +26.
But yes. If you have both effective magical equipment and the help of an ally spellcaster, there are plenty of ways how to kill someone.
However, some of your targets will be able to see invisibility.
Also, your 5th level buddy will only be able to assist you once a day, and I'm pretty sure he's not gonna make Blink his primary strategy.
Also, you pay for that size-based +1 with reduced speed - something that will make it hard for you to get to your targets and make it easy for them to get to you.
Also, I don't see anything in this build that in any way covers battlefield control, maneuvers edge, mobility enhancement or anything other than damage.
Also, this is somewhat of a "YMMV" factor, but if you ever lose that amulet, you're also FUBAR on the action economy part. In any group I ever was a part of (on both sides of the table), magical gear was far from everlasting, so "YMMV" is a factor to consider.
On the average, I doubt you'll be getting that 48.5 average on a regular basis, but suffering from reduced speed and next to zero options will always be there.

[nonsi]

Heartseeker Amulet? Flame Blade? Warlock? Psyrokineticist? Wraithstrike? Spot the Weak Point?

- Heartseeker Amulet - see above.
- Flame Blade/Warlock/Psyrokineticist - energy damage doesn't count as weapon skill, so no, the extra damage doesn't apply. non-physical attacks don't get the extra damage. The attack must count as bludgeoning/piercing/slashing to gain extra damage. Spellcasters gain extra damage just for leveling up. That's enough in my book.
- Spot the Weak Point - you spend your round preparing for the next round.
- Wraithstrike - yes. That one requires some thinking. Maybe, because you don't get to see what's behind the armor you're hitting, then you should get just the regular extra damage (zero if you'd have missed without Wraithstrike). I still need to think this one through.


I also forgot. Dervish Dance is PF. My homebrews are strictly 3.5-oriented.

[nonsi]

I'd also note that NPCs will all be getting significantly increased damage out of this. They may not have the improved crit for increased multipliers, but a lot of them tend to have higher hit bonus for their CR than the same level PCs, and their secondary attacks don't get worse with each additional attack.


Where is that written O.o

[Seerow]

Where is that written O.o

It's the default rule for all natural attacks. Primary attack is as normal, and then ALL secondary attacks go at -5. So if you have a monster with say: a bite, two claws, two wing attacks, and a tail whip, his attack bonus isn't +20/+15/+10/+5/+0/-5, it's +20/+15/+15/+15/+15/+15. And for the small price of one feat, he gets to reduce the penalty from -5 to -2, and I'm pretty sure another feat to bring it to -0.

[silphael]

Natural attacks don't follow the rule of -5 per attack after the first...

[TuggyNE]

You mentioned touch attacks, but other than through the Deft Strike feat (again, putting ToB aside, which I'm not too familiar with), which requires a standard action, I don't know of other forms of touch attack where you should apply extra damage (touch-delivered spell effects of course don't count).

How about Deep Impact? A PsyWar can reliably deliver a melee touch attack every round, or with additional work, two. For that matter, a naturally psionic race would be able to pull it off on a Fighter chassis, though it might not work as well.

Human Psychic Warrior 8
32pb: 24 (18 +2 level +4 enh from animal affinity), 12, 14, 8, 14, 8
Feats: Psionic Weapon, Psionic Meditation, Deep Impact, Psicrystal Affinity, Psicrystal Containment, Weapon Focus, [1 feat left]
+1 keen greatsword
+15/+10 melee touch (2d6+10), against enemies with touch AC generally in the 8-10 range, so it normally adds between 10 and 52 to the damage on the first hit.

This is enough to one-round many CR 8 enemies solo, without using charging multipliers, or much in the way of enhancements; some it can actually one-hit. (For clarity, it's almost as good as my psywar leap attack charger, but a lot easier.)

[Amnoriath]

Okay since you won't tell us why specifically you made this change and clearly didn't understand the meaning of charge with two-handed weapons I am going to spell it out for you. The key cornerstone feat of Uberchargers is Shock trooper which has heedless charge allowing you to take an AC penalty instead of an attack penalty on a charge. So, this means the two-handed both have power attack and this extra attack damage on a critical. If you don't allow this or others that have been mentioned you would effectively neuter two-hand builds for damage.
So how does this work for the other weapon styles? Duelist has the same amount of attacks as two-handed but a smaller weapon, less power attack, and usually the same attack so it is yet again dead last. Archery, most bows have high criticals but crappy threat ranges so it benefits but while damage was an issue you still have how many ridiculous ways to stop the attacks. Two-weapons more attacks means more damage that didn't change from the first time. While these criticals add straight damage two-weapons also often deal with attack penalties to all attacks so it still doesn't scale to power attack, leap attack, charge modifiers..etc
If this was an attempt of balancing damage out put it has failed. I can understand why especially when two-weapon while is the runner-up is hard to make work attribute, feat wise, and meeting conditions. I say we need to look at opportunity to use this because two-handed pretty much need to charge to maximize power attack. How about any class that has martial weapon proficiency gets a contingent ability of two-weapon fighting as it is? The feat itself would eliminate the attack penalty when wielding at least one light weapon and allow the extra attack once a round to be made in any situation an attack can be dealt. The rest of the tree would continue to add attacks. While this doesn't increase individual damage it does give more opportunity to be an effective skirmisher spreading more out as well as being more mobile. As for more individual damage you could have a standard one to one trade of power attack on all weapons and have power attack be more like Pathfinder.
As I said before you should retool it as a feat for a duelist as mechanically and thematically it makes perfect sense for them to have it.

[Yitzi]

This will damage the vision of sneak attack, where the rogue's attack roll of 18 is better than the bard's attack roll of 18, because the rogue got to catch his opponent off-guard.

Wait, how does it damage it? He got to catch his opponent off-guard, so as a result he does more damage. The more precision he got, the bigger the bonus.


I haven't tried to use armor-as-DR, but I've seen quite a few discussions that said that it messes up balance quite a bit (too strong at low levels and too weak at high levels), so I got cold feet on that angle.

It does mess up balance quite a bit when done by itself, but if you combine it with the crit substitution idea it removes most of the problems (it's not too strong at low levels because even if you only beat its DR by 1 you get to add the bonus damage from your attack roll, and armor being too weak at high levels is true with or without the variant; your idea will mitigate that the same way with or without armor-as-DR).


I'm a strong supporter for Dex to hit & Str to damage, but if you make it Str-mod x 2, then what in the game is left for using Str-mod x 1 ?

Most combat maneuver checks; you also would probably make off-hand attacks be Str-modX1 and two-handed attacks be Str-modX3.

[Othesemo]

22 - 11 = 11 actually, making it +22 rather than +26.

22-13=9, actually, making it +26. Winter Wolves are large.


But yes. If you have both effective magical equipment and the help of an ally spellcaster, there are plenty of ways how to kill someone.

In one hit. A 5th level rogue should not be able to one shot an enemy meant to challenge four 5th level characters.

Besides, do you consider it unusual for an adventurer to have appropriate magic items and some friends?


However, some of your targets will be able to see invisibility.

Doesn't help against Blink. You go Ethereal, not invisible. You're just treated as invisible for the purposes of sneak attacking and attack bonus and such.


Also, your 5th level buddy will only be able to assist you once a day, and I'm pretty sure he's not gonna make Blink his primary strategy.

Unless, you know, he's a support caster. Which is more or less what I assumed, given that it's the best role for T1 casters in a core-ish group.


Also, you pay for that size-based +1 with reduced speed - something that will make it hard for you to get to your targets and make it easy for them to get to you.

Prepare an action.


Also, I don't see anything in this build that in any way covers battlefield control, maneuvers edge, mobility enhancement or anything other than damage.

That's why you've got a floating feat and craploads of skill points. Though you should bare in mind that this is a multiclass fighter/rogue, which tends to suck in core. I just tried to avoid anything too outlandish for your benefit.


Also, this is somewhat of a "YMMV" factor, but if you ever lose that amulet, you're also FUBAR on the action economy part. In any group I ever was a part of (on both sides of the table), magical gear was far from everlasting, so "YMMV" is a factor to consider.

Same thing if you lose your weapon. Pure melee types, in case you haven't noticed, tend to suck without their magic items.


On the average, I doubt you'll be getting that 48.5 average on a regular basis, but suffering from reduced speed and next to zero options will always be there.

You know, funny you should mention that. See, the first version of this build was a swordsage, which is this really neat tier 3 class that gives a lot of cool options to melee. However, for reasons utterly beyond me, it was deemed unworthy, and shot down in favor of the superior (?) and well balanced (?) core.

A bit like throwing away your uneaten dinner and than complaining that you're hungry.

[Just to Browse]

I'm not sure if you're saying that T1 casters should be support because they're good at it or if they should should be support because everyone else will feel small in the pants. If it's the latter, I've spoilered my response below and please ignore it. If it's the former, you probably want to read it.



Unless, you know, he's a support caster. Which is more or less what I assumed, given that it's the best role for T1 casters in a core-ish group.


he's a support caster. Which is more or less what I assumed, given that it's the best role for T1 casters in a core-ish group.


he's a support caster... it's the best role for T1 casters in a core-ish group.


support caster... it's the best role for T1 casters

:eek: No. No. No no no no no. Never again. No.

Let me revise your build, Othesemo:

Rogue something / something / maybe something else

All attributes, feats, and items to taste

OK, let's get into battle. Say he has a wizard friend who... wait, he has a wizard friend? OK, pretend the rogue isn't there anymore. The wizard casts fly, picks up a crossbow, and kites the wolf for the rest of eternity. Alternatively, the wizard uses deep slumber and then walks around the wolf, or climbs up into a tree and uses summon monster III to summon an earth elemental that proceeds to stab the wolf from under the ground until the wolf dies because it doesn't have DR and can't burrow.

Actually, the rogue can be bait for the monster if he wants.

I did that with any one spell from core. One spell. I'm not actually against your argument--this needs a fair bit more tweaking, but saying that the rogue could totally get blur because Tier 1 casters are best as supports is both flat-out wrong and flat-out wrong.

Oh, another thing. I don't actually know the feats Dervish Dance and Craven, and I don't think I've ever heard of the heartseeker amulet as an item... actually, now that I'm looking at them Dervish Dance is from Pathfinder SRD and Draven appears to be from Champions of Ruin, while the amulet is from Magic Item Compendium, so you're going to 2 sourcebooks not a lot of people have and what appears to be a book that isn't from D&D at all to obtain that build, unless RealmsHelps is lying to me.

So... yeah, maybe the tack your currently taking isn't the best. A better one would be how swingy the low levels become: How true strike is now auto-hit and +20 free damage on an attack (that's an auto-kill), or how shaken/sickened are +2 damage buffs, or perhaps how incredibly easy it is now to smash objects into tiny pieces with their AC of 5. You could perhaps talk about how touch attacks that deal regular damage (e.g. wraithstrike and that one ToB maneuver, though I may have read somewhere in this thread that nonsi ignores ToB) are ridiculous. Just about any other choice is better than that build.

[nonsi]

It's the default rule for all natural attacks. Primary attack is as normal, and then ALL secondary attacks go at -5. So if you have a monster with say: a bite, two claws, two wing attacks, and a tail whip, his attack bonus isn't +20/+15/+10/+5/+0/-5, it's +20/+15/+15/+15/+15/+15. And for the small price of one feat, he gets to reduce the penalty from -5 to -2, and I'm pretty sure another feat to bring it to -0.

Ok, I took it literally when you said "NPCs" (as opposed to monsters).





How about Deep Impact? A PsyWar can reliably deliver a melee touch attack every round

Not according to this (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/skills/concentration.htm#gainPsionicFocus).






Wait, how does it damage it? He got to catch his opponent off-guard, so as a result he does more damage. The more precision he got, the bigger the bonus.

When scoring 18 in that example, you're right, but suppose he scored the exact to-hit - he'd get no extra damage.
Would that really be fair for a 3/4 BAB lass ?




It does mess up balance quite a bit when done by itself, but if you combine it with the crit substitution idea it removes most of the problems (it's not too strong at low levels because even if you only beat its DR by 1 you get to add the bonus damage from your attack roll, and armor being too weak at high levels is true with or without the variant; your idea will mitigate that the same way with or without armor-as-DR).

I won't argue this claim, as I haven't really drilled-down armor-as-DR, but I never saw that option as particularly essential, and I find it somewhat cumbersome.




Most combat maneuver checks; you also would probably make off-hand attacks be Str-modX1 and two-handed attacks be Str-modX3.

I'm not saying an automatic no, but I need to cook this in my mind a bit.






