View Full Version : Pathfinder Stunning Irruption
Raven777
2014-10-06, 11:38 AM
Stunning Irruption (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/stunning-irruption-combat)
When you smash your way into a room, you gain more than just the element of surprise.
Prerequisite(s): Str 15, Power Attack, base attack bonus +5.
Benefit(s): Before starting combat, you can attempt to break through a door, window, or wall to enter a room.
If you succeed, the violence of your arrival is so great that all characters within 20 feet of your entry point must succeed at a Fortitude saving throw (DC = 10 + your base attack bonus) or be stunned instead of acting in the surprise round (if there is one) plus 1 round thereafter. Characters who succeed at this save are instead shaken for 1d4 rounds.
http://www.x-entertainment.com/pics/kool1.jpg
From Pathfinder Player Companion: Champions of Corruption, Paizo's latest gem. And they say martials do not get nice things.
Jacob.Tyr
2014-10-06, 11:46 AM
This is so fantastic. Pair it with Shatter Defenses and you've got an awesome opening for 1d4 rounds. A melee guy with this breaking down the door, working with a rogue using Shatter Defenses and rapid shot feats to clean up.
stack
2014-10-06, 11:50 AM
Que dm getting frustrated and making all the enemies stand 25' from any possible entrance. Nasty save dc on that. Not so useful outside, but I don't see passing it up often.
Honest Tiefling
2014-10-06, 03:55 PM
Does anything say the door or the wall has to be attached by anything? Just carry around a door to crash through, I guess.
The reason people say melee doesn't get nice things isn't because they don't exist, but because the ones that do won't be allowed by DMs. Hell I wouldn't allow this, because its silly. I'm fine with mooks being stunned by this, but the BBEG being stunned for what is effectively 2 rounds because the fighter kicked the door down menacingly? I cannot take that seriously. I'm aware that this is unfair to martial classes because I know I would allow casters to do this because magic, but I need to be able to take my game seriously. If this happens once, fair enough, but if this is how most fights begin I'm not going to want to put effort into making villains credible.
If a player of mine wanted to take this I think I would tweak it to be:
Prerequisite(s): Str 15, Power Attack, base attack bonus +5.
Benefit(s): Before starting combat, you can attempt to break through a door, window, or wall to enter a room.
Whenever you get a surprise round you can bellow, roar or utter a battle cry as free action. All those who can see or hear you do so must make a Will saving throw (DC = 10 + your base attack bonus) or be dazed instead of acting in the surprise round if they have not yet acted plus 1 round thereafter. Characters who succeed at this save are instead shaken for 1d4 rounds.
Sure you lose out on the cool aid antics, but on the plus side you get a cool ability and I don't hate you for it. Its a will save because this sounds like something that would affect the mind, not the body.
Psyren
2014-10-06, 04:32 PM
The BBEG should be at the back, (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0105.html) not next to the door. This is fine.
And tons of monsters are immune to stun and fear anyway.
The BBEG should be at the back, (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0105.html) not next to the door. This is fine.
No they should not be, not every single one at least. Some of them may lead from the front, and protect their more vulnerable followers. Evil does not behave like a hive mind, it has many faces. And sometimes the BBEG isn't even evil. He probably should be a BBEG then, but they are sticking to the title.
And tons of monsters are immune to stun and fear anyway.
And where in this feat does it say fear immunity will help? Its not even a will save?
Psyren
2014-10-06, 04:37 PM
No they should not be, not every single one at least. Some of them may lead from the front, and protect their more vulnerable followers. Evil does not behave like a hive mind.
The ones at the front have good fort saves. Fine.
And where in this feat does it say fear immunity will help? Its not even a will save?
Shaken is a fear effect?
The ones at the front have good fort saves. Fine.
They can still fail it, and at that point I cease wanting to make any effort with the melee character who just dropped his sword and froze because the fighter was mean to his door.
Shaken is a fear effect?
So the part I don't care about? I'm fine with the shaken effect, its the stuff that I would hate in my game.
Psyren
2014-10-06, 04:43 PM
They can still fail it, and at that point I cease wanting to make any effort with the melee character who just dropped his sword and froze because the fighter was mean to his door.
They can technically fail a round 1 blindness or other fort save too. If it's that much of a problem and you really want them loitering around near the door for whatever reason, just fudge the save.
Really, compared to some of the other stuff they've come out with recently like Sacred Geometry, this is quite tame.
They can technically fail a round 1 blindness or other fort save too. If it's that much of a problem and you really want them loitering around near the door for whatever reason, just fudge the save.
Really, compared to some of the other stuff they've come out with recently like Sacred Geometry, this is quite tame.
I already said I'm not objecting to this on a power level (I acknowledged I had not problem with this coming from a caster in the form of a spell, and how unfair this is). I don't like it because of the fluff the mechanics are shackle to. I rewrote in a format I would allow, and I doubt its noticeable weaker, its probably strong because its less situational, but then that very situational aspect of the feat is probably why a lot of players will like it.
Just to be clear, I'm fine with a boss being stunned. I just don't like it when it happens because someone kicks down a door menacingly.
Jacob.Tyr
2014-10-06, 04:49 PM
They can still fail it, and at that point I cease wanting to make any effort with the melee character who just dropped his sword and froze because the fighter was mean to his door.
So the part I don't care about? I'm fine with the shaken effect, its the stuff that I would hate in my game.
"the stuff"?
But seriously, if someone blew through the door next to me I'm pretty sure I'd be pretty disoriented. It isn't exactly an overpowering ability, it makes sense thematically and logically, and it makes for some interesting options. I'm guessing it is fort because it makes more sense for a soldier/fighter/whatever to be less likely to be thrown off by sudden battle.
If you have a player that a.ways kool-aid mans himself into every room, maybe sometimes throw different types scenarios in his way? Not every BBEG is sitting at a desk in a tiny office. Some of them are on thrones in giant throne rooms. Or hanging out in a command tent. Or in a great hall. Sometimes they might even be actively moving to engage with the adventurers storming their fortress, and they open the door.
Anlashok
2014-10-06, 04:52 PM
But seriously, if someone blew through the door next to me I'm pretty sure I'd be pretty disoriented.
Doesn't matter. Fighters being useful is too "unrealistic".
"the stuff"?
That was me impressively mistyping stun.
But seriously, if someone blew through the door next to me I'm pretty sure I'd be pretty disoriented.
I'm fine with disorientated, its the dropping whatever they hold in their hand that makes it difficult for me.
