PDA

View Full Version : Fighters should be allowed to force saving throws. [PEACH]



qwertyu63
2013-09-01, 08:04 AM
These three feats are meant to allow fighters to cause saving throws. I would like you all to comment on them, and write your own sets if you can think of anything. Without further ado, the feats:

Shake the Body
You can make direct attacks to your foes gut, sickening them.
Prereqs: Base Attack Bonus +2.
Benefit: Whenever you make a melee attack, you may designate it as a gut attack. If you do, don't make an attack roll for that attack. Instead, your target must make a Fortitude saving throw with a DC equal to 10+half of your BAB+your Constitution modifier. If they fail this saving throw, they are sickened until the end of your next turn. Once you make a gut attack, you may not make another gut attack for 5 rounds. As a secondary benefit, you gain a +1 bonus on Fortitude saving throws.
Special: A fighter may select Shake the Body as one of his fighter bonus feats.

Drive the Point
You can make forceful attacks intended to down foes, cornering them.
Prereqs: Base Attack Bonus +2.
Benefit: Whenever you make a melee attack, you may designate it as a knockdown attack. If you do, don't make an attack roll for that attack. Instead, your target must make a Reflex saving throw with a DC equal to 10+half of your BAB+your Constitution modifier. If they fail this saving throw, they are knocked prone. Once you make a knockdown attack, you may not make another knockdown attack for 5 rounds. As a secondary benefit, you gain a +1 bonus on Reflex saving throws.
Special: A fighter may select Drive the Point as one of his fighter bonus feats.

Unleash the Terror
You can make attacks designed to scare your foes off, rather then to harm them.
Prereqs: Base Attack Bonus +2.
Benefit: Whenever you make a melee attack, you may designate it as a terror attack. If you do, don't make an attack roll for that attack. Instead, your target must make a Will saving throw with a DC equal to 10+half of your BAB+your Constitution modifier. If they fail this saving throw, they are frightened until the end of your next turn. Once you make a terror attack, you may not make another terror attack for 5 rounds. As a secondary benefit, you gain a +1 bonus on Will saving throws.
Special: A fighter may select Unleash the Terror as one of his fighter bonus feats.

Template for making more:
[FEAT]
Prereqs: Base Attack Bonus +2.
Benefit: Whenever you make a melee attack, you may designate it as a [NAME] attack. If you do, don't make an attack roll for that attack. Instead, your target must make a [TYPE] saving throw with a DC equal to 10+half of your BAB+your Constitution modifier. If they fail this saving throw, they are [EFFECT]. Once you make a [NAME] attack, you may not make another [NAME] attack for 5 rounds. As a secondary benefit, you gain a +1 bonus on [TYPE] saving throws.
Special: A fighter may select [FEAT] as one of his fighter bonus feats.

Xerlith
2013-09-01, 10:01 AM
Maybe instead of no attack make it a touch attack?
It'll be more passable to a DM this way, although it's really balanced as it is now.
Overall, I like those feats. A good idea to help fighters and other melee classes get a bit on par with everyone else.

An idea: Make a disclaimer that a Monk can use his level in place of his BAB for the purpose of this feat.

Kornaki
2013-09-01, 10:08 AM
The +1 bonus on saving throws seems really arbitrary - I don't know why practicing whacking guys in the head would make me better at fortitude saves. Other than that excellent idea.

The saving throws seem a bit small at lower levels - at level 3 it's a saving throw of 11 which is uninspiring. By level 15 it's a saving throw of 23 which is probably on par with the spellcaster's throws assuming they aren't heavily optimized, but you have multiple attacks so it's OK that they can get their saving throws a little higher. At the lower levels though you don't have multiple attacks so you're going to spend your whole round on a daze attack that has a worse saving throw than what your wizard can produce.

Maybe the moral of the story is suck it up and don't take the feat until level 6

Xerlith
2013-09-01, 10:28 AM
Seeing that I think that maybe you could change the formula to 10+your BAB and give the aforementioned by me touch attack. Then you could make it so you can have this applied to a full-attack instead. 4 saving throws in one round, have fun.

Warrior classes would have something nice at last.

EDIT: How about DC being 10 + 1/2BAB + the higher of STR and DEX?

qwertyu63
2013-09-01, 10:31 AM
The +1 bonus on saving throws seems really arbitrary - I don't know why practicing whacking guys in the head would make me better at fortitude saves. Other than that excellent idea.

The save bonus is rather arbitrary. It's just there to make the feat a little better.