Okay since you won't tell us why specifically you made this change and clearly didn't understand the meaning of charge with two-handed weapons I am going to spell it out for you. The key cornerstone feat of Uberchargers is Shock trooper which has heedless charge allowing you to take an AC penalty instead of an attack penalty on a charge. So, this means the two-handed both have power attack and this extra attack damage on a critical. If you don't allow this or others that have been mentioned you would effectively neuter two-hand builds for damage.

I already said along this discussion that PA is back on.
Check out the OP.





Duelist has the same amount of attacks as two-handed but a smaller weapon, less power attack, and usually the same attack so it is yet again dead last.

With these rules, eveybody benefits from optimized PA on every single hit. How does that hurt the Dualist ?




Archery, most bows have high criticals but crappy threat ranges so it benefits but while damage was an issue you still have how many ridiculous ways to stop the attacks.

Ditto. in what way do these rules make things harded for archers ?




Two-weapons more attacks means more damage that didn't change from the first time. While these criticals add straight damage two-weapons also often deal with attack penalties to all attacks so it still doesn't scale to power attack, leap attack, charge modifiers..etc

You lose at max 6 points of damage per attack (using a Keen Edge scyth), but you gain more attacks for some more damage dice ans usually some more bonus damage.




If this was an attempt of balancing damage out put it has failed. I can understand why especially when two-weapon while is the runner-up is hard to make work attribute, feat wise, and meeting conditions.

No comprende amigo (I have no clue what you were trying to say here).




I say we need to look at opportunity to use this because two-handed pretty much need to charge to maximize power attack. How about any class that has martial weapon proficiency gets a contingent ability of two-weapon fighting as it is?

What feat are you talking about ?




The feat itself would eliminate the attack penalty when wielding at least one light weapon and allow the extra attack once a round to be made in any situation an attack can be dealt. The rest of the tree would continue to add attacks. While this doesn't increase individual damage it does give more opportunity to be an effective skirmisher spreading more out as well as being more mobile. As for more individual damage you could have a standard one to one trade of power attack on all weapons and have power attack be more like Pathfinder.
As I said before you should retool it as a feat for a duelist as mechanically and thematically it makes perfect sense for them to have it.

So what you're basically saying is: "scrap this homebrew".
Well, I'm not ready to do that yet.

[nonsi]

So... yeah, maybe the tack your currently taking isn't the best. A better one would be how swingy the low levels become: How true strike is now auto-hit and +20 free damage on an attack (that's an auto-kill), or how shaken/sickened are +2 damage buffs, or perhaps how incredibly easy it is now to smash objects into tiny pieces with their AC of 5. You could perhaps talk about how touch attacks that deal regular damage (e.g. wraithstrike and that one ToB maneuver, though I may have read somewhere in this thread that nonsi ignores ToB) are ridiculous. Just about any other choice is better than that build.


- I already admitted that true strike will have to go, or at least the extra damage will require BAB-cap.
- Smashing objects is indeed an issue I haven't considered. Maybe no extra damage, because extra damage is precision based.
- As for the other issues - they've already been resolved in this thread, by limiting extra damage to physical attacks only and not counting armor as ZERO for the extra damage on Wraithstrike, because you can't actually see behind it to fully direct your attacks to maximum potential.

[nonsi]

@Othesemo

Ok, I need you to run the numbers again.
21 (attack roll, no Dervish Dance) minus 10 (Winter Wolf's touch AC) equals 11.
The Scimitar's core threat range is 18-20, so you add 50% of 11 twice.
So the final result is 1d4 + 22.

Regarding Blink, go to the SRD and read the part of opponents that can see invis. / ethereal / both.

As for Craven, most groups don't even know that there is such a book named "Champions of Ruin".

Prepare an action - situational. Also, don't assume your opponents are suckers.

Floating feat - one is not enough.
Craploads of skill points - not trivially useful for battlefield control, action economy, mobility etc.


Pure melee types indeed suck without their magic items, but with my solution they'd suck a bit less, not more.

Swordsage - irrelevant. No ToB.
You see, unlike official material that only expands existing official stuff, the whole point of houseruling is about modifying/omitting official stuff as needed.

[Yitzi]

The wizard casts fly, picks up a crossbow, and kites the wolf for the rest of eternity.

Sure, if he's willing to spend one of his two level 3 spells for the day on this fight and it isn't in (and doesn't flee into) a cramped cave or building of some sort (which could keep him from going high enough to avoid the Winter Wolf's attacks, and force him to turn often enough that he won't be able to kite the wolf effectively in the 5 minutes before Fly runs out.)


Alternatively, the wizard uses deep slumber

Sure, use a 1 round casting time (i.e. it can be disrupted on the enemy's turn) spell with close range. Deep Slumber sucks.

And of course you're still using a max-level spell, which you can't do every fight if the DM isn't letting you set the pace.


or climbs up into a tree and uses summon monster III

Again a max-level spell...


to summon an earth elemental that proceeds to stab the wolf from under the ground until the wolf dies because it doesn't have DR and can't burrow.

So? The wolf can still ready an action to attack the elemental when it comes out.


Not according to this (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/skills/concentration.htm#gainPsionicFocus).

Keep in mind Psionic Meditation.

The only problem is that gaining psionic focus provokes an AoO, and if he takes a 5' step back before focusing to avoid it, the enemy can take a 5' step back as well and then he has to spend his move action to get close enough. (Using a reach weapon or enlarge can solve that, though, and of course against non-melee enemies it's a non-issue.)


When scoring 18 in that example, you're right, but suppose he scored the exact to-hit - he'd get no extra damage.
Would that really be fair for a 3/4 BAB lass ?

A rogue isn't 3/4 BAB because he gets Sneak Attack; there's a fighter variant from UA that also gets Sneak Attack just like a rogue, and a rogue variant with no sneak attack. A rogue is 3/4 BAB because he gets so many useful* noncombat abilities.

You're treating "rogue" as synonymous with "sneak attack" when it's not really so. (In fact, in my rebuild, the best sneak attacker will be an appropriately built fighter. Rogues will still be the unquestioned masters at most skills, though.)

*Well, assuming the DM can keep the wizard from stealing the show.


I won't argue this claim, as I haven't really drilled-down armor-as-DR, but I never saw that option as particularly essential, and I find it somewhat cumbersome.

It's not essential, but it synergizes well with certain variants including STR-to-damage/DEX-to-attack (as it makes STR good at getting past armor, which makes sense) and (if used as I suggested) this variant (as it gives a way to make base damage still be relevant even for someone with high bonus damage.)

It also makes PA more of a tactical choice under this system; it makes you more likely to miss entirely, but less likely to have your damage blocked because the armor blocked the base damage.


I'm not saying an automatic no, but I need to cook this in my mind a bit.

It's your variant; I'm just giving suggestions.

[Amnoriath]

I already said along this discussion that PA is back on.
Check out the OP.




With these rules, eveybody benefits from optimized PA on every single hit. How does that hurt the Dualist ?



Ditto. in what way do these rules make things harded for archers ?



You lose at max 6 points of damage per attack (using a Keen Edge scyth), but you gain more attacks for some more damage dice ans usually some more bonus damage.



No comprende amigo (I have no clue what you were trying to say here).



What feat are you talking about ?



So what you're basically saying is: "scrap this homebrew".
Well, I'm not ready to do that yet.

1. That is the point guess who benefits more? I just told you about Shock Trooper, seriously look it up if you can't read all of what I say. The fact is through out the discussion you took major aversion to almost anything that majorly helps out attack or lower AC so basically I am saying don't do it with Shock Trooper.
2. The Duelist fundamentally has less attacks and less base damage. Power attack decreases the damage dealt by this method because it decreases attack for 1 to 1 basis except for you know who. All you did was give them a free damage option that only works against about 50% encounters out there. So, basically it is a lesser two handed weapon.
3. Archery gets screwed because there are much more effects out there to stop hits from being made in the first place. It is also feat and resource intensive to get some more significant abilities that melee can and/or can't do. Yes you gave them more damage but you didn't really solve the big issues. You also have to consider that Archery in general yields the most attacks.
4. No, what I meant was give options to who needs it most because then you just have to worry about those you give it to, not everyone. Also look at the overall strategy and play not just individual damage. Opening up options for people can be far more rewarding than just damage. Tome of Battle and spell casting are testaments to that.
Note: Eldritch Blast and other spells like it or produce "weapons" under the Complete Arcane are ruled to be weapon-like spells/spell-like abilities and such spells or spell-like abilities have a critical rating of 20/x2

[nonsi]

1. That is the point guess who benefits more? I just told you about Shock Trooper, seriously look it up if you can't read all of what I say. The fact is through out the discussion you took major aversion to almost anything that majorly helps out attack or lower AC so basically I am saying don't do it with Shock Trooper.

I didn't touch Shock Trooper (see the updated OP).




2. The Duelist fundamentally has less attacks and less base damage. Power attack decreases the damage dealt by this method because it decreases attack for 1 to 1 basis except for you know who. All you did was give them a free damage option that only works against about 50% encounters out there. So, basically it is a lesser two handed weapon.

Not my fault the Duelist is weak.




3. Archery gets screwed because there are much more effects out there to stop hits from being made in the first place. It is also feat and resource intensive to get some more significant abilities that melee can and/or can't do. Yes you gave them more damage but you didn't really solve the big issues. You also have to consider that Archery in general yields the most attacks.

A single set of house rules can't fix the universe.
Nothing I can do on that angle in this set of rules.
Fixing Wind Wall and adding/fixing archery feats is something that's out of the scope of this thread.




4. No, what I meant was give options to who needs it most because then you just have to worry about those you give it to, not everyone. Also look at the overall strategy and play not just individual damage. Opening up options for people can be far more rewarding than just damage. Tome of Battle and spell casting are testaments to that.
Note: Eldritch Blast and other spells like it or produce "weapons" under the Complete Arcane are ruled to be weapon-like spells/spell-like abilities and such spells or spell-like abilities have a critical rating of 20/x2

Suggestions would be nice - but such that will be general, not something that'll just be tailor-made for a specific sub-par PrC.

[Amnoriath]

I didn't touch Shock Trooper (see the updated OP).



Not my fault the Duelist is weak.



A single set of house rules can't fix the universe.
Nothing I can do on that angle in this set of rules.
Fixing Wind Wall and adding/fixing archery feats is something that's out of the scope of this thread.



Suggestions would be nice - but such that will be general, not something that'll just be tailor-made for a specific sub-par PrC.

1. You didn't mention it at all so it works the same which means two-hand style gets double benefit.
2. Then why are you making this? It doesn't fix duelists(aka, anyone using a one-handed manufactured weapon) it marginally helps two-weapon fighting but benefits archery far more which gives more attacks and is very gishable in the first place. It gives even more damage to two-handed weapons. What does this sweeping change fix? One style and enables a whole bunch of magic/supernatural enhanced loopholes, so it really doesn't. Two-weapon builds are still stuck with spending actions to meet conditions of their extra dice robbing them of all of their extra attacks. If they choose not to guess who still deals massively more damage.
4. I did make general suggestions but you only read get rid of it entirely when I never said such a thing, look back at post 49, paragraph 3.

[Othesemo]

@Othesemo

Ok, I need you to run the numbers again.
21 (attack roll, no Dervish Dance) minus 10 (Winter Wolf's touch AC) equals 11.
The Scimitar's core threat range is 18-20, so you add 50% of 11 twice.
So the final result is 1d4 + 22.

You are aware that your enemy is flat-footed as well, correct? Blink?


Regarding Blink, go to the SRD and read the part of opponents that can see invis. / ethereal / both.

I stand corrected. However, this is wholly irrelevant given the vast deficit of CR 5 creatures who can see invisibility.


As for Craven, most groups don't even know that there is such a book named "Champions of Ruin".

Anyone, however, who looks for advice on making sneak attack more potent online will run into it. Hell, I don't actually own the book- I just have this (http://dndtools.eu/feats/champions-of-ruin--27/craven--484/).


Floating feat - one is not enough.
Craploads of skill points - not trivially useful for battlefield control, action economy, mobility etc.

Would you rather I make a druid? This is a frickin' fighter we're talking about. It sucks, I realize. However, it sucks just as much in both systems, and pointing that weakness out has absolutely nothing to do with the subject at hand. The difference is, under this system he becomes brokenly good at one thing, and continues to suck as normal in other regards.


Pure melee types indeed suck without their magic items, but with my solution they'd suck a bit less, not more.

As above- you make them stupidly good at one thing. That doesn't fix them- it just makes them either useless or broken, rather than useless or mildly useful.


Swordsage - irrelevant. No ToB.

Then put a large disclaimer in the OP saying that you realize how poorly this meshes with standard D&D, and that your recommend that DMs just ban everything that it clashes with.