It isn't exactly an overpowering ability,
I know, hence why when I retweaked it I arguable made it more powerful, not less so.
If you have a player that a.ways kool-aid mans himself into every room
I don't have a problem with that, I have a problem with NPCs who are meant to badass dropping their weapon and decided they want their mommy because someone kicked open a door. Or reverse, if an NPC uses this against the PCs.
Hiro Protagonest
2014-10-06, 04:56 PM
If you think it's overpowered because it's not a spell, add a verbal component: require their character to be able to shout "oh yeah!". :smallamused:
In any case... I don't see anything saying the enemies drop their weapons.
StoneCipher
2014-10-06, 04:56 PM
The saving throw should be an intimidate roll.
It's not like you put an explosive charge on the door, you just kicked it in which will result in a broken door and maybe some wood shards flying about if its a wooden door.
If you think it's overpowered because it's not a spell, add a verbal component: require their character to be able to shout "oh yeah!". :smallamused:
I never said it was overpowered.
In any case... I don't see anything saying the enemies drop their weapons.
Isn't that what a stunned character does?
devlear
2014-10-06, 04:58 PM
There is also the chance that the fighter fails to kick down the door or solid steel plate augmented with hold portal. Then your BBEG gets to ready actions to kick party ass.
Anlashok
2014-10-06, 05:00 PM
I never said that.
Really? Because like, two posts ago:
I would allow casters to do this because magic
Derp.
I have a problem with NPCs who are meant to badass...
Then why make your stand here and not any of the other dozen effects that have the same problem?
Really? Because like, two posts ago:
Derp.
Yeah, now find where I said that objection was based on its power level. I rewrote the feat to be more powerful, I'm probably not concerned with it being overpowered.
Derp.
Being snarky and wrong is a bad combination.
Then why make your stand here and not any of the other dozen effects that have the same problem?
Because those other effects don't make them look like a wuss when they take affect. I can buy that a high level guy is stunned when the monk stunning fists them, but not when the fighter kicks the door open.
Anlashok
2014-10-06, 05:05 PM
Yeah, now find where I said that objection was based on its power level. I rewrote the feat to be more powerful, I'm probably not concerned with it being overpowered.
More of a side-grade really though, and it doesn't change the point that you said pretty clearly that you think it's bad because it's not a wizard doing it.
Because those other effects don't make them look like a wuss when they take affect.
Not really. There are dozens of effects that cause people who are "supposed to be badasses" to cower. I mean, it's one of the focal points of the whole 'Why does the guy who's never been out of his tower have steelier resolve than the trained warrior who butchers balors for a living?" argument. Among many others.
More of a side-grade really though,
No, its a fairly important part of what I said.
and it doesn't change the point that you said pretty clearly that you think it's bad because it's not a wizard doing it.
I never denied that, but I explained myself which was apparently lost on everyone who claimed I thought it was overpowered.
Not really. There are dozens of effects that cause people who are "supposed to be badasses" to cower. I mean, it's one of the focal points of the whole 'Why does the guy who's never been out of his tower have steelier resolve than the trained warrior who butchers balors for a living?" argument. Among many others.
No, those are completely different. You can spend your entire life in the army feeling pain and there will still be people who have never had a fight in their life who are better at it.
For the record, this is the feat I would allow in my game:
Prerequisite(s): Str 15, Power Attack, base attack bonus +5.
Benefit(s): Before starting combat, you can attempt to break through a door, window, or wall to enter a room.
Whenever you get a surprise round you can bellow, roar or utter a battle cry as free action. All those who can see or hear you do so must make a Will saving throw (DC = 10 + your base attack bonus) or be dazed instead of acting in the surprise round if they have not yet acted plus 1 round thereafter. Characters who succeed at this save are instead shaken for 1d4 rounds.
Sure you lose out on the cool aid antics, but on the plus side you get a cool ability and I don't hate you for it. Its a will save because this sounds like something that would affect the mind, not the body.
Seeing a door being kicked down viciously is not something that should stun anyone of near equal or higher level to you IMO, be you an PC or NPC.
Jacob.Tyr
2014-10-06, 05:11 PM
Someone busting through the door/window/wall is surprising, not necessarily scary. It isn't an intimidate check.
But if you want absurd things that make the BBEG look wimpy, just optimize for dazzling display and specialize in something like a sling. http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0745.html
Someone busting through the door/window/wall is surprising, not necessarily scary. It isn't an intimidate check.
Still shouldn't be a fortitude save. Perception is keyed to wisdom, and that is how you notice things after all.
But if you want absurd things that make the BBEG look wimpy, just optimize for dazzling display and specialize in something like a sling. http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0745.html
That feat is fine on its own, I'm have no problem imagining a trained warrior can make a sling look deadly. Dunno what else you are imagining to go along with it.
StoneCipher
2014-10-06, 05:22 PM
Someone busting through the door/window/wall is surprising, not necessarily scary. It isn't an intimidate check.
But if you want absurd things that make the BBEG look wimpy, just optimize for dazzling display and specialize in something like a sling. http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0745.html
I don't know how you react to kicked in doors but if someone kicked in the door in my house I'd be ****ting my pants.
I don't know how you react to kicked in doors but if someone kicked in the door in my house I'd be ****ting my pants.
Yes, but then you are a 1st level expert, where as a level appropriate boss is going to be at least 5 against a PC with this feat, the kind of person who can take a single arrow mid stride (more and that may be a problem, but even then it will take a fair few to kill them).
Psyren
2014-10-06, 06:49 PM
Yes, but then you are a 1st level expert, where as a level appropriate boss is going to be at least 5 against a PC with this feat, the kind of person who can take a single arrow mid stride (more and that may be a problem, but even then it will take a fair few to kill them).
That's what the fort save is for. Saves go up with level and bosses tend to have good ones (otherwise they are not bosses for long.)
That's what the fort save is for. Saves go up with level and bosses tend to have good ones (otherwise they are not bosses for long.)
1. No, plenty of villain can have low fort saves and some will still be on the front line (like a melee rogue, or glass cannon build)
2. Even high fort savers can still fail the fort save, and when they do they look like a wuss. Dazed wouldn't, because not acting still gives you some leeway to work with and even badass can be caught off guard, but helplessly dropping everything they are holding in shock is less forgiving, and more appropriate for the comedy side kick and mooks.
Raven777
2014-10-06, 07:23 PM
I don't have a problem with that, I have a problem with NPCs who are meant to badass dropping their weapon and decided they want their mommy because someone kicked open a door.
