Pounce

[Spacehamster]

Im interested in making a pair of boots that give the pounce feat and + 10 base movement, what would be a fair price for such a pair of boots? 20k gold or something?

[Wacky89]

25 k or so.

[Spacehamster]

Thx was thinking something along the line of:

Boots of feral charge

These boots made from the skins of many mighty
feline predators and infused with magic, gives the wearer
of the boots the speed and animalistic reflexes of said felines.

Gain feat Pounce, +10 base movement speed

[Shinken]

Pounce is not a feat.
I think there is a magical item set in the MIC that does something similar to what you're trying to achieve.

[Spacehamster]

Pounce is not a feat.
I think there is a magical item set in the MIC that does something similar to what you're trying to achieve.

http://dnd-wiki.org/wiki/Pounce_%283.5e_Feat%29

know its homebrew but

[AWiz_Abroad]

And in the non-homebrew lanes, Dire Charge (equivilant of pounce) is an epic feat. . . I'm going to suggest a price increase.

[georgie_leech]

And in the non-homebrew lanes, Dire Charge (equivilant of pounce) is an epic feat. . . I'm going to suggest a price increase.

There's also an Epic Feat for +1 to a single Ability Score. I'm not sure that whether it's Epic or not is a good judge of how expensive it should be.

[A_S]

If those boots existed at that price, they would be an obligatory purchase for every melee character that doesn't natively have Pounce, more-so than current "must-buy" items like Belt of Battle. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but be aware of how good an ability Pounce is.

[LordHenry]

I'm also for a higher price than 25k. I at least am of the opinion that a magic item's price should be somewhat near its power. That's why I usually only hand out a belt of battle for more than 12k, as that's just to cheap for what it does. Basically it's a must have item for any character of any race and class from levels 1-30 and beyond.
Pretty much the same goes for pounce on a melee character who does not yet have the ability.
I'd make it a unique item for 40-50k in one of my campaigns.

[Segev]

"Lion's Charge" is a 2nd level ranger spell. "Psionic Lion's Charge" is a 2nd level Psychic Warrior power. Both are swift-action cast/manifest effects which let you charge and full attack this round.

Assuming you can get away with calling it "use activated," that'd be 16,000 gp for boots of Psionic Lion's Charge.

[Diarmuid]

Not sure what your point is.

By the guidelines, a Use-Activated item of True Strike is 2000gp.

[Segev]

Not sure what your point is.

By the guidelines, a Use-Activated item of True Strike is 2000gp.

Not quite. True Strike's use-activated effect is more properly modeled by a +20 insight bonus to hit item. Which is more specific and has a much higher cost.

I do not know of an item-creation rule for pricing something that gives full attacks on a charge; we're left with spell references.

One could make the argument, as well, that it's a 1-round duration spell that's continuously in effect rather than use-activated. In which case the 16,000 multiplies by 4 to 64,000 gp.

[Bronk]

The guidelines also include a warning about pricing items that would wind up as game breakers, and lists true strike as the example.

[Madeiner]

You'd need to find an item that gives about the same damage buff.
Is a +5 weapon giving you more or less damage than pounce? I think significantly less, and that weapon is worth 50k gold.

I think somewhere around 100-150k gp is probably better. But i would not allow it anyway

[claypigeons]

To all the people saying they wouldn't allow such an item: Why? A 1-level dip in barbarian gets you Pounce, +2 fort, 6.5 hp and either Rage or an extra attack.

Such an item is no more gamebreaking than a Pearl of Power. Plus, who is going to use it? The same people that benefit most from a barbarian dip...

[Madeiner]

To all the people saying they wouldn't allow such an item: Why? A 1-level dip in barbarian gets you Pounce, +2 fort, 6.5 hp and either Rage or an extra attack.


Uhm, which game are we talking about? Since when does barbarian give Pounce? If we are talking about some obscure class substitution levels, that's not allowed in my games as it's completely over the intended optimization for my game -- that's why i'd not allow that item.

I play lo-op, as i find it much easier to create characters and monsters.
I mean, we can either play core-low op chars and use the monsters as written, or every PC can optimize, get pounce, siffle throgh ten manuals to find how to get Pounce at first level, and then i'd need to do the same for monsters to keep them threatening and interesting and reorganize CRs and change monsters damage and attacks and generally take hours to do everything.

And guess what, the end result is that the relative power level of PCs vs Monsters is unchanged, but we all wasted oh so many hours.
But that's probably offtopic, sorry!

[Rebel7284]

@Madeiner

Do you ban druid in your campaigns? Because Druids get pounce at level 5 in core. Do you really feel that melee characters would be overpowered with such a boost?

[Bloodgruve]

I would allow it but probably double the 16K Gold price tag.

Its really only damage and thats not the hardest thing to compensate for.

Madeiner, you make an interesting and true point. However I feel that my job as a DM is to allow my players to feel like they're 'heroes' and if someone really needs Pounce to do so then they get it. I hate being limited with my own characters because of the level of investment I make into each in terms of RL time and ability to game. That being said it is all relative, we as DM's need to challenge the party while they at the same time perceive that they are powerful and competent. Its a tough balancing act sometimes.

