Rapid Assault Feat (Tome of Battle)

[Duke of Urrel]

The benefit of this feat seems very simple. From page 32 of the Tome of Battle:


In the first round of combat, your mêlée attacks deal an extra 1d6 points of damage..
But what does this mean? Does it mean that each one of your mêlée attacks deals an extra 1d6 points of damage? Or does it mean that all of your mêlée attacks together deal an extra 1d6 points of damage, so that in effect, the bonus only applies to the first attack that hits?

[saxavarius]

Got to love vague wording. I read it as each attack but this is more a DM dependent question.

[Curmudgeon]

Agree with saxavarius; you'll need to ask your individual DM. They could have settled this by adding "each" or "total", but instead left it unspecified. :smallannoyed:

[Xerlith]

I'd say that RAI it's per attack - 1d6/round for a feat is horribly underwhelming.

[3drinks]

It looks pretty self-explanatory to me; "During the first round, each of your attacks deals +1d6 damage." So if you have iterative attacks via natural weapons, high BAB, Pounce, Attacks of Opportunity, then during the first round of a combat those will get the +1d6 damage as well.

[Telok]

The benefit of this feat seems very simple. From page 32 of the Tome of Battle

Someone spent a feat to do an extra 3.5 damage once a fight if they attack and hit during the first round of combat. This includes the surprise round because the feat does not specify that it works in the first full round of combat.

Slap them with a book and make them take a better feat.

[Xerlith]

Someone spent a feat to do an extra 3.5 damage once a fight if they attack and hit during the first round of combat. This includes the surprise round because the feat does not specify that it works in the first full round of combat.

Slap them with a book and make them take a better feat.


Can work in E6. Still sub-par though.

[Gwendol]

It says "attacks", so that would imply any and all attacks landed in that round. However, I'm not sure where the surprise round attacks come into this: it is generally not considered the first "round" of combat since not all participants are acting (necessarily), and also because the actions are limited. Does the feat not provide any benefit then, or does it cover both the surprise and the first round?

[Techwarrior]

We always assumed it meant all melee attacks in the first full round. (i.e. not the surprise round)

In practice, as DM I house-ruled it to work on any and all melee attacks until the beginning of your action in the second round. That is, you got the bonus during the surprise round, first round, and any AoO's you got to make during those. It still doesn't come anywhere close to being a good feat, but it's not as crappy.

[Gwendol]

That's a reasonable ruling.

[Person_Man]

RAW reading of Rapid Assault clearly applies +1d6 damage to every melee attack made during the first round of combat. But as several people have already said, adding an average of +3.5 damage (which can't be multiplied on a critical hit, with a lance, etc) to each attack on the first round of combat is quite weak. Weapon Specialization, which adds +2 damage to all attacks every round (which can be multiplied) is more powerful, and Weapon Specialization (along with Weapon Focus, Dodge, Mobility, Skill Focus, etc) is considered one of the weakest Feats in the game.

[Duke of Urrel]

Thank you all for your responses! I think I'll go along with the majority opinion, especially if it matches the advice you give me in interpreting the following. This is the description of the benefit of the Combat Tactician feat from page 77 of the Player's Handbook II. Note the similarly vague wording!


You can designate one specific foe as the target of this feat as a free action. If neither you nor the target threatens each other at the start of your turn, you gain a +2 bonus on mêlée damage against that target during your turn.
Should I interpret this feat in the same way? In other words, should the +2 damage bonus apply to every attack that hits – though not to every "extra" damage die (for example, if I do critical damage or make a sneak attack)?

[Segev]

Weapon Specialization only applies to a single weapon, requires Weapon Focus (another underwhelming feat), and requires 4 levels in a class that is only even moderately "good" for the first 2.

This is a lot easier to get and more broadly applicable.

Still not great, unless you can make that first round really, really count, though.

I could see it working on a character with impressive hit-and-run tactics. Hit, run, then don't come back until it'd be another combat.

[Shining Wrath]

I think it means that each attack does an additional D6; that seems to be the clearest reading of "your attacks deal an extra 1d6".

It's not a very good feat, but if you're using some of the Shadow Hand maneuvers that also give bonuses for attacking the flat-footed there might be some synergies.