The other day I killed a level draining Nabasu demon with fall damage. By dazing it mid flight. With a snow ball (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/s/snowball). You are taking things too seriously :smalltongue:
The other day I killed a level draining Nabasu demon with fall damage. By dazing it mid flight. With a snow ball (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/s/snowball). You are taking things too seriously :smalltongue:
You're not taking things seriously enough. See, I can tell you to play the game differently as well, or we could accept that we have different expectations of the game.
Also snowball staggers, it doesn't daze, meaning that I think the nabassu should have been able to remain aloft. Unless it was a dazing snowball, in which case it was a 4th spell and I don't that. Besides I already said casters unfairly get away with more because magic can justify far more things.
Not to mention if you were 5th level, that snowball would be dealing 5d6 damage, i.e. about as much as a volley of short bows. Even if you were 3rd level it would still be 3d6, more than the base damage of a greatsword. Just because it is called snowball which we tend to imagine as cute doesn't mean it isn't a deadly weapon with the stats its given.
weckar
2014-10-06, 07:30 PM
I like the feat for all the reasons of ridiculousness (imagining players finding excuses to use it being high up there) but I hate it for its semantic confusion.
Kudos for trying to use the oft-missed word 'irruption', but the irruption is only from the perspective of the user of the feat (and therefore is hopefully not stunning). To any onlookers (the ones that would be stunned) it's an Eruption...
Red Fel
2014-10-06, 07:33 PM
Besides I already said casters unfairly get away with more because magic can justify far more things.
But that's just it. You say they get away with it unfairly, with which I agree, but the point is that casters still get away with it.
A caster can do silly stuff and win the day, even in a campaign designed to be serious, or dark, or gritty, or just not-silly. Here is a chance for a melee to have a useful way to stun people by bursting through a door or window - and I happen to agree that if somebody burst through a door or window near most people, they'd be stunned for a few seconds. It's very situational, naturally; architects don't always have the foresight to put in portholes where an adventurer may later attempt to force entry.
My point is, casters can get away with it, even if it's silly. Your position, however, is that, in your games, melee can't, at least not when it's silly. So you retool the feat so that it's not silly. But the fact is that casters can still do it, silly or otherwise. It's just the melees who now have the additional burden of "Don't do that, it's silly, you can't be silly."
I've come by a roundabout way, but I guess what I'm trying to say is melee can't have silly things.
And that's terrible.
But that's just it. You say they get away with it unfairly, with which I agree, but the point is that casters still get away with it.
A caster can do silly stuff and win the day, even in a campaign designed to be serious, or dark, or gritty, or just not-silly. Here is a chance for a melee to have a useful way to stun people by bursting through a door or window - and I happen to agree that if somebody burst through a door or window near most people, they'd be stunned for a few seconds. It's very situational, naturally; architects don't always have the foresight to put in portholes where an adventurer may later attempt to force entry.
My point is, casters can get away with it, even if it's silly. Your position, however, is that, in your games, melee can't, at least not when it's silly. So you retool the feat so that it's not silly. But the fact is that casters can still do it, silly or otherwise. It's just the melees who now have the additional burden of "Don't do that, it's silly, you can't be silly."
I've come by a roundabout way, but I guess what I'm trying to say is melee can't have silly things.
And that's terrible.
But what do you mean by nice? As you acknowledged, I allowed melee a version of the feat that is just as powerful, so "nice" presumable doesn't refer to powerful. Is it "fun"? Not really, melee has plenty of fun options. What does "nice" mean here? Silly? Because that is far less of a problem.
Psyren
2014-10-06, 07:38 PM
1. No, plenty of villain can have low fort saves and some will still be on the front line (like a melee rogue, or glass cannon build)
Then they suck/die. *shrug*
If you are on the front line with a poor fort save, you had better not stand near doors. (Seriously, what kind of rogue would do that, save a stupid one?)
2. Even high fort savers can still fail the fort save, and when they do they look like a wuss. Dazed wouldn't, because not acting still gives you some leeway to work with and even badass can be caught off guard, but helplessly dropping everything they are holding in shock is less forgiving, and more appropriate for the comedy side kick and mooks.
Again, high fort failing the save can happen with far worse things than this.
Red Fel
2014-10-06, 07:40 PM
But what do you mean by nice? As you acknowledged, I allowed melee a version of the feat that is just as powerful, so "nice" presumable doesn't refer to powerful. Is it "fun"? Not really, melee has plenty of fun options. What does "nice" mean here? Silly? Because that is far less of a problem.
I didn't say "nice." I said "silly." A double-standard doesn't cease to be a double-standard simply because it's talking about the right to be silly.
Then they suck/die. *shrug*
If you are on the front line with a poor fort save, you had better not stand near doors. (Seriously, what kind of rogue would do that, save a stupid one?)
I know there are jokes about PCs paranoia and they naturally carry on to villains, but they are jokes. Door are a fairly essentially part of architecture in many cultures, most of which are the ones that inspire D&D. As such, a rogue would indeed be expected to stand near a door at some point in his life. At least if you want believable characters.
Again, high fort failing the save can happen with far worse things than this.
I don't mind them failing fort saves. I mind failing fort saves and looking like wuss because they were so surprised that the mean fighter kicked the door down.
I didn't say "nice." I said "silly." A double-standard doesn't cease to be a double-standard simply because it's talking about the right to be silly.
Sorry, templated sentence, I read "nice" there. And yes it is, to me at least. Being silly is never a goal for me as a DM and not goal I want my players to reach for, so it being unsupported/actually nerfed isn't a problem. Talking rubbish, let me think how to phrase this. Being silly for casters is not a problem because they are inherently ridiculous, magic after all doesn't exist. Martial combat however does, and this is tied to martial character in fantasy, even if they go above it because its heroic fantasy. After all, there are a lot of superficial similarities between the two: they both wield weapons, are is considered the default, they master techniques as they advance. By contrast magic has nothing to tie it to reality.
Is this a double standard? Yes. It is a problem for the kind of game I like to run? No, so it would only become an issue if I had a player for whom it was important, and I don't think such a character concept would gel well with my setting.
Kudaku
2014-10-06, 07:46 PM
It's worth noting that the feat doesn't distinguish between friend or foe - everyone within the 20 feet range have to save or be effected, including the user.
Fighter using Stunning Irruption: I... I did something useful? *Stunned*
Psyren
2014-10-06, 07:48 PM
I know there are jokes about PCs paranoia and they naturally carry on to villains, but they are jokes. Door are a fairly essentially part of architecture in many cultures, most of which are the ones that inspire D&D. As such, a rogue would indeed be expected to stand near a door at some point in his life. At least if you want believable characters.