You see, unlike official material that only expands existing official stuff, the whole point of houseruling is about modifying/omitting official stuff as needed.

Or to add new content, since no new official 3.5 material is forthcoming. If your interest is in creating a new game, do that. However, when hundreds of classes and feats are based upon a set of fundamental premises, messing with them is going to lead to an unnecessarily large clean up. As I showed above with my swordsage or with truestrike, to which your response was to wave it away for unexplained reasons.

[nonsi]

You are aware that your enemy is flat-footed as well, correct? Blink?

I'm adapting.
In the OP, I capped the base-extra with BAB, so it's not gonna rise above +8 for your suggested build (+4 + twice (50% of 4))
This makes True Strike and other potential loopholes a non-issue.




I stand corrected. However, this is wholly irrelevant given the vast deficit of CR 5 creatures who can see invisibility.

Yes, but Uncanny Dodge is also a factor to consider.




Anyone, however, who looks for advice on making sneak attack more potent online will run into it. Hell, I don't actually own the book- I just have this (http://dndtools.eu/feats/champions-of-ruin--27/craven--484/).

Fair enough




The difference is, under this system he becomes brokenly good at one thing.

Not anymore, I guess.




As above- you make them stupidly good at one thing. That doesn't fix them- it just makes them either useless or broken, rather than useless or mildly useful.

Let's stay on track here. This is not a class fix.
No single houserule in the universe can fix all classes in one go.




Then put a large disclaimer in the OP saying that you realize how poorly this meshes with standard D&D, and that your recommend that DMs just ban everything that it clashes with.

No need for hostility.




Or to add new content, since no new official 3.5 material is forthcoming. If your interest is in creating a new game, do that. However, when hundreds of classes and feats are based upon a set of fundamental premises, messing with them is going to lead to an unnecessarily large clean up. As I showed above with my swordsage or with truestrike, to which your response was to wave it away for unexplained reasons.

I hope and believe that now there will no longer be any need for special clauses.






1. You didn't mention it at all so it works the same which means two-hand style gets double benefit.

Ok, unless my English-fu is really off this morning...
this
"You didn't mention it at all so it works the same which means two-hand style gets double benefit."
contradicts this
"The fact is through out the discussion you took major aversion to almost anything that majorly helps out attack or lower AC so basically I am saying don't do it with Shock Trooper"
So, would you please make up your mind ?




2. Then why are you making this? It doesn't fix duelists(aka, anyone using a one-handed manufactured weapon)

Wait a minute.
This is just like saying: "any single houserule that doesn't stand-alone fix 3.5 should be thrown out the window.
Look, once I have this concept fully figured out, then I'll think of ways to fix 1-handers (this will probably require feats, or a different regard to PA, like Yitzi had suggested).




it marginally helps two-weapon fighting but benefits archery far more which gives more attacks and is very gishable in the first place.

Yes, and it was you who said: "Archery gets screwed because there are much more effects out there to stop hits from being made in the first place. It is also feat and resource intensive to get some more significant abilities that melee can and/or can't do."
Every other archery lover out there cries that there's no PA for missile weapons. I give it an equivalent and get flamed for not fixing archery feats or counter-archery spells.
Sorry, but a thread that deals with damage rules for all weapons at once can't address specific issues. Those should be covered by other houserules/homebrews.




It gives even more damage to two-handed weapons. What does this sweeping change fix? One style and enables a whole bunch of magic/supernatural enhanced loopholes, so it really doesn't.

Hopefully, the loopholes are gone with the BAB cap to extra damage.




Two-weapon builds are still stuck with spending actions to meet conditions of their extra dice robbing them of all of their extra attacks. If they choose not to guess who still deals massively more damage.

Sure, as if with PA you don't need guessing.




4. I did make general suggestions but you only read get rid of it entirely when I never said such a thing, look back at post 49, paragraph 3.

Fair enough. My bad on the account of lack of sleep.
However, I have reservations regarding your suggestions.


“How about any class that has martial weapon proficiency gets a contingent ability of two-weapon fighting as it is? The feat itself would eliminate the attack penalty when wielding at least one light weapon and allow the extra attack once a round to be made in any situation an attack can be dealt. The rest of the tree would continue to add attacks. While this doesn't increase individual damage it does give more opportunity to be an effective skirmisher spreading more out as well as being more mobile.”
1. This is not a feats-fixing thread.
2. How does that help 1-handes ?
3. With this suggestion and using my crit-substitution rules, why would I choose anything other than TWF ?


“As for more individual damage you could have a standard one to one trade of power attack on all weapons and have power attack be more like Pathfinder.”
If I do that, I’m sure to get replies that I neutered PA, but maybe it is a good midway between keeping it as it is and nixing it altogether.

“As I said before you should retool it as a feat for a duelist as mechanically and thematically it makes perfect sense for them to have it.”
No, it is meant as a sweeping fix (with all the advantages detailed in the OP that I'm hoping to achieve), not a feat.

[Othesemo]

Alright, the BAB cap fixes things somewhat, thanks. I don't have any other concerns.

[nonsi]

Alright, the BAB cap fixes things somewhat, thanks. I don't have any other concerns.

Thanks for sharing them :smallsmile:

[Amnoriath]

I'm adapting.





Ok, unless my English-fu is really off this morning...
this
"You didn't mention it at all so it works the same which means two-hand style gets double benefit."
contradicts this
"The fact is through out the discussion you took major aversion to almost anything that majorly helps out attack or lower AC so basically I am saying don't do it with Shock Trooper"
So, would you please make up your mind ?



Wait a minute.
This is just like saying: "any single houserule that doesn't stand-alone fix 3.5 should be thrown out the window.
Look, once I have this concept fully figured out, then I'll think of ways to fix 1-handers (this will probably require feats, or a different regard to PA, like Yitzi had suggested).



Yes, and it was you who said: "Archery gets screwed because there are much more effects out there to stop hits from being made in the first place. It is also feat and resource intensive to get some more significant abilities that melee can and/or can't do."
Every other archery lover out there cries that there's no PA for missile weapons. I give it an equivalent and get flamed for not fixing archery feats or counter-archery spells.
Sorry, but a thread that deals with damage rules for all weapons at once can't address specific issues. Those should be covered by other houserules/homebrews.



Hopefully, the loopholes are gone with the BAB cap to extra damage.



Sure, as if with PA you don't need guessing.



Fair enough. My bad on the account of lack of sleep.
However, I have reservations regarding your suggestions.


“How about any class that has martial weapon proficiency gets a contingent ability of two-weapon fighting as it is? The feat itself would eliminate the attack penalty when wielding at least one light weapon and allow the extra attack once a round to be made in any situation an attack can be dealt. The rest of the tree would continue to add attacks. While this doesn't increase individual damage it does give more opportunity to be an effective skirmisher spreading more out as well as being more mobile.”
1. This is not a feats-fixing thread.
2. How does that help 1-handes ?
3. With this suggestion and using my crit-substitution rules, why would I choose anything other than TWF ?


“As for more individual damage you could have a standard one to one trade of power attack on all weapons and have power attack be more like Pathfinder.”
If I do that, I’m sure to get replies that I neutered PA, but maybe it is a good midway between keeping it as it is and nixing it altogether.

“As I said before you should retool it as a feat for a duelist as mechanically and thematically it makes perfect sense for them to have it.”
No, it is meant as a sweeping fix (with all the advantages detailed in the OP that I'm hoping to achieve), not a feat.

1. No it doesn't contradict because most of the challenges in addressing issues to look at what this does with your rule have been met with you won't allow it. It doesn't fix damage disparity which was your intent in the first place, but if you take out Shock Trooper PA is in direct conflict with your rule. I am merely pointing out the dilemma which is are you going to leave it and let two-handed get double-benefit with a keen scythe, or are you going to take it out no longer having two-handed be number one in damage?
2. What I am saying is the fact despite your feelings in a previous post that two-weapon style should be better the benefit mostly goes to archery. Splitting enchantment doubles all attack made with a bow of any kind. That means a standard longbow archer yields 10 attacks with rapid shot. Also Manyshot enables more base attacks as a standard action the attack penalties are virtually gone with Woodland Archer over the course of battle. Archers also can get bows that deal full force damage both from a property and a base bow. Two-weapon builds on the other hand deal 7 and at a closer range with the more feats over a longer period of growth. So before this fix Archers can potentially deal more damage already being able to deal out more attacks with almost the same additional die as well as having more opportunity to use them. This isn't even going into gish type abilities which can double attacks again on the archer. The fixing of archers vs. two-weapons isn't damage out put it is field control and contingent effects to stop it in the first place. So your fix again doesn't adjust damage disparity unless somehow a strict core campaign is allowing homebrew.
5. a. It is a fix thread though and it does increase damage potential due to opportunity. So, it fixes over all damage. I say it is a perfectly appropriate suggestion.
b. It doesn't, I find it is a better to have prescribed fixes as from what I said early.
c. It really doesn't actually from what I said before, but the point goes back to it is a better option for one-handed fighting.
6. I said more like not exactly like. This way even two-weapon builds with out Power Attack the feat would be only little less efficient than two-handed with. Ones that do have it keep up with the two-handed.
7. It isn't a good one though so for this to actually bring up anything in the overall sense it is best prescribed.

[nonsi]

1. No it doesn't contradict because most of the challenges in addressing issues to look at what this does with your rule have been met with you won't allow it. It doesn't fix damage disparity which was your intent in the first place, but if you take out Shock Trooper PA is in direct conflict with your rule. I am merely pointing out the dilemma which is are you going to leave it and let two-handed get double-benefit with a keen scythe, or are you going to take it out no longer having two-handed be number one in damage?

Look at the OP.
1. Extra damage is now BAB-capped.
2. PA has been redefined,




2. What I am saying is the fact despite your feelings in a previous post that two-weapon style should be better the benefit mostly goes to archery. Splitting enchantment doubles all attack made with a bow of any kind. That means a standard longbow archer yields 10 attacks with rapid shot.

1. I have no idea what Splitting enhancement is (it's not in the SRD anyway). What book is it from ?
2. How on earth did you get to 10 ?




Also Manyshot enables more base attacks as a standard action the attack penalties are virtually gone with Woodland Archer over the course of battle.

I see no problem with Woodland Archer.




Archers also can get bows that deal full force damage both from a property and a base bow. Two-weapon builds on the other hand deal 7 and at a closer range with the more feats over a longer period of growth.

Again, this houserule doesn't address feats.
Also, I have no idea what 7 stands for.
Finally, missile launchers are easier to sunder and provoke AoOs.
There are advantages and disadvantages - it's up to the player to figure out his tactics. The right tactics can and should be significant - D&D is all about tactics.




So before this fix Archers can potentially deal more damage already being able to deal out more attacks with almost the same additional die as well as having more opportunity to use them. This isn't even going into gish type abilities which can double attacks again on the archer.

Ok, I need you to illustrate how somebody gets 20 attacks per round with a bow. I'm not aware that it's possible.



The rest can only be addressed according to further information regarding the above.

[Amnoriath]

Look at the OP.
1. Extra damage is now BAB-capped.
2. PA has been redefined,



1. I have no idea what Splitting enhancement is (it's not in the SRD anyway). What book is it from ?
2. How on earth did you get to 10 ?



I see no problem with Woodland Archer.



Again, this houserule doesn't address feats.
Also, I have no idea what 7 stands for.
Finally, missile launchers are easier to sunder and provoke AoOs.
There are advantages and disadvantages - it's up to the player to figure out his tactics. The right tactics can and should be significant - D&D is all about tactics.



Ok, I need you to illustrate how somebody gets 20 attacks per round with a bow. I'm not aware that it's possible.



The rest can only be addressed according to further information regarding the above.

Champions of Ruin is where all of this is from, numbers represent amount of attacks. The splitting enchantment literally splits every arrow shot, doubling attacks. The same book also have swift action spells endowing some pretty brutal effects on arrows, doubling attacks. One of which is called arrowsplit making one arrow into 1d4+1 arrows, with splitting that 2d4+2 attacks for your first. There also many easy ways to get extra attacks(haste..etc).
AoO's, if they are close but a couple of different PrC's offer the chance to avoid it completely(Justice of Weald & Woe). You also can't sunder in mid air.
Yeah, you nerfed two-handed and whole bunch of other changes just so you can accommodate yours. Congratulations you redeemed two-weapon by directly making others worse. The point is you have just made new top dogs not because of your sweeping fix but you making adjustments for it rather than make prescribed solutions, still need one yet.

[nonsi]

Champions of Ruin is where all of this is from, numbers represent amount of attacks. The splitting enchantment literally splits every arrow shot, doubling attacks.