[Segev]

Yeah, feats that apply extra damage only once in a round typically say something along the lines of "your first attack deals +1d6 damage," rather than "your melee attacks deal..."

While one can torture the syntax to read that as "all of your melee attacks combined deal a total of 1d6 extra damage," that's not consistent with the way that languages is usually used either in broad English nor in 3.5e game rule text.

[Chronos]

If one were to take the reading that it's 1d6 total, the feat doesn't make sense. What if you attack multiple enemies? Which one gets the extra damage?

[Curmudgeon]

It looks pretty self-explanatory to me; "During the first round, each of your attacks deals +1d6 damage."
Now, that would be self-explanatory — except the highlighted part is your own addition. We're discussing the actual feat text, instead. :smallsigh:

[3drinks]

Now, that would be self-explanatory — except the highlighted part is your own addition. We're discussing the actual feat text, instead. :smallsigh:

It says "your melee attacks deal an extra 1d6 damage". It inserts an S at the end of attack, which would suggest plural (which is what my interpretation was pointing out last night). If it was intended to be a singular occasion, it would have said "the first attack you make in the first round of a combat" or something along those lines. At any rate, the feat itself is below par in most situations (or is what I'd call "The Color Spray of combat feats"; aka it's really good in the beginning but drastically tapers off as you advance).

[Shining Wrath]

Now, that would be self-explanatory — except the highlighted part is your own addition. We're discussing the actual feat text, instead. :smallsigh:

So here's the original text, again.


In the first round of combat, your mêlée attacks deal an extra 1d6 points of damage.

Taking the reading that means "1D6, total", I would argue that means you do an additional 1D6 even if all your attacks miss. Your melee attacks deal 0 damage since you missed - plus an additional 1D6. There's no mention of the attacks hitting at all in the text.

It's poorly worded, but I'm going to go with the interpretation of it being 1D6 per attack that hits rather than an automatic, never missing 1D6 damage.

[StreamOfTheSky]

IMO, it should be 1d6 per attack, and should apply both on round 1 *and* the surprise round (if there is one).

IMO, even with the above adjudications, it's a crappy feat.

[Andezzar]

Taking the reading that means "1D6, total", I would argue that means you do an additional 1D6 even if all your attacks miss. Your melee attacks deal 0 damage since you missed - plus an additional 1D6. There's no mention of the attacks hitting at all in the text.You can only deal damage with an attack if the attack hits. That applies to all damage, whether normal or extra. So what you said cannot be RAW.

[ddude987]

Taking the reading that means "1D6, total", I would argue that means you do an additional 1D6 even if all your attacks miss. Your melee attacks deal 0 damage since you missed - plus an additional 1D6. There's no mention of the attacks hitting at all in the text.

It's poorly worded, but I'm going to go with the interpretation of it being 1D6 per attack that hits rather than an automatic, never missing 1D6 damage.

If the attack does not hit, it doesn't deal damage and therefore doesn't deal the extra 1d6.

In terms of the actual feat text... it states "in the first round of combat, your melee attacks deal an extra 1d6 of damage." This means "If round == 1 AND attack == melee, then +1d6 damage." which means it applies to all attacks RAW. There is no listed constraint about the first attack, the feat simply checks was this attack made during the first round of combat, and is it a melee attack.

[Shining Wrath]

You can only deal damage with an attack if the attack hits. That applies to all damage, whether normal or extra. So what you said cannot be RAW.

Remember, though, a specific rule trumps a general rule. This feat is a specific rule. Not all characters are proficient with the long bow, but all Elves are, because specific rule says so.

If you take the reading that this feat is a specific rule that "your attacks do an extra 1D6 on the first round" - that is, you get a single 1D6 whether you get 1 attack per round or 4 - then by the special rule of this feat, you don't have to hit. The feat trumps the need for the attack to hit.

I think it makes more sense to say that RAI is +1D6 per successful attack. The absurdity of doing damage with no successful attacks is part of why I think that.

[Andezzar]

If the attack does not hit, it doesn't deal damage and therefore doesn't deal the extra 1d6.