A believable boss, as stated, does not stand in front of the minions unless he is a dedicated frontline class, which rogues are not designed for. Smart rogue boss sends in minions first, (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0856.html) because when they run in first, bad things happen. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0859.html) It's common sense.
I don't mind them failing fort saves. I mind failing fort saves and looking like wuss because they were so surprised that the mean fighter kicked the door down.
Again, if your boss is failing a fort save that easy, maybe he really was a wuss. A level 10 fighter is pushing what, DC 20?
A believable boss, as stated, does not stand in front of the minions unless he is a dedicated frontline class, which rogues are not designed for. Smart rogue boss sends in minions first, (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0856.html) because when they run in first, bad things happen. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0859.html) It's common sense.
Right, so when I make an honourable rogue who doesn't want to sacrifice his minions because he values their life I am doing it wrong, ofcourse. And having my BBEG not be always on alert and sometimes being caught unprepared by the PCs was my other mistake. Thank you Psyren for showing me how to properly DM.
Again, if your boss is failing a fort save that easy, maybe he really was a wuss. A level 10 fighter is pushing what, DC 20?
Who said easily? It doesn't matter if he fails it on 2, he still looks like a wuss when he drops everything.
Thiyr
2014-10-06, 07:59 PM
I know there are jokes about PCs paranoia and they naturally carry on to villains, but they are jokes. Door are a fairly essentially part of architecture in many cultures, most of which are the ones that inspire D&D. As such, a rogue would indeed be expected to stand near a door at some point in his life. At least if you want believable characters.
I don't mind them failing fort saves. I mind failing fort saves and looking like wuss because they were so surprised that the mean fighter kicked the door down.
Honestly, I don't even find this feat terribly silly. Yea, it brings to mind our good friend Mr Kool-Aid Man, but it also reminds me of how I understand police forces do Dynamic Entries. They explode their way in through a door, window, or wall, and take advantage of the confusion to take care of threats before they're capable of doing anything. Granted, we tend to use actual, yknow, explosives to do that, but this is D&D, muscles are enough to do that, I'd say. Less "rawr I'mma scary fighter", more "Whattheeffwhyisthedoormissingwhyisthereanaxewieldi nglunaticinmyface". At least that's how I'd see it.
And I feel you on certain saves, but honestly, it's something that happens. I distinctly remember running a PC with a high will save, solid wis, and a notably unflappable, extremely calm and collected demeanor. Who failed at least saves vs fear at least 3 separate times, forcing him to go running. Kinda shattered my sense of character. If I was smart, I'dve looked into getting fear immunity of some sort, but I derped. If nothing else, at least there's always steadfast determination (if 3.5 stuff is on the table, that is)
Red Fel
2014-10-06, 07:59 PM
Sorry, templated sentence, I read "nice" there. And yes it is, to me at least. Being silly is never a goal for me as a DM and not goal I want my players to reach for, so it being unsupported/actually nerfed isn't a problem. Talking rubbish, let me think how to phrase this. Being silly for casters is not a problem because they are inherently ridiculous, magic after all doesn't exist. Martial combat however does, and this is tied to martial character in fantasy, even if they go above it because its heroic fantasy. After all, there are a lot of superficial similarities between the two: they both wield weapons, are is considered the default, they master techniques as they advance. By contrast magic has nothing to tie it to reality.
Is this a double standard? Yes. It is a problem for the kind of game I like to run? No, so it would only become an issue if I had a player for whom it was important, and I don't think such a character concept would gel well with my setting.
And this is the problem. And I don't mean to sound dismissive of your particular game style; I'm not. I like a serious game now and then.
What annoys me is the sentiment, which you have expressed and are not alone in, that casters can get away with whatever because they are casters. It's the "guy at the gym" fallacy, and it irks me. Ultimately, for whatever the reason, it's a double standard. Casters are allowed to do something because (1) the mechanics allow it, and (2) they're casters. When melee tries to do something, however, when mechanics are introduced, they have to be vetted, and may be vetoed, because melees are not casters, and thus somehow are expected to maintain a higher level of realism.
People who are able to swing a massive two-handed warhammer four times in six seconds, and can do so every six seconds for an entire sixteen-hour day without suffering negative side effects, must be realistic. That irks me.
Honestly, I don't even find this feat terribly silly. Yea, it brings to mind our good friend Mr Kool-Aid Man, but it also reminds me of how I understand police forces do Dynamic Entries. They explode their way in through a door, window, or wall, and take advantage of the confusion to take care of threats before they're capable of doing anything. Granted, we tend to use actual, yknow, explosives to do that, but this is D&D, muscles are enough to do that, I'd say. Less "rawr I'mma scary fighter", more "Whattheeffwhyisthedoormissingwhyisthereanaxewieldi nglunaticinmyface". At least that's how I'd see it.
Sure, as I said I don't mind daze, its the stun that gets me, because that also means they drop what they are holding. I have nothing wrong with badass characters being caught offguard, but when they drop what they are holding in surprise that is something else. I'd also be okay with it stunning those who are 5 or more HD below you and dazing everyone else.
And this is the problem. And I don't mean to sound dismissive of your particular game style; I'm not. I like a serious game now and then.
What annoys me is the sentiment, which you have expressed and are not alone in, that casters can get away with whatever because they are casters. It's the "guy at the gym" fallacy, and it irks me. Ultimately, for whatever the reason, it's a double standard. Casters are allowed to do something because (1) the mechanics allow it, and (2) they're casters. When melee tries to do something, however, when mechanics are introduced, they have to be vetted, and may be vetoed, because melees are not casters, and thus somehow are expected to maintain a higher level of realism.
People who are able to swing a massive two-handed warhammer four times in six seconds, and can do so every six seconds for an entire sixteen-hour day without suffering negative side effects, must be realistic. That irks me.
Sure, but the reverse also applies: melee will never be knocked into a coma for making a melee attack (unless that specific target does it), but casters can for casting a spell. If ofcourse we are talking about the trope on a genre wide level, or at least including the potential for house rules.
Psyren
2014-10-06, 08:31 PM
Right, so when I make an honourable rogue who doesn't want to sacrifice his minions because he values their life I am doing it wrong, ofcourse. And having my BBEG not be always on alert and sometimes being caught unprepared by the PCs was my other mistake. Thank you Psyren for showing me how to properly DM.