Nice.
Given this is my set of houserules, It's my leisure to describe how something like that will mesh with my rules.
I say that only one of the pair will get to benefit from precision damage - exactly like the case of Manyshot feat.
Also, 4th attack is gained no sooner than level 16, so for the majority of the character's career, this'll amout to 2d6 - 3d6 addition at most. No big deal.




The same book also have swift action spells endowing some pretty brutal effects on arrows, doubling attacks.

A simple spell as Fireball does more to a greater distance with no attack roll required.




One of which is called arrowsplit making one arrow into 1d4+1 arrows, with splitting that 2d4+2 attacks for your first.

Ditto on the Manishot feat.




There also many easy ways to get extra attacks(haste..etc).

Scratch Haste. It's equally valid for all weapons.




AoO's, if they are close but a couple of different PrC's offer the chance to avoid it completely(Justice of Weald & Woe).

PrCs don't count.
Each PrC has its shtick - which doesn't count for others.
If that's that PrC's shtick, then more power to them.




You also can't sunder in mid air.

No, but you can close the distance and sunder the missile device. Now mr. archer is boned.




Yeah, you nerfed two-handed and whole bunch of other changes just so you can accommodate yours. Congratulations you redeemed two-weapon by directly making others worse.

You know what WIP means? I didn't put it in the title, but this is obviously WIP (if it's PEACH, then its by default WIP).




The point is you have just made new top dogs not because of your sweeping fix but you making adjustments for it rather than make prescribed solutions, still need one yet.

No I haven't.
All you need is the right attitude toward things (like I did with the Manyshot precedence) and everything's ok.



Btw, I'm not convinced regarding the no-contradiction regarding 2-H. Either you say that 2H is nerfed or OP. It can't be both. 1-Handers are boned no matter how you slice it. Making 1H count as TWF just for the sake of balance is coerced. Either suggest a houserule of your imagination to fix it or homebrew a feat (or......... use your imagination: using the offhand to drink a potion / hold a shield / activate a magical device / flip a lever / swing from a rope / cast a spell . . .)

[Amnoriath]

Nice.
Given this is my set of houserules, It's my leisure to describe how something like that will mesh with my rules.
I say that only one of the pair will get to benefit from precision damage - exactly like the case of Manyshot feat.
Also, 4th attack is gained no sooner than level 16, so for the majority of the character's career, this'll amout to 2d6 - 3d6 addition at most. No big deal.



A simple spell as Fireball does more to a greater distance with no attack roll required.



Ditto on the Manishot feat.



Scratch Haste. It's equally valid for all weapons.



PrCs don't count.
Each PrC has its shtick - which doesn't count for others.
If that's that PrC's shtick, then more power to them.



No, but you can close the distance and sunder the missile device. Now mr. archer is boned.



You know what WIP means? I didn't put it in the title, but this is obviously WIP (if it's PEACH, then its by default WIP).



No I haven't.
All you need is the right attitude toward things (like I did with the Manyshot precedence) and everything's ok.



Btw, I'm not convinced regarding the no-contradiction regarding 2-H. Either you say that 2H is nerfed or OP. It can't be both. 1-Handers are boned no matter how you slice it. Making 1H count as TWF just for the sake of balance is coerced. Either suggest a houserule of your imagination to fix it or homebrew a feat (or......... use your imagination: using the offhand to drink a potion / hold a shield / activate a magical device / flip a lever / swing from a rope / cast a spell . . .)
Fireball vs. Arrowsplit, yeah lets test that under your rule. +1 splitting Keen longbow 1d8+5 per hit includes strength lets say we have the archer from above against a Great Wrym White Dragon. Lets say two of your first shots missed that keys woodland archer +8, activate arrowsplit this next set hits. That +8 alone is 32 damage on one attack, 128 at minimum amount attacks not including base hit or more attack. I think this beats the maximum of 45 from your fireball by far.
Sunder, yeah except most items don't have that many hit points a +5 adamantine greatsword has a whopping 100 hit points, its maximum. All it takes is a good Stone Dragon strike of the mountain hammer line(they all bypass hardness and/or DR). You also can target one at a time so you can better strike the bow. It is also outright mean to take away a players key weapon.
Well, I had just read you reduced Power Attack/4. I was bringing in possibilities which listened to say nerf it.

[nonsi]

Fireball vs. Arrowsplit, yeah lets test that under your rule. +1 splitting Keen longbow 1d8+5 per hit includes strength lets say we have the archer from above against a Great Wrym White Dragon. Lets say two of your first shots missed that keys woodland archer +8, activate arrowsplit this next set hits. That +8 alone is 32 damage at minimum amount attacks not including base hit. It won't take much to break 45.

I need more detail, such as the character's class-combo, stats, feats & items to assess the overall power level and if it's level-appropriate or not.
You need to explain how you got the numbers you presented, otherwise, it's impossible for me to assess the validity of your claim.
Also, don't ignore the Manyshot precedence.
And a personal comment: A character that goes against a great wyrm had better be able to produce 45 damage per hit, if s/he hopes to survive the encounter.




Sunder, yeah except most items don't have that many hit points a +5 adamantine greatsword has a whopping 100 hit points, its maximum. All it takes is a good Stone Dragon strike of the mountain hammer line(they all bypass hardness and/or DR). You also can target one at a time so you can better strike the bow. It is also outright mean to take away a players key weapon.

No ToB, remember ?




Well, I had just read you reduced Power Attack/4. I was bringing in possibilities which listened to say nerf it.

On the overall, my rules keep it about the same, while the other styles close most of the gap.

[TuggyNE]

2. What I am saying is the fact despite your feelings in a previous post that two-weapon style should be better the benefit mostly goes to archery. Splitting enchantment doubles all attack made with a bow of any kind. That means a standard longbow archer yields 10 attacks with rapid shot. Also Manyshot enables more base attacks as a standard action the attack penalties are virtually gone with Woodland Archer over the course of battle. Archers also can get bows that deal full force damage both from a property and a base bow. Two-weapon builds on the other hand deal 7 and at a closer range with the more feats over a longer period of growth. So before this fix Archers can potentially deal more damage already being able to deal out more attacks with almost the same additional die as well as having more opportunity to use them. This isn't even going into gish type abilities which can double attacks again on the archer. The fixing of archers vs. two-weapons isn't damage out put it is field control and contingent effects to stop it in the first place. So your fix again doesn't adjust damage disparity unless somehow a strict core campaign is allowing homebrew.

From what I understand, it's generally difficult to get adequate damage output on an archery build, even with Splitting (+3) and Hank's Energy Bow for force and Power Shot. This fix significantly improves it, but I'm not convinced it's unreasonably better by any means, even if you allow all shots fired to gain extra damage from over-AC attacks.


I say that only one of the pair will get to benefit from precision damage - exactly like the case of Manyshot feat.

Is this precision damage? If it is, it's useless against undead, oozes, etc. I would reconsider this.


Fireball vs. Arrowsplit, yeah lets test that under your rule. +1 splitting Keen longbow 1d8+5 per hit includes strength lets say we have the archer from above against a Great Wrym White Dragon. Lets say two of your first shots missed that keys woodland archer +8, activate arrowsplit this next set hits. That +8 alone is 32 damage on one attack, 128 at minimum amount attacks not including base hit or more attack. I think this beats the maximum of 45 from your fireball by far.

I'm not quite sure there's much point in testing an underpowered spell like fireball against moderately-optimized characters; sure, if fireball is still superior, that's a Bad Thing, but if it's inferior it proves little.


1
OK, let's see if I can come up with some useful sample builds, and test how they change.

Compare crit substitution (http://anydice.com/program/144e/graph) with standard (http://anydice.com/program/144d/graph); adjust the POWERATTACKTARGET setting at the top to get an idea of how different weapons and builds react (some are unaffected, such as the sneak attack TWFer, or the archers). In each case, a full attack routine is being performed.

The most obvious change is that archery becomes one of the easiest ways to get a lot of damage, especially with splitting (although note that it is not massively superior to another +4 equivalent setup). I'm not sure how responsive it is to further optimization, though; I suspect there's some untapped potential, but not perhaps an enormous amount. Compare Shock Trooper and touch attacks, and then combine the two for even more power (which was not previously worthwhile), and note that even without Battle Jump, Leap Attack, valorous, Charging Smite, rhino's rush, or other highly significant multipliers, it's practical to meet or exceed the archer's damage. Note also that unless you have touch attacks, Shock Trooper, or PA multipliers, it's not efficient to power attack at all in most cases under the new system. Finally, note that some styles don't receive much of a benefit from this. TWF sneak attack already has trouble hitting, so gains little; sword-and-board benefits somewhat, especially with PA turned off, but not as much as archery. Strength-based full BAB TWF gains little or nothing from power attacking in either system, but is noticeably improved by the ability to convert excess to-hit into damage.

Any suggestions on new or better stats to test, or corrections to make to either of the programs, are welcomed.

[Amechra]

DAMN YOU!

Why do things keep reminding me of my musings on repairing HP? Why?

I have classes and work, so I have no time for such a massive undertaking!

(Basically, you can pretty much cut people's HP to 1/3 of what it is now and still have things function in relatively the same way.)

[nonsi]

Is this precision damage? If it is, it's useless against undead, oozes, etc. I would reconsider this.

I have.
If solid hits are not considered precision, then what will be considered precision for someone that gains no special damage additions? (SA / Fav. Enemy, Skirmish etc).
I mean, even a mugger with a pen knife and no combat training can accidentally stab his victim in the heart.
And if I would make the extra damage affect all targets, then the problems of touch attacks and easy sundering pop up back again. Also, attacking creatures with no discernible anatomies will exclusively hurt precision-oriented characters (the ones who need the extra the most).




1
Compare crit substitution (http://anydice.com/program/144e/graph) with standard (http://anydice.com/program/144d/graph); adjust the POWERATTACKTARGET setting at the top to get an idea of how different weapons and builds react (some are unaffected, such as the sneak attack TWFer, or the archers). In each case, a full attack routine is being performed.

Can you tell me what the vertical and horizontal axes stand for ?
It'll make it easier (for me at least) to take part in this brainstorming.




Any suggestions on new or better stats to test, or corrections to make to either of the programs, are welcomed.

Ditto.
Perhaps, once I understand what exactly is being measured.

[nonsi]

(Basically, you can pretty much cut people's HP to 1/3 of what it is now and still have things function in relatively the same way.)

Unless I'm missing what you're trying to say here, cutting people's HP to 1/3 would make things totally grim&gritty - both core and with crit substitution (again, unless you were referring to something else).

[TuggyNE]

If solid hits are not considered precision, then what will be considered precision for someone that gains no special damage additions? (SA / Fav. Enemy, Skirmish etc).
I mean, even a mugger with a pen knife and no combat training can accidentally stab his victim in the heart.
And if I would make the extra damage affect all targets, then the problems of touch attacks and easy sundering pop up back again. Also, attacking creatures with no discernible anatomies will exclusively hurt precision-oriented characters (the ones who need the extra the most).

I don't quite understand what you're saying here. If this is precision damage, like Sneak Attack and Skirmish already are, and like critical hits traditionally are, then it magnifies the difference between normal foes and those that are immune to it. (Favored Enemy bonuses are not considered precision damage, and in fact I believe Swift Hunter allows Skirmish to apply to Favored Enemies past crit immunity.)

Also, I'm pretty sure the main balancing factor vs. touch attacks and other craziness is the BAB limit. (I didn't attempt to explore that in great detail, but without the limit it should be simple to combine Shock Trooper and wraithstrike with other attack modifiers to get a ... truly ferocious attack.)


Can you tell me what the vertical and horizontal axes stand for ?
It'll make it easier (for me at least) to take part in this brainstorming.

Ah, right.
Vertical axis is the percentage that the damage number on the horizontal axis occurs; a single damage die, like 1d6+5 or 1d12, creates a flat line, while multiple dice create peaks. In other words, up and to the right are both increasing total damage. For a much simpler example, try Meteor Swarm vs. Fire Resist (http://anydice.com/program/144f/graph). Also, note that each labeled series has the average and standard deviation; I generally just refer to the average for a quick reference, rather than puzzling through the full graph.

You'll note that increasing power attack amount tends to move each series down and to the left in the crit substitution, except for the ones that compensate for that (shock trooper, touch attacks).


It occurs to me that I should probably adjust the graphs to take charges into account and such; also, the next major aspect to consider is stacking crit modifiers to multiply extra damage. (+1 keen kaorti resin kukris would, I believe, multiply all substitution-critical damage by 2.5; then just crank attack bonuses up as high as possible and use touch attacks. By this point, however, the amount of extra damage, while considerable, is probably merely an adequate compensation for the investment.)