In terms of the actual feat text... it states "in the first round of combat, your melee attacks deal an extra 1d6 of damage." This means "If round == 1 AND attack == melee, then +1d6 damage." which means it applies to all attacks RAW. There is no listed constraint about the first attack, the feat simply checks was this attack made during the first round of combat, and is it a melee attack.However if this were true your n attacks in the first round of combat would not deal +1d6 points of damage but up to +n*1d6 points of damage depending on how many attacks hit.

[Tvtyrant]

Remember, though, a specific rule trumps a general rule. This feat is a specific rule. Not all characters are proficient with the long bow, but all Elves are, because specific rule says so.

If you take the reading that this feat is a specific rule that "your attacks do an extra 1D6 on the first round" - that is, you get a single 1D6 whether you get 1 attack per round or 4 - then by the special rule of this feat, you don't have to hit. The feat trumps the need for the attack to hit.

I think it makes more sense to say that RAI is +1D6 per successful attack. The absurdity of doing damage with no successful attacks is part of why I think that.

I am away from book right now, but I am pretty sure extra damage is a defined term. This comes up in the weapon-like spells rulings in Complete Arcane. I could always be wrong of course.

[Rubik]

Note that this feat also applies to touch attacks, meaning those with the Improved Trip feat gain that damage twice, assuming the initial touch attack and the followup attack both make contact. Not to mention Knockdown and the dungeoncrasher ACF, which may help you use this feat more often.

Maybe.

So it's a bit more useful.

Again, maybe.

[Techwarrior]

IMO, it should be 1d6 per attack, and should apply both on round 1 *and* the surprise round (if there is one).

IMO, even with the above adjudications, it's a crappy feat.

Having played with that reading, I can say that while it is crappy, it's not terrible. Most combats don't last more than a few rounds, and of the feats that grant bonus damage, it's one of the most easily applicable (there's always a first round of combat; you don't always get to attack with your cheeseblade). Combined with it's simple prerequisite (BAB +1 is inevitable) and it's an easy to attain, easy to apply filler feat that always gets it's job done.

Edit: Also, what Rubik said. I saw it used in that fashion on a Spiked Chain tripper to relatively decent effect, quoth the player "it's like getting 2 free points of Power Attack that applies to the touch roll too!"

[Curmudgeon]

I am away from book right now, but I am pretty sure extra damage is a defined term.
Not exactly. "Extra" is a synonym for "bonus", which is defined here (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/glossary&term=Glossary_dnd_bonus&alpha=B):
bonus

A positive modifier to a die roll. So Shining Wrath's contention that you'd deal that damage even if your attacks missed is wrong; without at least one damage roll, you can't have any extra damage.
Damage

When your attack succeeds, you deal damage.

[Twilightwyrm]

I'd tend to interpret it as each attack. Hell, as a general quality of life house rule for anyone who wishes to take it, I'd go ahead and rule that the effect lasts until the end of your first full round of actions (i.e. on the surprise round and your first turn). It is only particularly good for characters that are looking to shred opponents in the first round or so, and since such characters are going to want a high Initiative, and will likely appreciate surprise round when then happen, it seems needlessly punitive to make them decide between taking a well earned advantage, and actually getting the maximum benefit from their feat.

[Shining Wrath]

Not exactly. "Extra" is a synonym for "bonus", which is defined here (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/glossary&term=Glossary_dnd_bonus&alpha=B): So Shining Wrath's contention that you'd deal that damage even if your attacks missed is wrong; without at least one damage roll, you can't have any extra damage.

That seems sane, but then, RAW don't have to be sane. I am not convinced that extra requires at least 1 point of damage. For example, if you scored a hit and did 4 points of damage, but the target had damage resistance 5/-, would you then argue that the 1d6 was NOT rolled?

[Andezzar]

That seems sane, but then, RAW don't have to be sane. I am not convinced that extra requires at least 1 point of damage. For example, if you scored a hit and did 4 points of damage, but the target had damage resistance 5/-, would you then argue that the 1d6 was NOT rolled?No, because you do not deal 4 points of damage, reduce it by the DR and then add the bonus damage, you roll all damage including bonus damage and then reduce it by the DR. If the DR is greater than the total damage, you would indeed not deal any damage and thus not trigger any other abilities that only occur when dealing damage.