You're not doing it wrong at all. But "honorable rogues" who go in first and don't try to take advantage of the situation tend to end up dead, because they're not playing to their strengths. All this feat is doing is reinforcing that realistic portrayal of how such an encounter would go down.
No one is telling you how to DM; I'm certainly not. What I am telling you is that certain playstyles have pretty clear drawbacks (like... rogues who lead from the front for some reason) and expecting the game to cater to yours is unrealistic. Just as it would be if you wanted to be an archer who only fires arrows in melee. IT's doable, sure, but you are building up obstacles before you even start.
Who said easily? It doesn't matter if he fails it on 2, he still looks like a wuss when he drops everything.
Failed saving throws happen, that's the whole point of rolling dice to begin with mang.
Anlashok
2014-10-06, 08:37 PM
Sure, but the reverse also applies: melee will never be knocked into a coma for making a melee attack (unless that specific target does it), but casters can for casting a spell. If ofcourse we are talking about the trope on a genre wide level, or at least including the potential for house rules.
If we're including the potential for house rules, why ignore one of the most common ones? The melee might not be knocked into a coma, but there's a great chance he'll murder himself.
And having my BBEG not be always on alert and sometimes being caught unprepared by the PCs was my other mistake.
This seems weirdly incongruous with the earlier insistence that your BBEG should never ever be surprised or startled by anything (except magic ofc).
Thiyr
2014-10-06, 08:39 PM
Sure, as I said I don't mind daze, its the stun that gets me, because that also means they drop what they are holding. I have nothing wrong with badass characters being caught offguard, but when they drop what they are holding in surprise that is something else. I'd also be okay with it stunning those who are 5 or more HD below you and dazing everyone else.
Even then, though, I feel like "caught off guard" is underselling it. I was being a tad hyperbolic with my descriptors before. But if you're standing within 20 feet of a violent explosion of material you weren't expecting, it would surprise me more if someone -did- keep their hands on their stuff. At that point, dropping your stuff doesn't make you seem weak imo, no more than if you got bashed upside the head and stunned.
You're not doing it wrong at all. But "honorable rogues" who go in first and don't try to take advantage of the situation tend to end up dead, because they're not playing to their strengths. All this feat is doing is reinforcing that realistic portrayal of how such an encounter would go down.
No one is telling you how to DM; I'm certainly not. What I am telling you is that certain playstyles have pretty clear drawbacks (like... rogues who lead from the front for some reason) and expecting the game to cater to yours is unrealistic. Just as it would be if you wanted to be an archer who only fires arrows in melee. IT's doable, sure, but you are building up obstacles before you even start.
You say this as if it were fact, but I have played the honourable rogues/swordsage/ before, and sure they weren't as effective as they could have been, but they were never curb stomped (that one time doesn't count, I was rolling horrible for him). Obvious I wasn't paying attention to the exact details at the time, but I'm fairly sure they were within 20ft of a door at times when the PCs attacked.
You may not be telling me how to DM, but you are making incorrect statements about the effectiveness of archetypes. And as below, you still don't seem to be understanding my objections to this feat, if you think I have a problem with failed saves.
Failed saving throws happen, that's the whole point of rolling dice to begin with mang.
That is strange coming from you, you has just spent a couple of post dismissing that very possibility. I don't know how much clearer I can be in that I don't mind failed saves in general, just that the specific combination of a villain and this feat unmodified is one.
If we're including the potential for house rules, why ignore one of the most common ones? The melee might not be knocked into a coma, but there's a great chance he'll murder himself.
Because I don't use it, and so far for the most part this discussion have been centered around my perception of the feat.
This seems weirdly incongruous with the earlier insistence that your BBEG should never ever be surprised or startled by anything (except magic ofc).
Can you quote me saying that?
Actually never mind. Even if you could it would be out of meaning changing context like last time. I redesigned this feat with basically the same effect and said that would be okay. That should imply I am okay with the BBEG being surprised by non-magical means.
Even then, though, I feel like "caught off guard" is underselling it. I was being a tad hyperbolic with my descriptors before. But if you're standing within 20 feet of a violent explosion of material you weren't expecting, it would surprise me more if someone -did- keep their hands on their stuff. At that point, dropping your stuff doesn't make you seem weak imo, no more than if you got bashed upside the head and stunned.
For us? Sure. But somebody who could comfortable take on a young dragon and not even break a sweat? Less so. Remember being dazed means taking no real actions for 6 seconds, effectively 9 if there is a surprise round, which is a big deal. I think you may be underselling just what this "caught off guard" entails.
Kudaku
2014-10-06, 08:45 PM
Out of curiosity, how is this different from the fighter opening the door with a move action and the witch successfully landing a Slumber Hex on 'the villain' in the surprise round?
Out of curiosity, how is this different from the fighter opening the door with a move action and the witch successfully landing a Slumber Hex on 'the villain' in the surprise round?
The fact that I see that as a legitimate debuff, and actual targetted attacks. Same with a monk charging and stunning fist. I don't mind a villain falling to that, but the idea dropping what they are holding in shock because someone kicks a door down is just not the kind of thing I want in my game. And same with PCs if an NPC where to use this feat.
Psyren
2014-10-06, 08:51 PM
You say this as if it were fact, but I have played the honourable rogues/swordsage/ before, and sure they weren't as effective as they could have been, but they were never curb stomped (that one time doesn't count, I was rolling horrible for him). Obvious I wasn't paying attention to the exact details at the time, but I'm fairly sure they were within 20ft of a door at times when the PCs attacked.
If a round or two of stun is all it takes to "curbstomp" your baddie, then I'm sorry, he wasn't very good. (Or he's hopelessly outnumbered, or both.)
Also, you're shifting goalposts. You never said "Swordsage" before - obviously those are much better equipped to be on the frontline than a pure rogue would be.
That is strange coming from you, you has just spent a couple of post dismissing that very possibility. I don't know how much clearer I can be in that I don't mind failed saves in general, just that the specific combination of a villain and this feat unmodified is one.
I am dismissing it. Even the Tarrasque has a 5% chance of failing a fort save. It's not something you really plan for.
Red Fel
2014-10-06, 08:56 PM
Out of curiosity, how is this different from the fighter opening the door with a move action and the witch successfully landing a Slumber Hex on 'the villain' in the surprise round?
The witch is a caster; by the rules established above, she's allowed to.