The saving throws seem a bit small at lower levels - at level 3 it's a saving throw of 11 which is uninspiring. By level 15 it's a saving throw of 23 which is probably on par with the spellcaster's throws assuming they aren't heavily optimized, but you have multiple attacks so it's OK that they can get their saving throws a little higher. At the lower levels though you don't have multiple attacks so you're going to spend your whole round on a daze attack that has a worse saving throw than what your wizard can produce.

Maybe the moral of the story is suck it up and don't take the feat until level 6

It was the easiest way I could think of to get a decently scaling DC.

Kamai
2013-09-01, 10:43 AM
A few questions:
1) What's wrong with 10 + 1/2 BAB + Con mod for your saves?
2) When you make the attack roll, does it still do damage, or are you replacing for the condition?
3) Is this meant to interact with ranged attacks the same way it does with melee attacks?

Edit: an idea for one

Eye Gouger
Prereqs: Base Attack Bonus +6.
Benefit: Whenever you make a melee attack, you may designate it as a eye attack. If you do, don't make an attack roll for that attack. Instead, your target must make a Reflex saving throw with a DC equal to 10+half of your BAB+your Constitution modifier. If they fail this saving throw, they have a 20% miss chance on all of their attacks for 2d4 rounds. As a secondary benefit, you gain a +1 bonus on Reflex saving throws.
Special: A fighter may select Eye Gouger as one of his fighter bonus feats.

qwertyu63
2013-09-01, 10:55 AM
A few questions:
1) What's wrong with 10 + 1/2 BAB + Con mod for your saves?
2) When you make the attack roll, does it still do damage, or are you replacing for the condition?
3) Is this meant to interact with ranged attacks the same way it does with melee attacks?

1: ...Nothing, I just didn't think of it.
2: This is replacing the damage, and the attack altogether.
3: No, editing.

EDIT: Xerlith, you managed to post in just the right way for me to not see your posts.

Maybe instead of no attack make it a touch attack?
It'll be more passable to a DM this way, although it's really balanced as it is now.
Overall, I like those feats. A good idea to help fighters and other melee classes get a bit on par with everyone else.

I had a reason for making it be no attack. Nothing should ever rely on two rolls to see if it hits.


An idea: Make a disclaimer that a Monk can use his level in place of his BAB for the purpose of this feat.

Eh. Perhaps.


Seeing that I think that maybe you could change the formula to 10+your BAB and give the aforementioned by me touch attack. Then you could make it so you can have this applied to a full-attack instead. 4 saving throws in one round, have fun.

Warrior classes would have something nice at last.

EDIT: How about DC being 10 + 1/2BAB + the higher of STR and DEX?

As is you can use it as part of a full attack... or at least that was the goal.

Amechra
2013-09-01, 11:07 AM
Another thing giving melee nice stuff while ignoring ranged mundane characters. Sigh.

And kinda wonky at that; of the three feats here, I could pick one option that essentially duplicates a trip, one option that essentially boils down to a stronger intimidation attempt...

Or I could take the feat that forces a save vs. not having a turn. I can replace my smallest iterative with this "attack", and just stunlock my opponent forever. Hell, if I have a BAB of 16, I just make all my attacks but the first "head attacks", thus meaning that my opponent doesn't get to go. Ever. While I whittle them down. Forever.

You might want to go and review these feats. As it is, they really don't give you anything new to do (I can get all three of these effects from other feats or just by taking pre-existing combat actions.)

qwertyu63
2013-09-01, 11:13 AM
Another thing giving melee nice stuff while ignoring ranged mundane characters. Sigh.

Fear not. I'm working on archers. Keep your eyes peeled.


And kinda wonky at that; of the three feats here, I could pick one option that essentially duplicates a trip, one option that essentially boils down to a stronger intimidation attempt...

Or I could take the feat that forces a save vs. not having a turn. I can replace my smallest iterative with this "attack", and just stunlock my opponent forever. Hell, if I have a BAB of 16, I just make all my attacks but the first "head attacks", thus meaning that my opponent doesn't get to go. Ever. While I whittle them down. Forever.

Oh, I'll have to nerf Ring the Bell. I'm on it.


You might want to go and review these feats. As it is, they really don't give you anything new to do (I can get all three of these effects from other feats or just by taking pre-existing combat actions.)

Alright.

Djinn_in_Tonic
2013-09-01, 05:24 PM
Out of idle curiosity, what is the intent behind this? Is the eventual goal to grant more feat options, to add something to melee character's repertoires, to buff melee to a higher level of competitiveness, or merely allow them to have "save-or-X" abilities? It seems like you're merely trying to give Fighter's things that have saves attached, but I wanted to make sure.