One final thing I forgot to add to my last post, or hadn't noticed yet, is that crit substitution increases weapon damage basically across the board, though unevenly, as noted. I'm not sure even a crit-fishing build would lose by this, even if Improved Critical no longer exists.

[nonsi]

I don't quite understand what you're saying here. If this is precision damage, like Sneak Attack and Skirmish already are, and like critical hits traditionally are, then it magnifies the difference between normal foes and those that are immune to it.

But if not, the difference is practically eliminated.
Maybe the difference could be mitigated by just making constructs, plants & undead immune to Coup De Grace, on top of SA & Skirmish (because partial damage additions will make things cumbersome), but it would eliminate a scenario where a stab to the chest kills a human but causes only minor damage to a zombie.
I'm open to suggestions here.




(Favored Enemy bonuses are not considered precision damage, and in fact I believe Swift Hunter allows Skirmish to apply to Favored Enemies past crit immunity.)

Correct. My bad.




Also, I'm pretty sure the main balancing factor vs. touch attacks and other craziness is the BAB limit.

Yes, but I don't wanna sacrifice common sense and flavor on the altar of balance.




It occurs to me that I should probably adjust the graphs to take charges into account and such; also, the next major aspect to consider is stacking crit modifiers to multiply extra damage. (+1 keen kaorti resin kukris would, I believe, multiply all substitution-critical damage by 2.5; then just crank attack bonuses up as high as possible and use touch attacks.

Then I'll wait for the new results.

[Amechra]

I'm working on an HP fix (I started playing with AD&D 1e, where your 20th level Fighter had less than 100 HP, and LIKED IT! I really personally disagree with having massive values for your HP.)

But, I just gotta say... I disagree with any class-based fix to melee, since A. They are harder to plug in to an ongoing game, B. They leave a lot of the options in the books out in the rain, looking sad. and C. it has a mindset of "play my class or go home, you silly fighty people", at least in my mind.

So, yeah, stuff like this or Realm of Chaos' Combat Techniques are where it's at.

[nonsi]

I'm working on an HP fix (I started playing with AD&D 1e, where your 20th level Fighter had less than 100 HP, and LIKED IT! I really personally disagree with having massive values for your HP.)

But, I just gotta say... I disagree with any class-based fix to melee, since A. They are harder to plug in to an ongoing game, B. They leave a lot of the options in the books out in the rain, looking sad. and C. it has a mindset of "play my class or go home, you silly fighty people", at least in my mind.

So, yeah, stuff like this or Realm of Chaos' Combat Techniques are where it's at.

If you wish to decrease HP significantly, I'd suggest you download my codex and take a peek at 2 things:
1. My take on races (Entry #2).
2. My take on HP (Entry #5 - open 1st spoiler and search for "Hit Points"). To scale things down below 3e averages, omit Con-mod to HP.

This will solve a lot of your issues with HP. It will also work great with my Vitality rules.

[corran_132]

So on your idea...

The system I'm building uses this (I call it accuracy), but be warned of a few things.

1- It boost damage by quite a bit. You wouldn't think it, but it does. At level 4, +4 damage is not insubstantial. limiting it to base attack bonus does nicely. I don't actually mind this, as i think it makes fighters better at higher levels, as their damage actually boosts for more than their slowly increasing strength and weapon enchantment. Think of a level 20 fighter striking a wizard (probably doesn't have the greatest AC. easy 20 extra damage.

1a- tied to this, two weapon fighting becomes more awesome, as you are doing this extra damage twice a turn.

1b- it is impossible to keep your AC scaled with attack at higher levels, so average damage increases more as you level up to fight higher hp. i think this is good.

2- it's not a trivial calculation. Adding in dice makes it more so. dice + base modifiers + accuracy. Throw in sneak attack damage and you might want to have some loos-leaf handy. ESPECIALLY when you are multiplying by .5 and remembering how many times to apply it. Keep in mind as well that the longer damage calculations take, the slower the game goes.

3- anything that lets you trade damage for attack must be recalculated. I actually think power attack as you put it isn't that useful, as unless you know you are going to hit you just leave it as precision damage with the multiplier. Unless you know you will hit and want to maximize your swing, I don't see when you ever use it.

How I do it:

base damage with weapons is a set value. Accuracy is just added on top of it (point for point). If you roll a 20, I throw in some extra awesome thing, depending on your strike (you pin them to the wall, stab the guy behind them...). My trade off point is 2 attack for 3 base damage.

[nonsi]

1- It boost damage by quite a bit. You wouldn't think it, but it does. At level 4, +4 damage is not insubstantial. limiting it to base attack bonus does nicely. I don't actually mind this, as i think it makes fighters better at higher levels, as their damage actually boosts for more than their slowly increasing strength and weapon enchantment. Think of a level 20 fighter striking a wizard (probably doesn't have the greatest AC. easy 20 extra damage.

A level-20 warrior is something I view as a terror of battle.
If such a character manages to lay down a solid blow on a mage, and the mage has nothing to mitigate the damage, I damn well expect it to be within the realm of possibility for the warrior to one-shot the mage.




1a- tied to this, two weapon fighting becomes more awesome, as you are doing this extra damage twice a turn.

Good. TWF always got shafted up until now.




1b- it is impossible to keep your AC scaled with attack at higher levels, so average damage increases more as you level up to fight higher hp. i think this is good.

OTOH........
- No wacky crit-multipliers
- No extra crit-damage-dice
- No ToB damage enhancement.
Seems to me like things even up nicely.




2- it's not a trivial calculation. Adding in dice makes it more so. dice + base modifiers + accuracy.

Give it 2 sessions and you'll be doing it half asleep.
I mean, pre-epic .5 of 1 - 20 doesn't exceed 10. 2 steps just mean you double the extra.
Trust me, it's much cleaner than confirming crit + roll for more damage + add the extra for feats & enhancements once more.




Throw in sneak attack damage and you might want to have some loos-leaf handy. ESPECIALLY when you are multiplying by .5 and remembering how many times to apply it. Keep in mind as well that the longer damage calculations take, the slower the game goes.

SA damage is never multiplied, so it remains the exact same factor in both systems.




3- anything that lets you trade damage for attack must be recalculated. I actually think power attack as you put it isn't that useful, as unless you know you are going to hit you just leave it as precision damage with the multiplier. Unless you know you will hit and want to maximize your swing, I don't see when you ever use it.

You use it when a hit is almost certain and you're willing to gamble.




How I do it:

base damage with weapons is a set value. Accuracy is just added on top of it (point for point).

I like base weapon damage calculations using dice rolls, because it symbolizes the difference between a hit to the shoulder and disembowelment.
If base weapon damage is fixed, it feels too much like a video game.
It also keeps a good amount of tension after successful attack rolls.




If you roll a 20, I throw in some extra awesome thing, depending on your strike

DM's mood is not good mechanics, because it keeps things inconsistent and leaves room for arguments around the gaming table.




(you pin them to the wall, stab the guy behind them...). My trade off point is 2 attack for 3 base damage.

I'm content with letting regular attacks stand for that scenario illustration.

[nonsi]

I'm bumping because a server error prevented my reply from showing in the main page.

[Yitzi]

While we're at it, I'll just mention that while the basic idea does have a lot to recommend it (as I said before), you should be aware that (as other people are saying) a lot will need to be recalibrated, recalculated, or even completely redone. Changes to the base mechanic are not to be taken lightly or without regard for the consequences.

[Amnoriath]

.
I need more detail, such as the character's class-combo, stats, feats & items to assess the overall power level and if it's level-appropriate or not.
You need to explain how you got the numbers you presented, otherwise, it's impossible for me to assess the validity of your claim.
Also, don't ignore the Manyshot precedence.
And a personal comment: A character that goes against a great wyrm had better be able to produce 45 damage per hit, if s/he hopes to survive the encounter.



No ToB, remember ?



On the overall, my rules keep it about the same, while the other styles close most of the gap.
1. Okay was held up at home and had some problems with the internet but here is my proof.

Raptoran Scout 4/ Ranger 12
ACF's Arcane Hunter, Solitary Hunter
Stats 14(+4)
18(+2)
14
12
14
8
Feats Skill Tricks
L1 Point-blank Shot Collector of Stories
L3 Knowledge Devotion Spot the Weak Point
L4(Scout) Precise Shot
L6 Swift Hunter
L9 Flyby Attack
L12 Woodland Archer
L15 True Believer(Heironeous) or Improved Skirmish..etc
Items:
Platinum Helm
+1 keen Splitting Elvencraft Footbow
Gloves of Dexterity(+2)
Belt of Giant Strength(+4)
Mithril Breastplate of Speed
Anklet of Translocation
Greater Bracers of Archery
Custom Spot item(10)
+1 warning dagger
Tactic One: While within 30 feet of the White Dragon this keys Platinum Helm(heroism) use Spot the Weak Point, Knowledge Devotion then use Flyby Attack to set up for Manyshot and Arrowsplit. It is time to roll up damage. At minimum this will yield 10 attacks, maximum of 16.
Attack modifiers 15+5(KD)+1(bow)+2(bracers)+5(dex.)+4(favored enemy)+2(heroism)-4=32, 30, 28 White Dragon tough AC 6
Damage(minimum attacks): 10d8+40d6+10[+5+2(heroism)+1(bracers)+5(KD)+4(FE)+1.5(15x3)your rule]
45+140+10[17+1.5(45)]
185+10[85]= 1035! This is one dead Great Wrym which is intended to be a challenge for a party of 4.
Alternatively using a footbow he can have any sort of item, such as a wand to make up spells, in the offhand and I talked about how Woodland Archer makes up for a missed strikes and it also negates any miss chance if any hit gets lucky to bypass it.
2. That isn't the point, the fact its hit points don't differ much between weapons and if the tactic of choice is to break it the player will hate you.
Tuggyne, he took out the feat of Power Attack replaced it has a two-hand option with only 1/4 BAB. Archers are damage kings now.

[nonsi]

.
1. Okay was held up at home and had some problems with the internet but here is my proof.

Raptoran Scout 4/ Ranger 12
ACF's Arcane Hunter, Solitary Hunter
Stats 14(+4)
18(+2)
14
12
14
8
Feats Skill Tricks
L1 Point-blank Shot Collector of Stories
L3 Knowledge Devotion Spot the Weak Point
L4(Scout) Precise Shot
L6 Swift Hunter
L9 Flyby Attack
L12 Woodland Archer
L15 True Believer(Heironeous) or Improved Skirmish..etc
Items:
Platinum Helm
+1 keen Splitting Elvencraft Footbow
Gloves of Dexterity(+2)
Belt of Giant Strength(+4)
Mithril Breastplate of Speed
Anklet of Translocation
Greater Bracers of Archery
Custom Spot item(10)
+1 warning dagger
Tactic One: While within 30 feet of the White Dragon this keys Platinum Helm(heroism) use Spot the Weak Point, Knowledge Devotion then use Flyby Attack to set up for Manyshot and Arrowsplit. It is time to roll up damage. At minimum this will yield 10 attacks, maximum of 16.
Attack modifiers 15+5(KD)+1(bow)+2(bracers)+5(dex.)+4(favored enemy)+2(heroism)-4=32, 30, 28 White Dragon tough AC 6
Damage(minimum attacks): 10d8+40d6+10[+5+2(heroism)+1(bracers)+5(KD)+4(FE)+1.5(15x3)your rule]
45+140+10[17+1.5(45)]
185+10[85]= 1035! This is one dead Great Wrym which is intended to be a challenge for a party of 4.
Alternatively using a footbow he can have any sort of item, such as a wand to make up spells, in the offhand and I talked about how Woodland Archer makes up for a missed strikes and it also negates any miss chance if any hit gets lucky to bypass it.
2. That isn't the point, the fact its hit points don't differ much between weapons and if the tactic of choice is to break it the player will hate you.
Tuggyne, he took out the feat of Power Attack replaced it has a two-hand option with only 1/4 BAB. Archers are damage kings now.

1. You're abusing the rules (http://www.enworld.org/forum/d-d-legacy-discussion/203251-spot-weak-point-complete-scoundrel.html)
2. Precision damage applies only once for each split arrow.
3. Precision damage applies only once when using Manyshot.
4. Your build amounts magic items like crazy. Sure, according to WBL it counts, but you have to get to that encounter with all those items at your possession.

This won't come anywhere near 1035.

The above took me 3 minutes.
I don't have more time right now, because I'm at work, but I'm guessing I might find some more munchkinism in your strategy (and I'm not familiar with some of the stuff you used in that build).
No finger pointing here, really, but you have to be more thorough in noticing usage limitations, not just the benefits of feats / skilltricks / etc.