Now, a better comparison would be: How is this different from, in 3.5, a Barbarian walking into a room, using Instantaneous Rage, Intimidating Rage, Never Outnumbered, and Imperious Command, to instantly fly into a rage before anyone else can act and cause everyone who fails a save to cower? (Note that, because Cowering is an escalated form of Panicked, a Cowering enemy has dropped its weapons.)
If a round or two of stun is all it takes to "curbstomp" your baddie, then I'm sorry, he wasn't very good. (Or he's hopelessly outnumbered, or both.)
Your mixing up the two topics. Obviously I have never had this feat in my game, I only just learned about it. What I am saying is that contrary to what you attest, the idea of a more fragile character leading from the front does work. I've used them and they didn't just die, as you said they would be because they weren't acting smart.
Also, you're shifting goalposts. You never said "Swordsage" before - obviously those are much better equipped to be on the frontline than a pure rogue would be.
Melee character with a poor fort save. Seems identical to me. They didn't have the con check for fort save maneuver.
I am dismissing it. Even the Tarrasque has a 5% chance of failing a fort save. It's not something you really plan for.
I know, and I'm fine with that in principle. I am fine with a spell stunning them on a failed fort, I am fine with the monk hitting their big toe with stunning fist and them failing their fort, I am fine with a warblade dazing them with dazzing strike. Some of these I perceive as wierder than others. For the terraque, I don't mind this feat (I'm assuming it s a fairly large door is the terraque is withing 20ft of it).
What I mind is a powerful NPC or PC dropping what they are holding because someone kicked a door down.
The witch is a caster; by the rules established above, she's allowed to.
Except I already gave my answer and it was different.
Now, a better comparison would be: How is this different from, in 3.5, a Barbarian walking into a room, using Instantaneous Rage, Intimidating Rage, Never Outnumbered, and Imperious Command, to instantly fly into a rage before anyone else can act and cause everyone who fails a save to cower? (Note that, because Cowering is an escalated form of Panicked, a Cowering enemy has dropped its weapons.)
Also different, its a power issue. I would not be okay with a caster emulating that ability. (I'm pretty sure, I'd need to double check what that all does)
Kudaku
2014-10-06, 09:00 PM
The fact that I see that as a legitimate debuff, and actual targetted attacks. Same with a monk charging and stunning fist. I don't mind a villain falling to that, but the idea dropping what they are holding in shock because someone kicks a door down is just not the kind of thing I want in my game. And same with PCs if an NPC where to use this feat.
Okay, now replace Slumber Hex with a bard casting Sound Burst. Still OK?
Okay, now replace Slumber Hex with a bard casting Sound Burst. Still OK?
Yes, its an incredibly loud sound. Unless the door is being kicked down at a similar volume, I'm okay with one and not the over. At this point my answer pretty much does become the one Red Fel gave for me: because its magic. But this is not a power issue.
Kudaku
2014-10-06, 09:07 PM
Yes, its an incredibly loud sound. Unless the door is being kicked down at a similar volume, I'm okay with one and not the over.
Okay, then maybe the difference is one of perspective? When I read Stunning Irruption, I'm not really picturing someone kicking in a door with several hard kicks - I'm picturing something like this (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bw6EH95htYg#t=182), except instead of a breaching charge you use the foot/shoulder of a guy who can happily bench press a train.
Okay, then maybe the difference is one of perspective? When I read Stunning Irruption, I'm not really picturing someone kicking in a door with several hard kicks - I'm picturing something like this (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bw6EH95htYg#t=182), except instead of a breaching charge you use the foot/shoulder of a guy who can happily bench press a train.
And I'm fine with mooks being stunned by that, but not equal CR threats.
Red Fel
2014-10-06, 09:10 PM
Also different, its a power issue. I would not be okay with a caster emulating that ability. (I'm pretty sure, I'd need to double check what that all does)
Breakdown: Instantaneous Rage: Rage as a free action, even on someone else's turn. Intimidating Rage: When you rage, demoralize an opponent. Never Outnumbered: When you demoralize an opponent, demoralize everything within ten feet. Imperious Command: When you demoralize an opponent in combat, they are cowering for one round, then shaken the next.
If you have an issue with casters doing that, then I assume you have an issue with, for example, a caster scribing a Symbol of Sleep (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/s/symbol-of-sleep) upon a surface, then unveiling it upon walking into the room. Or using Symbol of Fear (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/s/symbol-of-fear), or just plain Fear (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/f/fear). Because that's basically all it is - a one-shot, area-encompassing debuff, save or suck. The only difference is that, in the one case, a caster is able to do it with a single spell; in the other, it's a Barbarian using three feats and a skill trick.
It sounds like your issue isn't with the concept itself, or with the feat at the outset of the thread - it's with the idea that your BBEG, or even a mini-BBEG, can be subject to a debuff at the outset of combat. Is that a fair assessment of your position?
torrasque666
2014-10-06, 09:12 PM
And I'm fine with mooks being stunned by that, but not equal CR threats.
But you're fine with those same equal CR threats being stunned by a loud noise from an (magical)instrument. And considering that when a guy like the one described hits that door, chances are its not so much as being flung open as being exploded.
Never Outnumbered: When you demoralize an opponent, demoralize everything within ten feet.
Nitpick but Never Outnumber specifies that every opponent gets their own save. Its not just a "scare one, scare all" deal.
Breakdown: Instantaneous Rage: Rage as a free action, even on someone else's turn. Intimidating Rage: When you rage, demoralize an opponent. Never Outnumbered: When you demoralize an opponent, demoralize everything within ten feet. Imperious Command: When you demoralize an opponent in combat, they are cowering for one round, then shaken the next.
If you have an issue with casters doing that, then I assume you have an issue with, for example, a caster scribing a Symbol of Sleep (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/s/symbol-of-sleep) upon a surface, then unveiling it upon walking into the room. Or using Symbol of Fear (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/s/symbol-of-fear), or just plain Fear (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/f/fear). Because that's basically all it is - a one-shot, area-encompassing debuff, save or suck. The only difference is that, in the one case, a caster is able to do it with a single spell; in the other, it's a Barbarian using three feats and a skill trick.
Those all allow will saves, which the barbarian version does not. I would not be okay with a caster substituting a save for skill check they make.
It sounds like your issue isn't with the concept itself, or with the feat at the outset of the thread - it's with the idea that your BBEG, or even a mini-BBEG, can be subject to a debuff at the outset of combat. Is that a fair assessment of your position?
Not really, it two fold the type of debuff (stunned rather than dazed with I would be okay with) and the source of the debuff (kicking though something) meaning that its really scary when you kick through a door, but teleporting in or emerging from hiding? Whatever.