Once I have a better understanding of what your goals are, I can begin to offer some more focused critique.

qwertyu63
2013-09-01, 05:31 PM
Out of idle curiosity, what is the intent behind this? Is the eventual goal to grant more feat options, to add something to melee character's repertoires, to buff melee to a higher level of competitiveness, or merely allow them to have "save-or-X" abilities? It seems like you're merely trying to give Fighter's things that have saves attached, but I wanted to make sure.

Once I have a better understanding of what your goals are, I can begin to offer some more focused critique.

Just giving melee save-or-X effects was the main goal here, but if it makes melee better, that's good too.

Djinn_in_Tonic
2013-09-01, 05:49 PM
Just giving melee save-or-X effects was the main goal here, but if it makes melee better, that's good too.

Alright. With that in mind...

Was your goal also to remove iterative attacks? I hope so, because that's inadvertently what you accomplished. When you're a damage-dealing melee class you're primary job is, obviously, dealing damage, so you're unlikely to ever sacrifice your damage-dealing for a minor status effect. This means that you'll only ever sacrifice the attacks that wouldn't be likely to hit anyway, effectively getting free save-or-X effects. Maybe not a bad thing, but it's an important thing to consider.

The flip side is that if any of the effects become to powerful (effective turn removal: the frightened status might be a good example of this that you're currently using) then melee will just continue to spam that effect. A fighter with a decent movement speed could actually fear-lock a target with this effect: as long as his allies can keep dealing damage he can drive a foe back for as long as it keeps failing its save, and it can't do anything about that.

Ultimately, however, I'm not sure these will ever be more than a tiny perk for those attacks that would basically auto-miss. Sure, Sickened may be a decent status effect, but at higher levels it's really just using up a Fighter's attacks to make the Wizard better, as the Fighter won't be benefiting from any of those penalties (since they disappear before his next turn). Penalizing saving throws is the strongest effect you have here.

So does it work? Yes. Is it worth a feat? Probably, especially if you have a Wizard buddy. But I'm not sure it really helps the Fighter at all, and I'm not sure giving him effects this minor at the expense of attacks is really going to help him out much. After all, almost every non-iterative attack is still going to just be a swing for damage, so...

I like the idea. I'm just not convinced it works well in its current form.

qwertyu63
2013-09-01, 06:14 PM
Alright. With that in mind...

Was your goal also to remove iterative attacks? I hope so, because that's inadvertently what you accomplished. When you're a damage-dealing melee class you're primary job is, obviously, dealing damage, so you're unlikely to ever sacrifice your damage-dealing for a minor status effect. This means that you'll only ever sacrifice the attacks that wouldn't be likely to hit anyway, effectively getting free save-or-X effects. Maybe not a bad thing, but it's an important thing to consider.

That wasn't my goal. One quick edit later, I patch that away. A given special attack can only be used once every 5 rounds.


The flip side is that if any of the effects become to powerful (effective turn removal: the frightened status might be a good example of this that you're currently using) then melee will just continue to spam that effect. A fighter with a decent movement speed could actually fear-lock a target with this effect: as long as his allies can keep dealing damage he can drive a foe back for as long as it keeps failing its save, and it can't do anything about that.

I do believe my edit fixes this as well.


Ultimately, however, I'm not sure these will ever be more than a tiny perk for those attacks that would basically auto-miss. Sure, Sickened may be a decent status effect, but at higher levels it's really just using up a Fighter's attacks to make the Wizard better, as the Fighter won't be benefiting from any of those penalties (since they disappear before his next turn). Penalizing saving throws is the strongest effect you have here.

I have stretched out the effects to allow the fighter to take advantage.


So does it work? Yes. Is it worth a feat? Probably, especially if you have a Wizard buddy. But I'm not sure it really helps the Fighter at all, and I'm not sure giving him effects this minor at the expense of attacks is really going to help him out much. After all, almost every non-iterative attack is still going to just be a swing for damage, so...

I like the idea. I'm just not convinced it works well in its current form.

Well, what do you think of the new, post-edit version.

Also, idea. What if the save is based on the part of your BAB that would have been used on the attack? So if you turn your second attack into a special attack, the BAB used is your BAB-5.

chaos_redefined
2013-09-02, 07:37 AM
I'm guessing that, if you use this as part of an iterative attack, and not on the first attack, you use the reduced BAB instead?

However, as stands, this does allow TWF to function with no additional penalty for those attacks (as they have a penalty to their attacks, rather than their BAB).

Maybe something should be included about what happens if you would make an attack at a penalty?