View Full Version : Homebrew 3.5 Feat: Swift Strike

2013-02-28, 04:47 AM
A thing that bugs part of our group is that movement in combat is suboptimal for non-spellcasters. Whenever a combatant moves, she can not make a full-attack, while spellcasters can move and get a standard plus a quickened spell off. I think movement is an important part of combat, and makes it more dynamic.

I don't want to flatly allow full attacks after moving because that wouldn't be a tradeoff, but I proposed a new feat which might help with that, and would really appreciate the plagrounds opinion on it:

Swift Strike
In a round when you move you can make an extra attack.

BAB +6
Proficiency with the weapon used, or improved unarmed strike for unarmed attacks.

Whenever you take a move action and an attack action in the same round, you can make an extra attack at your full BAB as a swift action.

You can take this feat multiple times. The prerequisite BAB is 5 points higher every time you take it. Its effect stacks in the way that you can make multiple attacks (as many as the number of times you have taken this feat) as part of the swift action.
Fighters can select this feat as a fighter bonus feat.

(BTW, monks have full BAB in our game)
I also thought about a feat that allows attacks during a move action, but I don't want to make up too many new things at once.

2013-02-28, 01:51 PM
This is actually pretty impressive. It always bothered me that a character couldn't move and execute more than one attack in 6 seconds, especially since I've fenced and done several LARPS, and in both cases, not moving is a death sentence.

My only concern is that this feat might be too tempting to take multiple times, in which case it eats up a lot of feats. But that's probably a good thing overall.

2013-02-28, 02:06 PM
Perhaps allow Monks to stack Flurry on this?

2013-02-28, 02:15 PM
While your intentions are sound, I've found things like this to be bad ideas because all it does is add another feat (or more) to the list that melee types need (or could use) to be more competitive, while it really doesn't affect casters in any way.

Changes like these are better off as universal, sweeping rule changes. You've clearly stated your preference for avoiding such a change because there is no opportunity cost (feat tax), but given the gap between the two (depending on which casters you're talking about), my personal opinion, and I think others will agree, is that the feat tax is bad.

I will say, however, that I like, to some degree, that all subsequent attacks are also at full BAB. It makes BAB more relevant, which is a good thing; I just don't think most characters have enough feats to be able to pay for the ability that you're offering, because in a lot of ways it is a very specific, narrow power boost. Most middle tier or middle power classes focus on standard actions anyway, which means there's a time and place for a full attack, but it isn't devastating if you can't use one every turn. It also means moving doesn't horribly limit your combat options, which means moving from target to target is viable.

I think this feat (http://dnd-wiki.org/wiki/Dash_(3.5e_Feat)) does a lot of what you are looking for but in a more universally useful way (for instance, a sorcerer could move and due a full-round metamagic feat, whereas your feat has no purpose for non-melee types, and is only relevant after BAB +6 [as written; you could easily drop the BAB +6 clause]). There are drawbacks and advantages to both, but I think they are both speaking to similar design intentions.

One thing this seems to be about, though perhaps not the primary intention, is utilizing all available actions in a turn, which martial initiators already do with boosts and stances. This makes the feat most fitting with classes designed around utilizing full attacks (or perhaps better worded, having limited uses for standard and swift actions), of which there aren't many, or there are other ways to get around the issue to some degree (Spirit Lion Totem Barbarian, for instance). WotC has gotten better over time about making sure all classes can utilize every action available to them (martial initiators and incarnum as primary examples).

Lastly, that thing about doing things in a move action already exists to a limited degree as the SRD:Spring Attack (which you're probably aware of), but also exists here (http://dnd-wiki.org/wiki/Spring_Attack,_Grimoire_(3.5e_Feat)), to some degree, with the focus being initiators rather than splitting a full attack over a given move, which was perhaps more your intention. The creator of both feats is fond of your notion of opportunity costs, so you might like some of his other work as well.

2013-02-28, 02:23 PM
While your intentions are sound, I've found things like this to be bad ideas because all it does is add another feat (or more) to the list that melee types need (or could use) to be more competitive, while it really doesn't affect casters in any way.

I think it's perfectly fine that it doesn't affect casters in any way: casting a spell is already a standard action, so casters can move perfectly normally and still function (although I may have misunderstand this part of your post...it seems like you're complaining that casters gain no benefit from this in any way, nor any penalty).

My issue is the feat tax on melee builds to enable them to be competitive with their damage. I'd probably simply make this feat not stack with itself: as it is, you'd ideally want to take it a number of times equal to your iterative attacks, but that removes a lot of your feat options from the table. Allowing it to be taken just once helps melee a bit without eating up three of their feats. It's still a pointless feat tax, because all melee builds WILL take it, but at least it's just ONE feat now.

...is that the feat tax is bad.

Yes. Yes yes yes. Feats that are near mandatory to allow competitive mobility and damage are bad additions to the feat system.

What is the design goal here? If it's that movement in combat is suboptimal, that's an issue that should be remedied with a change to the rules for movement in combat: that is, after all, where the issue lies. Fixes should be built into their proper subsystem to truly be effective.

2013-02-28, 03:27 PM
How about instead of making it a feat you make it a class feature? Similar to the Iajitsu Masters ability One Strike Two Cuts (whenever you make a standard action attack with a katana you may make two attacks instead with no penalty).