[corran_132]

A level-20 warrior is something I view as a terror of battle.
If such a character manages to lay down a solid blow on a mage, and the mage has nothing to mitigate the damage, I damn well expect it to be within the realm of possibility for the warrior to one-shot the mage.



Good. TWF always got shafted up until now.



OTOH........
- No wacky crit-multipliers
- No extra crit-damage-dice
- No ToB damage enhancement.
Seems to me like things even up nicely.



Give it 2 sessions and you'll be doing it half asleep.
I mean, pre-epic .5 of 1 - 20 doesn't exceed 10. 2 steps just mean you double the extra.
Trust me, it's much cleaner than confirming crit + roll for more damage + add the extra for feats & enhancements once more.



SA damage is never multiplied, so it remains the exact same factor in both systems.



You use it when a hit is almost certain and you're willing to gamble.



I like base weapon damage calculations using dice rolls, because it symbolizes the difference between a hit to the shoulder and disembowelment.
If base weapon damage is fixed, it feels too much like a video game.
It also keeps a good amount of tension after successful attack rolls.



DM's mood is not good mechanics, because it keeps things inconsistent and leaves room for arguments around the gaming table.



I'm content with letting regular attacks stand for that scenario illustration.

Here's the thing, regarding your power attack response.

I'm not sure you do. You are trading one attack for one damage, but extra attack (up to base attack bonus) already do extra damage. If you calculate it out, the only time you would mathematically want to use this is when you are expected to hit by more than your base attack bonus, which is possible, but not that common.

As an example, let's say you expect to beat them by 3. If you let this damage be done through precision, you add the critical multiplier to damage, and gain about 6 damage (depending on weapon). If you use power attack, you gain 3 damage instead, AND you increase your chances of missing by 15%. I can see what your saying on "well, it's a gamble" but I think the expected damage is much higher if you leave it as an attack bonus to get the multiplier. If a hit IS certain, you use it. If a hit is almost certain, you let yourself get the precision damage instead. So unless you are basically guaranteed to hit by more than your BAB, it's better damage wise to just leave it as attack.

I also don't agree with your assumption on the ease of the calculation. I know sneak attack damage isn't multiplied, but it's another number to keep track of. Basically, what I'm saying is some players don't like to have a calculator at the table, and when your doing multiplication in your damage calculation that becomes a distinct possibility.

Here's the other thing, about random weapon damages: yes, randomness does work for a difference between hits on parts of the body. Here's the thing, it's already there in precision (which I don't have capped, but keep in check another way). I guess the suspense I suspend in terms of faster combat.

I guess what I'm saying is that I can see all of this coming together to slow combat down to a crawl. If you can avoid that, and you only have players that can do these calculations quickly, then please disregard my comment. I don't take either for granted.

Also, on your response to Amnoriath...of course he abused your system. That's what players do. And good thing too.

[Yitzi]

No finger pointing here, really, but you have to be more thorough in noticing usage limitations, not just the benefits of feats / skilltricks / etc.

It seems to be a common flaw among certain sorts of optimizers.

[Amnoriath]

1. You're abusing the rules (http://www.enworld.org/forum/d-d-legacy-discussion/203251-spot-weak-point-complete-scoundrel.html)
2. Precision damage applies only once for each split arrow.
3. Precision damage applies only once when using Manyshot.
4. Your build amounts magic items like crazy. Sure, according to WBL it counts, but you have to get to that encounter with all those items at your possession.

This won't come anywhere near 1035.

The above took me 3 minutes.
I don't have more time right now, because I'm at work, but I'm guessing I might find some more munchkinism in your strategy (and I'm not familiar with some of the stuff you used in that build).
No finger pointing here, really, but you have to be more thorough in noticing usage limitations, not just the benefits of feats / skilltricks / etc.
1. Okay, I applied touch AC to the following attacks after arrowsplit, sorry. However the first set is perfectly applicable as the arrow is still one when fired and can achieve that many attacks.
2. Precision damage can be applied from multiple sources if it fits the conditions. He has moved due to Flyby Attack so skirmish activates and he hits above the AC so he gets extra damage on your rule.
3. The only limitation to Manyshot is a single enemy it is still separate arrows.
4. All I had was most of the slots filled and a spare weapon.
Yeah once an encounter but this encounter is done.

[nonsi]

2. Precision damage can be applied from multiple sources if it fits the conditions.



Not according to this (read the "Special" section) (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/feats.htm#manyshot).
I also looked it up in the book.




He has moved due to Flyby Attack so skirmish activates and he hits above the AC so he gets extra damage on your rule.

Skirmish is good and so is precision damage, but they all apply once. Everything else is just d6's (or d8's) from the remaining arrows.

Also, splitting 3 attacks (BAB +15), how do we reach 10-16 attacks as a standard action (or full round action for that matter)?
What did I miss in the build you presented?

[Amnoriath]

Not according to this (read the "Special" section) (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/feats.htm#manyshot).
I also looked it up in the book.



Skirmish is good and so is precision damage, but they all apply once. Everything else is just d6's (or d8's) from the remaining arrows.

Also, splitting 3 attacks (BAB +15), how do we reach 10-16 attacks as a standard action (or full round action for that matter)?
What did I miss in the build you presented?

1. Fine use a regular attack
2. Splitting makes 6 but the first arrow has arrowsplit 1d4+1 so that arrow drawn makes 2d4+2 attacks. Also I could also use a wand as a standard action to apply another one of these spells such as dark flame or shadow arrow. Dark flame bestows 2d6 of non-bypassable fire damage for three rounds each arrow, no save. If I wanted to cripple the dragon I could use shadow arrow for 1d6 strength damage per arrow as a touch attack.

[nonsi]

1. Fine use a regular attack
2. Splitting makes 6 but the first arrow has arrowsplit 1d4+1 so that arrow drawn makes 2d4+2 attacks. Also I could also use a wand as a standard action to apply another one of these spells such as dark flame or shadow arrow. Dark flame bestows 2d6 of non-bypassable fire damage for three rounds each arrow, no save. If I wanted to cripple the dragon I could use shadow arrow for 1d6 strength damage per arrow as a touch attack.


They say that god is in the details.
"This spell is cast upon a masterwork arrow or bolt, causing it to split in mid-flight (http://dndtools.eu/spells/champions-of-ruin--27/arrowsplit--266/) into 1d4+1 identical masterwork arrows or bolts."

But a 16th level warrior with rapid shot can indeed make a full attack for 5 10 arrows, and arrowsplit one of them, for a total of 11-15 arrows . . . 4 of which gaining precision damage, not including Skirmish.

At level 16+ I see no problem with that.

[nonsi]

It seems to be a common flaw among certain sorts of optimizers.

I remember having encountered cases where so called errors were made deliberately, just to make someone else look bad.

[Amnoriath]

They say that god is in the details.
"This spell is cast upon a masterwork arrow or bolt, causing it to split in mid-flight (http://dndtools.eu/spells/champions-of-ruin--27/arrowsplit--266/) into 1d4+1 identical masterwork arrows or bolts."

But a 16th level warrior with rapid shot can indeed make a full attack for 5 10 arrows, and arrowsplit one of them, for a total of 11-15 arrows . . . 4 of which gaining precision damage, not including Skirmish.

At level 16+ I see no problem with that.

Yes it is, two questions. When do you apply the spell? What does splitting do?
One, before it is shot. Two, it makes one into two identical arrows. So, the spell effect duplicates.
Also, look in the XPH for Greater Manyshot, it doesn't have the restrictions of its predecessor.

[Just to Browse]

I know this was a while ago, but Yitzi... I just used a specific "Othesemo only read this if that's actually what you mean" spoilered post, and included several things that require less work (1 spell auto-win), and then rattles 4 spells off the top of my head because I knew them, and you said that 1 could be circumvented, 1 could be circumvented in a place with a 10' or smaller ceiling, and that a full 50% of those could totally work but might not because the wizard might not want to cast his best spell.

So you basically went to a post that I didn't even end up using and told me was that the wizard could totally win and do better than the rogue (my entire point) but that he might decide not to...

I... just... it... what?

[nonsi]

Yes it is, two questions. When do you apply the spell? What does splitting do?
One, before it is shot. Two, it makes one into two identical arrows. So, the spell effect duplicates.

That would be munchkinism.
I wouldn't allow it.
To make my point: would you allow the duplication of a 9th level effect as well? Should that bow be able to do that?




Also, look in the XPH for Greater Manyshot, it doesn't have the restrictions of its predecessor.

All it says is that you may hit different targets, not that you may apply precision damage to the same target more than once. (not that I noticed anyway)

[Othesemo]

I know this was a while ago, but Yitzi... I just used a specific "Othesemo only read this if that's actually what you mean" spoilered post, and included several things that require less work (1 spell auto-win), and then rattles 4 spells off the top of my head because I knew them, and you said that 1 could be circumvented, 1 could be circumvented in a place with a 10' or smaller ceiling, and that a full 50% of those could totally work but might not because the wizard might not want to cast his best spell.

So you basically went to a post that I didn't even end up using and told me was that the wizard could totally win and do better than the rogue (my entire point) but that he might decide not to...

I... just... it... what?

It's generally accepted that wizards are broken to hell and back. So, when playing a wizard, one usually has an implicit gentleman's agreement with the DM to keep other players relevant and having fun. Which, I agree, doesn't make much sense in character. Fortunately, a great deal of homebrew exists for exactly that reason.

[nonsi]

It's generally accepted that wizards are broken to hell and back. So, when playing a wizard, one usually has an implicit gentleman's agreement with the DM to keep other players relevant and having fun. Which, I agree, doesn't make much sense in character. Fortunately, a great deal of homebrew exists for exactly that reason.

THIS!

In my codex, I used strain & tolerance rules and other means of toning down arcanists.

[Amnoriath]

That would be munchkinism.
I wouldn't allow it.
To make my point: would you allow the duplication of a 9th level effect as well? Should that bow be able to do that?



All it says is that you may hit different targets, not that you may apply precision damage to the same target more than once. (not that I noticed anyway)

Look these spells before it is shot specifically modifies the arrow then Splitting copies the arrow. Other forms of spells don't do that, so while technically you might by RAW pull off double area blasting with loosing at least two casting levels for Arcane Archer(only can imbue area spells). The difference though is this fits RAI as they specifically apply to arrows.
Wrong, "Your precision damage applies to each arrow fired, and, if you score a critical hit with more than one of your arrows, each critical hit deals critical damage," (Expanded Psionics Handbook, 47)

[nonsi]

If you get an ability that imbues an arrow with a 9th level spell while still being a good archer.

Yes....... How's that one finish ?




Wrong, "Your precision damage applies to each arrow fired, and, if you score a critical hit with more than one of your arrows, each critical hit deals critical damage," (Expanded Psionics Handbook, 47)

1. At a glance, this seems to even out with optimized full attack (don't really care to run the numbers ATM). I might be able to live with that one when the time comes and all assessments more thoroughly made.
2. Greater Manyshot wasn't even in the build you suggested.
3. Since that book is the least thought out official document of 3e to its various incarnations (I'm not gonna get into it right now - if you wish, open a new discussion and I'll elaborate), I'd put a big flashy warning sign over it, saying: "Use with caution, beware of pitfalls and be prepared to suffer the consequences".
4. Pun Pun is also legitimate RAW. That's why the role of DM is assigned to someone with a functioning brain.

EDIT:
One more important thing to add: I wouldn't allow anyone - Raptoran or not - to use a Footbow more than once per round, no matter what the RAW says, just as I wouldn't allow multiple attacks with a sling.
(picture it in your mind for a moment before you reply).

[Amnoriath]

Yes....... How's that one finish ?



1. At a glance, this seems to even out with optimized full attack (don't really care to run the numbers ATM). I might be able to live with that one when the time comes and all assessments more thoroughly made.
2. Greater Manyshot wasn't even in the build you suggested.
3. Since that book is the least thought out official document of 3e to its various incarnations (I'm not gonna get into it right now - if you wish, open a new discussion and I'll elaborate), I'd put a big flashy warning sign over it, saying: "Use with caution, beware of pitfalls and be prepared to suffer the consequences".
4. Pun Pun is also legitimate RAW. That's why the role of DM is assigned to someone with a functioning brain.
1. I changed it before you even posted this, look again. It is questionable by RAW but doesn't fit RAI.
2. The last feat was entirely optional, reason why it had other feats and ...etc.
3. So, ban-ban even though it is a general feat?
A footbow isn't a sling. It is a longbow designed to be held by the talons while an arm or both draw the arrow back. They have pictures of it being used on page 66, Races of the Wild.