This is why in my feat I changed the debuff to daze and made it trigger on any surprise round.
But you're fine with those same equal CR threats being stunned by a loud noise from an (magical)instrument. And considering that when a guy like the one described hits that door, chances are its not so much as being flung open as being exploded.
This feat is available at 5th level. By most measurements this is still in realm of possibility (for non-magical characters obviously).
Psyren
2014-10-06, 10:27 PM
Melee character with a poor fort save. Seems identical to me. They didn't have the con check for fort save maneuver.
Rogues get Mind Over Body? News to me.
Rogues get Mind Over Body? News to me.
I am clearly talking about the swordsage, which is also a melee class with a poor for save, just like the rogue. Sure they have options to boost it the rogue doesn't, but if they weren't taken I don't see why its shifting the goal posts of me to mention them. Also technically yes, with a feat.
Psyren
2014-10-06, 10:38 PM
Sure they have options to boost it the rogue doesn't,
Shifting goal posts, like I said.
Shifting goal posts, like I said.
But I didn't take them, so its irrelevant. You know, that thing I said next and you clipped off. A swordsage without MOB or DD has just as a good a fort save as a rogue.
Psyren
2014-10-06, 10:42 PM
So you intentionally gimp your own boss and then complain when it gets, to use your phrasing, "curbstomped?" That seems rather counterproductive.
So you intentionally gimp your own boss and then complain when it gets, to use your phrasing, "curbstomped?" That seems rather counterproductive.
No, the whole point is they didn't get curb stomped, despite you claiming they would, being honourable melee warriors who led from the front despite their classes generally benefiting a more cautious and tricky aproach. You said such villains would and I quote "die" and they did, but not without putting up a fight in which they weren't curb stomped. This is the second or third time you have manage to miss what I am trying to say. I'd wonder if maybe I was being unclear by Red Fel managed to understand it pretty well.
And can you stop saying that characters built differently to how you would have built them as "gimped"? No one maneuvre in ToB is required, not taking MoB does not gimp your character.
Psyren
2014-10-06, 10:49 PM
It sounds like you rolled lucky then, or else had no real fort saves to deal with.
But again, this ability is really not that high. A DC 20 save at level 10 is pretty easy to make, and bosses are usually several levels higher than the fighter kicking in the door.
To each his own, but the feat is what it is unless you ban or houserule it. Doesn't matter to me either way.
It sounds like you rolled lucky then, or else had no real fort saves to deal with.
But again, this ability is really not that high. A DC 20 save at level 10 is pretty easy to make, and bosses are usually several levels higher than the fighter kicking in the door.
Sure, I wasn't objecting to its power.
To each his own, but the feat is what it is unless you ban or houserule it. Doesn't matter to me either way.
That last sentence sounds very funny coming from somebody with a double digit post count in this thread involving precisely this topic.
Ssalarn
2014-10-07, 10:51 AM
"the stuff"?
But seriously, if someone blew through the door next to me I'm pretty sure I'd be pretty disoriented. It isn't exactly an overpowering ability, it makes sense thematically and logically, and it makes for some interesting options. I'm guessing it is fort because it makes more sense for a soldier/fighter/whatever to be less likely to be thrown off by sudden battle.
If you have a player that a.ways kool-aid mans himself into every room, maybe sometimes throw different types scenarios in his way? Not every BBEG is sitting at a desk in a tiny office. Some of them are on thrones in giant throne rooms. Or hanging out in a command tent. Or in a great hall. Sometimes they might even be actively moving to engage with the adventurers storming their fortress, and they open the door.
Also, sometimes there are traps that go off when you break through a door. Picture the enemy stunned with hilarity when the guy bursts through the door and immediately sinks into the quicksand trap disguised as a carpet (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yH0lx4BqqcI).
This is not a big deal. Actually, I take that back, this is a big deal, because this is exactly what good martial feats should look like. I want more.
Like, at least an entire supplement's worth (http://paizo.com/products/btpy99gr?The-Genius-Guide-to-Bravery-Feats). /shameless plug
Psyren
2014-10-07, 10:55 AM
That last sentence sounds very funny coming from somebody with a double digit post count in this thread involving precisely this topic.
Sorry if I wasn't clear - I meant your discomfort towards the feat doesn't matter to me. The feat itself does, hence my posting in support of it.
Snowbluff
2014-10-07, 11:00 AM
I dislike this feat. Too situational, especially since you need a closed door and you need enemies behind it. The good news is that PF is now even closer to Call of Duty. Just make sure not to shoot the hostages.
Sorry if I wasn't clear - I meant your discomfort towards the feat doesn't matter to me. The feat itself does, hence my posting in support of it.
Right, but you have still spent 15+ posts discussing my discomfort of the feat with me. So it clearly does matter to you, otherwise you would have made the "your discomfort of the feat doesn't matter matter to me" around the 6th post or earlier.
This is not a big deal. Actually, I take that back, this is a big deal, because this is exactly what good martial feats should look like. I want more.
Powerful, situational and a bit silly but awesome if you can over look that?
I dislike this feat. Too situational, especially since you need a closed door and you need enemies behind it. The good news is that PF is now even closer to Call of Duty. Just make sure not to shoot the hostages.
Isn't 3.5 Call of Duty (i.e. the original) and PF Battlefield (another companies attempt to copy the success of the origional with some minor improvements which are greatly overstated by the fans)?
stack
2014-10-07, 11:19 AM
Right, now its time to optimize this thing. Breaker barbarian base? Should be enough feats to improve checks to break objects...probably a few rage powers too. Mythic wold help as well.
torrasque666
2014-10-07, 11:31 AM
This is not a big deal. Actually, I take that back, this is a big deal, because this is exactly what good martial feats should look like. I want more.
Powerful, situational and a bit silly but awesome if you can over look that?
Considering that the definition of what casters can do is basically exactly that? Yes, Just because Magic can be handwaved as well, magic, doesn't give it the excuse that it gets to ignore what is and isn't "silly". Double standards are never good.
Don't let your mind be clouded by the Guy at the Gym fallacy (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?303089-The-Guy-at-the-Gym-Fallacy). There is no reason that a martial class can't be just as powerful and awesome, albeit silly, as a caster. Except prejudice. In a world of 9th level spells, how is a martial being awesome any different? Because they have to be grounded in reality?
Ssalarn
2014-10-07, 11:33 AM
I dislike this feat. Too situational, especially since you need a closed door and you need enemies behind it. ***
Or a window or walls. It's just situational enough to justify the relative power. Plus it promotes scouting and smart team play, which I consider to be a plus.