Blood~

[Madeiner]

@Madeiner

Do you ban druid in your campaigns? Because Druids get pounce at level 5 in core. Do you really feel that melee characters would be overpowered with such a boost?

Uh well, i think that a druid that gets pounce as a bear or whatever animal at level 5 is definately in line and doesn't lead to any imbalances, especially since the bear is a predefinite creature and you cannot alter its stats.
The fighter who seeks Pounce probably will break encounters so that the DM will have to rebalance them, because i think that RAI & Core Pounce is a monster-feat only.

I'm not letting druids use strange animals, templates or anything fancy.
And i dont let fighters get those "dungeoncrasher" builds that i don't even know what they do, but i know they would break the game.
To me a fighter is a fighter, a specific build doesnt help you roleplay any better as a fighter, so you get to keep a fighter.
A black bear is no different than, i don't know, thrice-templated creature that feels like a bear but appeared on a side note in a specific adventure for another setting, but it is twice as strong that a black bear at the same CR/HD. You want to be a bear, be one. Do not be concered with its stats, because the "standard" stats are probably more balanced than the alternatives.

[Azoth]

*grabs some popcorn and a soda* This is going to get ugly...and fast.

[georgie_leech]

And i dont let fighters get those "dungeoncrasher" builds that i don't even know what they do, but i know they would break the game.


The ability to push people into walls for damage and better able to kick doors down is game breaking? :smallconfused:

[Shinken]

Guys, Madeiner is clearly a lot more conservative about his game than most of us around here. That's no problem, though - it's his game and he gets to play it whatever way he wants. I don't think pushing this subject on him will do any good.

[Rebel7284]

The ability to push people into walls for damage and better able to kick doors down is game breaking? :smallconfused:

He did mention that he didn't even read the ability. Remember, not-core option = broken. While a spellcasting bear with another pet bear is obviously balanced and not game breaking. Never mind that the bear will be able to have better stats all across the board and have spells as backup.......

[Z3ro]

And i dont let fighters get those "dungeoncrasher" builds that i don't even know what they do, but i know they would break the game.

I just wanted to highlight this sentence and let it stand by itself.

[Deadline]

The ability to push people into walls for damage and better able to kick doors down is game breaking? :smallconfused:

But the ability to have a pet that is almost as good as a fighter, turn into an animal that fights better than a fighter, AND cast awesome spells is not? :smallconfused:

[Phelix-Mu]

Here's my view. Class feature>feat>item/spell. If you want a spell or item that emulates a feat or class feature, that is worth an increase in price or spell level, because non-casters need to permanently expend very valuable resources (feats or levels, both less plentiful than items/spells) in order to get the same. If an item makes a level in barbarian unnecessary, that is a very valuable item (especially from a build-optimizing perspective).

That said, I'm not sure it's worth more than 50k. It's flat-out useless before people are getting iteratives, I think, and at that point should probably be rated as valuable as a magical weapon, and I think the benchmark was that a melee should spend 1/3-1/2 of WBL on the best magic weapon they can afford.

Finally, there is a fine line between giving melee nice things and making melee irrelevant because nice things are for sale at the corner shop.

EDIT: As far as the balance thing is concerned, for some games, allowing melees to one-shot enemies would break the game. These are usually games where the wizard isn't exploiting their existing ability to do the same, but it takes all kinds and a DM has to run the game at the level his players are willing/able to play at.

[Madeiner]

Guys, Madeiner is clearly a lot more conservative about his game than most of us around here.

Yeah, definately that.
I don't have the problem of a druid being more effective than the fighter because in my games, i would ask the druid player to play in a way that doesn't interfere with the fighter's player enjoyment of the game, ane he would do that, or he wouldnt be at my table.
When i had a druid IMC, he didn't let him animal companion fight unless necessay, because he didn't feel like risking injury on a trusted companion he loved.

For the record, i also ban a lot of things that make life difficult without improving it. I banned summoned creatures because they slow down combat (and nobody wanted to make a character based on that), no Gate unless its not used for combat, no Wishes to gain unintended advantages, no resurrections, no save or dies, limited battlefield control, and so on.

But we are going extremely off topic, so maybe we want want to open another thread to avoid further derailing?

[claypigeons]

Yeah, definately that.
I don't have the problem of a druid being more effective than the fighter because in my games, i would ask the druid player to play in a way that doesn't interfere with the fighter's player enjoyment of the game, ane he would do that, or he wouldnt be at my table.
When i had a druid IMC, he didn't let him animal companion fight unless necessay, because he didn't feel like risking injury on a trusted companion he loved.

For the record, i also ban a lot of things that make life difficult without improving it. I banned summoned creatures because they slow down combat (and nobody wanted to make a character based on that), no Gate unless its not used for combat, no Wishes to gain unintended advantages, no resurrections, no save or dies, limited battlefield control, and so on.

But we are going extremely off topic, so maybe we want want to open another thread to avoid further derailing?

So you get blasting spells, heals and some divinations? And melee characters get to stand there and trade full attacks while outgunned by by-the-book monsters?