[nonsi]

1. I changed it before you even posted this, look again. It is questionable by RAW but doesn't fit RAI.

What is questionable by RAW but doesn't fit RAI?
What are we talking about here?




2. The last feat was entirely optional, reason why it had other feats and ...etc.

Optional ?
Really ?
Without it you add precision damage only once per round using your tactics.




3. So, ban-ban even though it is a general feat?

I would consider it when the time comes, because some of the stuff in that book is poorly thought out.
Here's an example: Stand Still feat. The way it is written, a 1st level fighter (the core class) can theoretically stop an over deity dead in its tracks. No clauses.
Here's another example: Soulknife ('nuff said).




A footbow isn't a sling. It is a longbow designed to be held by the talons while an arm or both draw the arrow back. They have pictures of it being used on page 66, Races of the Wild.

Let me ask you something: How many sit-ups can you do in 6 seconds?
Let me explain:
mechanically speaking, firing a footbow in mid-combat means:
1. Pulling an arrow out of your quiver.
2. Bringing your knees to your chest.
3. Grabbing a hold of the cord.
4. Knotting the arrow.
5. Straightening the body and pulling the cord.
6. Reversing body positioning.
7. Aiming.
8. Firing.
Now, the above is done while the raptoran is flapping it wings.
The raptoran also has to take care not to bump into things in midair and avoid hostile missiles and spells.

Can you honestly say you can mechanically imagine someone doing that more than once per round ?
(and don't tell me that it's just a game, when the race in question is described to be a winged biped).

Also, while I can imagine one using his fingers to split-aim multiple arrow, how do you do that with talons ?

[Amnoriath]

What is questionable by RAW but doesn't fit RAI?
What are we talking about here?



Optional ?
Really ?
Without it you add precision damage only once per round using your tactics.



I would consider it when the time comes, because some of the stuff in that book is poorly thought out.
Here's an example: Stand Still feat. The way it is written, a 1st level fighter (the core class) can theoretically stop an over deity dead in its tracks. No clauses.
Here's another example: Soulknife ('nuff said).



Let me ask you something: How many sit-ups can you do in 6 seconds?
Let me explain:
mechanically speaking, firing a footbow in mid-combat means:
1. Pulling an arrow out of your quiver.
2. Bringing your knees to your chest.
3. Grabbing a hold of the cord.
4. Knotting the arrow.
5. Straightening the body and pulling the cord.
6. Reversing body positioning.
7. Aiming.
8. Firing.
Now, the above is done while the raptoran is flapping it wings.
The raptoran also has to take care not to bump into things in midair and avoid hostile missiles and spells.

Can you honestly say you can mechanically imagine someone doing that more than once per round ?
(and don't tell me that it's just a game, when the race in question is described to be a winged biped).

Also, while I can imagine one using his fingers to split-aim multiple arrow, how do you do that with talons ?

1. Your ultimatum of doubling of a 9th level with imbue arrow to deny my reasoning. The ability says you can only apply area spells while all the spells I was talking were spells that change the arrow. So my spells do what they are suppose to do if splitting makes more identical arrows the effect spreads. Yours on the other the spell hasn't taken effect yet until a hit is confirmed. While splitting makes identical arrows with the same effects it doesn't necessarily make identical spells that haven't activated yet. As such questionable by RAW. It doesn't work by RAI because there isn't anything saying about doubling actual spells, so one slot, one spell.
2. It is meant that it can have at the same level I made it.
3. Stand still requires a fort. save equal to 10+damage dealt normally. Have you seen a typical god's saves? Why are you talking about a Soulknife, one of the worst base class that actually can still fight?
4. Once he grasps the bow he doesn't need to go in a full sit ups routine like you describe it. Have you seen linebackers or basketball act in a game? It is similar to that. He can hold a crouched position and just string/fire arrows with his arms. Aiming isn't that different if you are coordinated to do so as your hip joints are the same kind of joints as your shoulders. Also, flying helps a lot with positioning.

[Othesemo]

Let me ask you something: How many sit-ups can you do in 6 seconds?
Let me explain:
mechanically speaking, firing a footbow in mid-combat means:
1. Pulling an arrow out of your quiver.
2. Bringing your knees to your chest.
3. Grabbing a hold of the cord.
4. Knotting the arrow.
5. Straightening the body and pulling the cord.
6. Reversing body positioning.
7. Aiming.
8. Firing.
Now, the above is done while the raptoran is flapping it wings.
The raptoran also has to take care not to bump into things in midair and avoid hostile missiles and spells.

Can you honestly say you can mechanically imagine someone doing that more than once per round ?
(and don't tell me that it's just a game, when the race in question is described to be a winged biped).

Also, while I can imagine one using his fingers to split-aim multiple arrow, how do you do that with talons ?

Yeah, D&D archery had to be fixed to make it worthwhile in a dungeon. In reality, shooting more than 4 arrows a minute would be incredibly draining, let alone an arrow every few seconds. So really, applying any real-world logic to D&D archery is just a path to failure- none of it holds up to realistic scrutiny.

[Yitzi]

I know this was a while ago, but Yitzi... I just used a specific "Othesemo only read this if that's actually what you mean" spoilered post, and included several things that require less work (1 spell auto-win), and then rattles 4 spells off the top of my head because I knew them, and you said that 1 could be circumvented, 1 could be circumvented in a place with a 10' or smaller ceiling, and that a full 50% of those could totally work but might not because the wizard might not want to cast his best spell.

So you basically went to a post that I didn't even end up using and told me was that the wizard could totally win and do better than the rogue (my entire point) but that he might decide not to...

I... just... it... what?

Yes, the wizard could definitely win and do better than the rogue by using his best spell, but he might decide not to because he wants to save those spell slots for the fights that day where they're actually needed.

There is absolutely no question that a nova-ing caster is superior to a noncaster. That's why a good DM will find some way to make nova-ing casters not be an effective choice on a regular basis (the easiest way is to force a pace that involves more than 1 or 2 fights per day.)

[Just to Browse]

It's generally accepted that wizards are broken to hell and back. So, when playing a wizard, one usually has an implicit gentleman's agreement with the DM to keep other players relevant and having fun. Which, I agree, doesn't make much sense in character. Fortunately, a great deal of homebrew exists for exactly that reason.

Well that post was more to Yitzi.

I tend to just sandbag in combat as the wizard/cleric/druid, using good spells in crappy places so that if a terrible situation arises, I can still pull the party out.

EDIT: OK, Yitzi, so you're agreeing with me in a disagreeable tone that seems to be lecturing me on something. Just do your thing, man.

[nonsi]

1. Your ultimatum of doubling of a 9th level with imbue arrow to deny my reasoning. The ability says you can only apply area spells while all the spells I was talking were spells that change the arrow. So my spells do what they are suppose to do if splitting makes more identical arrows the effect spreads. Yours on the other the spell hasn't taken effect yet until a hit is confirmed. While splitting makes identical arrows with the same effects it doesn't necessarily make identical spells that haven't activated yet. As such questionable by RAW. It doesn't work by RAI because there isn't anything saying about doubling actual spells, so one slot, one spell.

This is nitpicking.
If you allow a spell effect to duplicate other spell effects on top of what it generally does, then further discussion on that matter is pointless, because I haven't even heard of a DM that would (yours truly included).




2. It is meant that it can have at the same level I made it.

You need to work on how you phrase things before typing, because it is really difficult sometimes to figure what you're trying to say.




3. Stand still requires a fort. save equal to 10+damage dealt normally. Have you seen a typical god's saves?

Pointless argument. A natural roll of 1 still fails.
I could also point you to the logic breaking fact that Stand Still, RAW, allows a fine-sized creature to stop the movement of a colossal creature (you are also fine with this one, right?).




Why are you talking about a Soulknife, one of the worst base class that actually can still fight?

My emphasis.




4. Once he grasps the bow he doesn't need to go in a full sit ups routine like you describe it . . . He can hold a crouched position and just string/fire arrows with his arms.

In cartoons maybe.
We're talking about a bow, not a sitar. The kind of bow that deals more damage thanks to the extra power gained by leg muscles.




Aiming isn't that different if you are coordinated to do so as your hip joints are the same kind of joints as your shoulders.

:smallconfused:
To my recollection, raptorans can walk upright, like any biped.

EDIT:
Zoom in and see the one in the back (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/iw/20050106b)





Also, flying helps a lot with positioning.

Sure, repositioning your body vs. momentum is exactly the same as moving your arms. Right.

[Yitzi]

EDIT: OK, Yitzi, so you're agreeing with me in a disagreeable tone that seems to be lecturing me on something. Just do your thing, man.

I'm agreeing with what you're saying (that the wizard can win the fight if he wants to, at least if it's the first fight of the day), but not with what you're implying (that doing so won't have substantial consequences later on.)

[Amnoriath]

This is nitpicking.
If you allow a spell effect to duplicate other spell effects on top of what it generally does, then further discussion on that matter is pointless, because I haven't even heard of a DM that would (yours truly included).



You need to work on how you phrase things before typing, because it is really difficult sometimes to figure what you're trying to say.



Pointless argument. A natural roll of 1 still fails.
I could also point you to the logic breaking fact that Stand Still, RAW, allows a fine-sized creature to stop the movement of a colossal creature (you are also fine with this one, right?).



My emphasis.



In cartoons maybe.
We're talking about a bow, not a sitar. The kind of bow that deals more damage thanks to the extra power gained by leg muscles.



:smallconfused:
To my recollection, raptorans can walk upright, like any biped.

EDIT:
Zoom in and see the one in the back (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/iw/20050106b)




Sure, repositioning your body vs. momentum is exactly the same as moving your arms. Right.

1. Nitpicking that points out the differences between what I am saying and your "equivalent".
2. Yeah it is pointless because a commoner without a feat at all can still hit a god on a natural 20, has the same chance of happening. Hmm, yes except that the fine creature needs to enter the space of the colossal automatically risking an AoO just so the fine creature could make the colossal provoke. There are feats to ignore that and if opportunity damage is taken up but at this point the fine creature is far beyond a small level character while still giving up said damage when the colossal creature can only provoke one AoO an action. At this point you are just begrudging against D&D's system of luck not a book.
3. Well you did have the context of the argument being overpowered running into it.
4. The footbow has the option of dealing more strength damage when using two arms, not legs. Something in which I didn't use in my example.
5. So are we, you really forgot anatomy, haven't you? Both the shoulders and hip joints are what are called ball and socket joints. They can move up/down, across either side of the body, and can move 360 degrees. So, if you coordinate yourself(aka having appropriate feat or ability) to use it there isn't any reason why it can't be used the same way unless the weapon says otherwise.
6. You can still move your body in the air. You can move your butt right? Along with circumduction of the hip joints is your adjustment for aim.

[nonsi]

Hmm, yes except that the fine creature needs to enter the space of the colossal automatically risking an AoO just so the fine creature could make the colossal provoke.

AoOs while moving. That's a new one.




4. The footbow has the option of dealing more strength damage when using two arms, not legs. Something in which I didn't use in my example.

Quote, p.164: "This exotic weapon resembles a composite long bow but is designed to be used in fl ight, with the archer holding the bow in her feet".
Quote, p.165: "A footbow can be used on the ground, but the archer must be prone to do so".




5. So are we, you really forgot anatomy, haven't you? Both the shoulders and hip joints are what are called ball and socket joints.

You forgot about pelvic tendons in the process of that argument.




They can move up/down, across either side of the body, and can move 360 degrees.

loved the 360 degrees bit.




So, if you coordinate yourself(aka having appropriate feat or ability) to use it there isn't any reason why it can't be used the same way unless the weapon says otherwise.

Ok, you've proven yourself capable of twisting the RAW to tear apart game balance.
Now what?

[Amnoriath]

AoOs while moving. That's a new one.



Quote, p.164: "This exotic weapon resembles a composite long bow but is designed to be used in fl ight, with the archer holding the bow in her feet".
Quote, p.165: "A footbow can be used on the ground, but the archer must be prone to do so".



You forgot about pelvic tendons in the process of that argument.



loved the 360 degrees bit.



Ok, you've proven yourself capable of twisting the RAW to tear apart game balance.
Now what?
1. You provoke AoO's when moving into someone's space, fine creature's only have a threat range of the 5 ft space they occupy.
2. My, my aren't you selective, if you read before the prone firing option you would have caught this: "The wielder of the footbow can choose to use both hands to draw it back; in this case she may add 1 1/2 strength bonus to damage."(Races of the Wild, 165). Hands aren't found on the feet.
3. Yeah, it is one of the things that allow us to move in the first place. We need muscles attached to bones to move limbs. You are thinking of ligaments(attach bone to bone) which also exist in the pectoral girdle.
4. How many athletes have you seen that can raise their leg almost parallel to their body? You can raise your leg and wave it in a circle. Heck, I am 6ft 5in about 300 lbs and I can do both easily. I think a 16th level archer qualifies as an athletic being.
5. Raptorans have an ability called weapon familiarity which allows them to be proficient with the footbow if they have the maritial weapons proficiency, rangers have martial weapons. How is this exploiting RAW? What do you think feats do? If obtaining the feat, abilities and/or requirements of it isn't enough, what is? I say look who is talking, a person who is trying to change the rules by finding any little observation in their own visual world to tack on more restrictions or deny it exists when D&D clearly made a bow to function like any other bow while in the air and using one hand. You just don't want to admit you made a new set of loop holes and disparity.

[nonsi]

1. You provoke AoO's when moving into someone's space, fine creature's only have a threat range of the 5 ft space they occupy.

Point being . . . ?




2. My, my aren't you selective, if you read before the prone firing option you would have caught this: "The wielder of the bow can choose to use both hands to draw it back; in this case she may add 1 1/2 strength bonus to damage."(Races of the Wild, 165). Hands aren't found on the feet.

Stop doing that, or people will point a finger and tell you to go and take proofreading lessons.
Read the entire description again.




3. Yeah, it is one of the things that allow us to move in the first place. We need muscles attached to bones to move limbs. You are thinking of ligaments(attach bone to bone) which also exist in the pectoral girdle.

I stand corrected.




4. How many athletes have you seen that can raise their leg almost parallel to their body?

You meant Gymnasts.




You can raise your leg and wave it in a circle. Heck, I am 6ft 5in about 300 lbs and I can do both easily.

Teddy Bear Ballerina :smallbiggrin:
.
.
.
Ok, after that nice little comic relief (I'm no twiggy myself btw :smallsmile:), stop and think for a moment.
- You were talking about using talons for Manyshot.
- You were talking about iterative shots per round under the constraints I specified in post #98. These are much more complex than loading and firing a crossbow for instance (which is limited to 2 shots per round if you take Rapid Reload, or 5 per 2 rounds with Repeating Crossbow).
Just out of curiosity, I wonder how many readers would allow those, because under no circumstance whatsoever do I see them happening.




5. Raptorans have an ability called weapon familiarity which allows them to be proficient with the footbow if they have the maritial weapons proficiency, rangers have martial weapons.

All this says to me is that raptorn rangers are proficient with footbows.




. . . when D&D clearly made a bow to function like any other bow . . .

Hardcore D&D 3.5 came out at 2003: PHB, DMG & MM. Everything else is optional.
One year later, without too much playtesting millage, XPH came about and presented some stuff that doesn't work properly and contains some loopholes in it (people make mistakes). I see no obligation to fall into any core pitfalls. That's the whole point of homebrewing and houseruling.
As for "to function like any other bow" . . . All I see in the description is: "This exotic weapon resembles a composite long bow . . .".
I see nothing in the description that hints "Can be used to make multiple attacks, just like regular bows". Given that there are quite a few ranged weapons that don't (or hardly ever) allow multiple attacks (sling/javelin/bola), I see no reason for assumptions there.

Most DMs selectively pick which books they allow and which books they find inappropriate.
The readers now have the complete picture and are free to decide if they wish to use my proposed rules or not - and if they do, whether or not to allow multiple applications of precision damage vs. a single target with Skirmish tacked on or not.

[Yitzi]

Hardcore D&D 3.5 came out at 2003: PHB, DMG & MM. Everything else is optional.

For that matter, much of the DMG, including the entire chapter 6 (which contains such things as prestige classes and the use of non-PHB races for PCs) is marked as optional variants.

[nonsi]

For that matter, much of the DMG, including the entire chapter 6 (which contains such things as prestige classes and the use of non-PHB races for PCs) is marked as optional variants.

10x :smallsmile:

[Amnoriath]

Point being . . . ?



Stop doing that, or people will point a finger and tell you to go and take proofreading lessons.
Read the entire description again.



I stand corrected.



You meant Gymnasts.



Teddy Bear Ballerina :smallbiggrin:
.
.
.
Ok, after that nice little comic relief (I'm no twiggy myself btw :smallsmile:), stop and think for a moment.
- You were talking about using talons for Manyshot.
- You were talking about iterative shots per round under the constraints I specified in post #98. These are much more complex than loading and firing a crossbow for instance (which is limited to 2 shots per round if you take Rapid Reload, or 5 per 2 rounds with Repeating Crossbow).
Just out of curiosity, I wonder how many readers would allow those, because under no circumstance whatsoever do I see them happening.



All this says to me is that raptorn rangers are proficient with footbows.



Hardcore D&D 3.5 came out at 2003: PHB, DMG & MM. Everything else is optional.
One year later, without too much playtesting millage, XPH came about and presented some stuff that doesn't work properly and contains some loopholes in it (people make mistakes). I see no obligation to fall into any core pitfalls. That's the whole point of homebrewing and houseruling.
As for "to function like any other bow" . . . All I see in the description is: "This exotic weapon resembles a composite long bow . . .".
I see nothing in the description that hints "Can be used to make multiple attacks, just like regular bows". Given that there are quite a few ranged weapons that don't (or hardly ever) allow multiple attacks (sling/javelin/bola), I see no reason for assumptions there.

Most DMs selectively pick which books they allow and which books they find inappropriate.
The readers now have the complete picture and are free to decide if they wish to use my proposed rules or not - and if they do, whether or not to allow multiple applications of precision damage vs. a single target with Skirmish tacked on or not.

1. You can better be bigger, just simply because they can by simple dumb luck doesn't mean they should, especially when it is harder to do.
2. Sorry, I forgot the word foot before bow but how is that misleading?
4. Many athletes stretch out to resemble that to prime their bodies for play. The fact is I don't know how you think a 16th level martial character isn't exceptional compared to the general populace when you see how many people do the things I described.
5. Hand crossbow focus allows for unlimited reload actions as free, aptitude property allows the transference of certain weapon feats to others which maybe similar. So, if this is a matter of rarity of power it really isn't.
6. Hardcore is an incredibly subjective term, use core dude. Besides you complain about how two-handed weapons got the love in D&D when the only critical feats to those builds in those books was power attack and improved trip. The rest of the books is where ubercharging and lockdowns came into full circle so don't make this just about a fix of core when you clearly shown frustration against a whole mess of others.
So resembles a composite longbow means it isn't one when the description only describes ways of firing on the ground or how many arms to use to deal more damage so make it similar to things in which it doesn't at all resemble?:smallconfused: Call me crazy, but it is drawn like a longbow, uses arrows, and fires like one I say it is a longbow as well as many others. Bolas and Javelins are entire weapons in and of themselves so they are subject to drawing a weapon which is fixed by quick draw. As for the Sling: you load the stone,twirl, and throw it those have seperate actions. Don't get me wrong I want to see some feats and abilities for them, but a bow can string and aim in one fluid action and attacking is just letting go the string when ready. Crossbows even require a separate action to load so you can string the trigger than point and shoot.

[nonsi]

1. You can better be bigger, just simply because they can by simple dumb luck doesn't mean they should, especially when it is harder to do.

Ok, here's a mental exercise for you.
- Find an ant (a bullet ant for all I care) and put it in a jar. The reason I'm suggestion an ant is that this is more or less the ratio between a colossal being and a fine-sized being
- Let's assume for one minute that you've happened to be exceptionally lucky that time and that ant possesses the Stand Still feat.
- Go to the nearest running track at sunrise.
- Put the ant on the track.
- Now take some distance and run toward it, in an intention to pass over it.
- Now assume that this ant is really pissed at you and is willing to put its life on the line just to stop you dead in your tracks.

Repeat the experiment until midnight (with the help of a friend, keeping the ant on track, you can make approximately 200 attempts before you drop exhausted), or until that ant manages to stop your advancement (don't forget to share with us all what came first - you dropping exhausted or the ant stop you mid-running).




5. Hand crossbow focus allows for unlimited reload actions as free, aptitude property allows the transference of certain weapon feats to others which maybe similar. So, if this is a matter of rarity of power it really isn't.

1. I haven't the faintest idea what you're talking about.
2. Offtopic, you do know that there's a top limit to the number of free actions per round, don't you? (5, if my memory serves my)




Besides you complain about how two-handed weapons got the love in D&D when the only critical feats to those builds in those books was power attack and improved trip.

Off the top of my head:
- Improved Disarm/Sunder (not exclusive to 2-H, but they benefit the most)
- Combat Brute
- Shock Trooper
- Quick Staff
- Spinning Halberd
- Leap Attack (since you beat me to the punch regarding charging, feel free to drop this one).




So resembles a composite longbow means it isn't one when the description only describes ways of firing on the ground or how many arms to use to deal more damage so make it similar to things in which it doesn't at all
. . .
Call me crazy, but it is drawn like a longbow, uses arrows, and fires like one I say it is a longbow as well as many others.

The Ballista resembles a crossbow.
This hint sums up what I'm willing to further say on this subject.




As for the Sling: you load the stone,twirl, and throw it those have seperate actions. Don't get me wrong I want to see some feats and abilities for them

Here you go. Not feats, but something to work with (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9623050&postcount=6).

[Amnoriath]

Ok, here's a mental exercise for you.
- Find an ant (a bullet ant for all I care) and put it in a jar. The reason I'm suggestion an ant is that this is more or less the ratio between a colossal being and a fine-sized being
- Let's assume for one minute that you've happened to be exceptionally lucky that time and that ant possesses the Stand Still feat.
- Go to the nearest running track at sunrise.
- Put the ant on the track.
- Now take some distance and run toward it, in an intention to pass over it.
- Now assume that this ant is really pissed at you and is willing to put its life on the line just to stop you dead in your tracks.

Repeat the experiment until midnight (with the help of a friend, keeping the ant on track, you can make approximately 200 attempts before you drop exhausted), or until that ant manages to stop your advancement (don't forget to share with us all what came first - you dropping exhausted or the ant stop you mid-running).



1. I haven't the faintest idea what you're talking about.
2. Offtopic, you do know that there's a top limit to the number of free actions per round, don't you? (5, if my memory serves my)



Off the top of my head:
- Improved Disarm/Sunder (not exclusive to 2-H, but they benefit the most)
- Combat Brute
- Shock Trooper
- Quick Staff
- Spinning Halberd
- Leap Attack (since you beat me to the punch regarding charging, feel free to drop this one).



The Ballista resembles a crossbow.
This hint sums up what I'm willing to further say on this subject.



Here you go. Not feats, but something to work with (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9623050&postcount=6).

1. You can set up that exercise to replicate a God against a farmer and a pitch fork to determine whether the farmer hits, yet again D&D's system of chance.
2. A theoretical one at DM discretion, not an actual one.
3. The last 5 aren't in core and the first two are at best qualifiers. I was pointing out the fact you were shoving off anything that wasn't core in the last post I commented by saying the stuff you are angry about is mostly outside of core. In core two-handed weapons do not have the most potential damage because power attack penalties can't be ignored and there aren't so many multipliers readily available. Two-weapon style actually has the most damage potential there, just a matter of getting opportunity.
4. How can you compare a footbow and a longbow vs. a crossbow and a ballista after what I said? The size relation of the first two is similar while the latter is vastly different the former being at most 1/30th the size of the ammo used for the ballista. The draw system of the first to yet again similar, the latter is pulling a string behind a trigger vs a winch system which pulls back a sling. Besides the designers say how a crossbow and a ballista function differently. This is a laughable form of reason, the fact is why mention a footbow resembles a composite longbow that is designed for flight and never say anything about it needing special loading an aiming action if the designers didn't expect players to treat like a composite longbow except for the situations they mentioned?

[nonsi]

1. You can set up that exercise to replicate a God against a farmer and a pitch fork to determine whether the farmer hits, yet again D&D's system of chance.

Stand Still was merely an example for something that wasn't properly worded and we've focused too much on it already, so I'll just say this and the subject is dropped as far as I'm concerned:
To my better knowledge, there are only 2 things in D&D that have auto-success/failure:
1. Attack rolls. (no guaranteed effect even on a natural 20)
2. Saving throws. (no guarantee for zero effect even on a natural 20)
Even if you go hardcore, you can't justify Stand Still the way it's written.




I was pointing out the fact you were shoving off anything that wasn't core in the last post I commented by saying the stuff you are angry about is mostly outside of core.

My my, aren't we selective readers.
All I was talking about regarding your archery issue was that one should carefully assess Greater Manyshot when the issue arrives.
For everything else, I merely pointed out how I'd regard things and why. Anyone who doesn't agree with me is free to ignore what I said.
From this point, I really don't see any reason to drag this further.