[Bloodgruve]

Yeah, definately that.
I don't have the problem of a druid being more effective than the fighter because in my games, i would ask the druid player to play in a way that doesn't interfere with the fighter's player enjoyment of the game, ane he would do that, or he wouldnt be at my table.
When i had a druid IMC, he didn't let him animal companion fight unless necessay, because he didn't feel like risking injury on a trusted companion he loved.

For the record, i also ban a lot of things that make life difficult without improving it. I banned summoned creatures because they slow down combat (and nobody wanted to make a character based on that), no Gate unless its not used for combat, no Wishes to gain unintended advantages, no resurrections, no save or dies, limited battlefield control, and so on.

But we are going extremely off topic, so maybe we want want to open another thread to avoid further derailing?

Anyone that picks up a DMG and is willing to run a game should be respected for the game he wants to run. Players can make the decision on weather or not they are willing to sit at the table.

I've gone through times where I would have jumped at the chance to play in any game. I personally would have a very hard time currently playing at your table though simply because I really really like playing the obscure classes and strange builds and my gaming time is limited.

Blood~

[Madeiner]

So you get blasting spells, heals and some divinations? And melee characters get to stand there and trade full attacks while outgunned by by-the-book monsters?

There's a lot more than that. The fights are surprisngly tactical when you can't solve anything with one-spell, or oneshot things.
Players are encouraged to make their characters as broad as possible, and they have the means to do so by homebrew content and by asking for content from other books. If it's interesting and character defining, rather than "more damage", and it's not over the intended optimization, i allow it.

Almost every combat is something of a puzzle (but we rarely do more than one, maybe two, combats per session) and will have mechanics that make it interesting if played by broad-scoped characters. One combat, nobody can fly. Next one, everybody MUST fly or die. Later, spells are suppressed, or melee/ranged attacks are less effective. One-trick ponies are thus ineffective most of the times.

What can i say, it might sound strange, but it's how we roll; players at my table enjoy the game a lot, so...

[Andion Isurand]

I agree with Clay, although... the only feat I know of that allows pounce 1/encounter would be from taking the Martial Study feat three times to gain the Pouncing Charge maneuver. And even then, your initiator level would have to be 9, which means 18 levels without a martial adept class.

In reality, anything that helps the non-casters compete with casters should be considered, and I don't see why Pounce (or a modified version of it) shouldn't be made a feat, albeit with some prerequisites like the Run feat.

MARTIAL POUNCE
You may bring your full wrath to bear upon enemies you engage in melee combat at the end of a short charge.
Prerequisites: Base Attack Bonus +1, Run.
Benefit: You may make a full attack at the end of a charge, but only if the distance you charge does not exceed your movement speed. Any other benefits that apply because of a charge, do not apply to attacks made beyond the first.

[claypigeons]

There's a lot more than that. The fights are surprisngly tactical when you can't solve anything with one-spell, or oneshot things.
Players are encouraged to make their characters as broad as possible, and they have the means to do so by homebrew content and by asking for content from other books. If it's interesting and character defining, rather than "more damage", and it's not over the intended optimization, i allow it.

Almost every combat is something of a puzzle (but we rarely do more than one, maybe two, combats per session) and will have mechanics that make it interesting if played by broad-scoped characters. One combat, nobody can fly. Next one, everybody MUST fly or die. Later, spells are suppressed, or melee/ranged attacks are less effective. One-trick ponies are thus ineffective most of the times.

What can i say, it might sound strange, but it's how we roll; players at my table enjoy the game a lot, so...

To each his own. The group I play in now is brutal. Monsters are optimized (Toughness and skill boosting feats are traded for useful things, for one.) And PCs require endurance (ToB is winsauce) and/ the ability to end encounters quickly (more damage or SOD depending on the situation). We like options, and 99% of all Non-Dragon non-3rd party material is open to us.

[Person_Man]

Ways to gain Pounce or Free Movement (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=103358). Essentially every Tier 3 or higher class has access to one or both somehow, as does the Barbarian, Paladin, and Ranger.

Anklet of Translocation is pretty cheap, though I can't recall exactly how cheap.

A Wand of Lion's Charge (Ranger 2/Ranger 2) costs 4,500 gp for 50 uses.

Psicrown of the Evader is 28,500 gp, and includes Catfall, Hustle, Fly, Freedom of Movement, and Wall Walker.

Not sure exactly what a custom continuous Pounce item would be, but there's not really a reason to get one. In the worst case, your Rogue or whatever can ride on a wagon pulled by someone else's Special Mount or Companion.

[Zetapup]

I'd prolly look at how much extra damage pounce would add your attacks at mid levels, and try to price it around there, keeping in mind that pounce is only useful if you need to move and attack in a round and also that pounce can be easily gotten with a level in Barbarian, which is pretty good for most of the characters that would want pounce anyway. I don't see the point in making it too expensive since it's just more damage for melee classes who'd usually be better off diversifying and gaining pseudo pounces instead (anklets of translocation, etc). 25k or so seems like a fair price, but I haven't run the numbers.