Psyren
2014-10-07, 11:39 AM
It's not even that silly really. You kick in a door and you startle or confuse them. Pretty easy stuff to grok.
If there were no save then I'd be much less charitable, but saves make it fair (and again, can be fudged for dramatic villain-ness if needed.)
Right, but you have still spent 15+ posts discussing my discomfort of the feat with me. So it clearly does matter to you, otherwise you would have made the "your discomfort of the feat doesn't matter matter to me" around the 6th post or earlier.
Whatever you say. *shrug*
Or a window or walls. It's just situational enough to justify the relative power. Plus it promotes scouting and smart team play, which I consider to be a plus.
Absolutely. Imagine a room with multiple doors. Now you have to pick the best one to smash through. Everybody gets involved. Win/win!
(and again, can be fudged for dramatic villain-ness if needed.)
Which is bad DMing by most standard.
Whatever you say. *shrug*
Yes, people don't make 15+ posts on something that doesn't matter to them. Its just simply logic.
Considering that the definition of what casters can do is basically exactly that? Yes, Just because Magic can be handwaved as well, magic, doesn't give it the excuse that it gets to ignore what is and isn't "silly". Double standards are never good.
And all generalizations are wrong.
Don't let your mind be clouded by the Guy at the Gym fallacy (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?303089-The-Guy-at-the-Gym-Fallacy). There is no reason that a martial class can't be just as powerful and awesome, albeit silly, as a caster.
Except there is, its something called game preference. I want martial characters to be just as powerful, or rather just as useful as casters, but I don't want them to be just as silly.
To me, the whole point is that someone who wields a weapon and someone who wields magic should operate differently, whilst being of equal value to the party.
Ssalarn
2014-10-07, 11:50 AM
Considering that the definition of what casters can do is basically exactly that? Yes
This.
It's not even that silly really. You kick in a door and you startle or confuse them. Pretty easy stuff to grok.
And this.
It's a thematically appropriate, reasonably situational, cinematic, and suitably powerful ability based on real life tactics with a fantasy twist that you could easily see as the opening to a fight scene in a book, movie, or comic. It lets martial characters do something very meaningful other than charge or full attack to contribute to combat (particularly true of Fighters), and since it's important to know that you're breaking through the right window/door/wall it's probably going to encourage teamwork and scouting which means it promotes inter-party cooperation. It auto-scales, but isn't tied to the unfortunately imbalanced CMB/CMD system, which starts falling apart after about level 8 or so due to size bonuses and investment requirements. It also has reasonable prereqs and automatically scales with level. The guy who wrote this deserves a freaking medal for setting the bar in martial feat design over at Paizo.
Snowbluff
2014-10-07, 11:53 AM
Isn't 3.5 Call of Duty (i.e. the original) and PF Battlefield (another companies attempt to copy the success of the origional with some minor improvements which are greatly overstated by the fans)?
PF is BF4.
Or a window or walls. It's just situational enough to justify the relative power. Plus it promotes scouting and smart team play, which I consider to be a plus.
Well, there is conditions within conditions. Don't spend your feat on something you can't assume. Not to mention it's not crazy strong, either. If you have the surprise round, wouldn't you be able to neutralize the targets otherwise?
Well, there is conditions within conditions. Don't spend your feat on something you can't assume. Not to mention it's not crazy strong, either. If you have the surprise round, wouldn't you be able to neutralize the targets otherwise?
How many non-situational feats are there for melee? There's less situational feats, but feats that are useful in every situation tend to be weak to compensate, and PF, like 3.5, requires some specialization. And so, a surprise round is not an auto win.
It's a thematically appropriate, reasonably situational, cinematic, and suitably powerful ability based on real life tactics with a fantasy twist that you could easily see as the opening to a fight scene in a book, movie, or comic. It lets martial characters do something very meaningful other than charge or full attack to contribute to combat (particularly true of Fighters), and since it's important to know that you're breaking through the right window/door/wall it's probably going to encourage teamwork and scouting which means it promotes inter-party cooperation. It auto-scales, but isn't tied to the unfortunately imbalanced CMB/CMD system, which starts falling apart after about level 8 or so due to size bonuses and investment requirements. It also has reasonable prereqs and automatically scales with level. The guy who wrote this deserves a freaking medal for setting the bar in martial feat design over at Paizo.
Good for you, enjoy your game played in this way. In my games, I will stick to my rewritten version of the feat.
stack
2014-10-07, 11:58 AM
Plus its great for entering taverns.
Smash through window, stunning entire room.
Stand up, calmly walk over to bar, take drink.
Smash out through window.
Too bad all the feats in the supplement are not of the same quality. The damnation feats are actually solid if you don't mind not getting raised and being evil, but chainbreaker is terrible. Even with some kind of improvised weapon build (niche to begin with), it is 1d4 damage and wrecks your improvised weapon. Yeah, I'm grabbing that one.:smallconfused: (Haven't checked out the betrayal feats yet)
Craft shadow piercing is another way to stack items, so that's something useful I suppose.
Kudaku
2014-10-07, 12:02 PM
Isn't 3.5 Call of Duty (i.e. the original) and PF Battlefield (another companies attempt to copy the success of the origional with some minor improvements which are greatly overstated by the fans)?
Fun Fact: Battlefield was released before Call of Duty. As far as the FPS genre goes, they're also rather different games - claiming that BF tries to copy CoD is roughly similar to claiming that Gran Turismo is trying to muscle in on Mariokart's success.
Fun Fact: Battlefield was released before Call of Duty. As far as the FPS genre goes, they're also rather different games - claiming that BF tries to copy CoD is roughly similar to claiming that Gran Turismo are trying to muscle in on Mariokart's success.
Meh. I don't play modern shooters. I knew one tried to emulate the success of the other and I thought it was CoD that came first. Switch the two. Or don't, it wasn't a serious remark. Rather different games? Not what I heard.
Red Fel
2014-10-07, 12:13 PM
Except there is, its something called game preference. I want martial characters to be just as powerful, or rather just as useful as casters, but I don't want them to be just as silly.
To me, the whole point is that someone who wields a weapon and someone who wields magic should operate differently, whilst being of equal value to the party.
The problem with that position is twofold.
First, martial characters are not just as useful as casters. It's really unfortunate, because it shouldn't be the case, but in D&D and PF, it's the sad truth. Casters can do anything, and martials can do a handful of things, usually involving combat or skill checks. So they're already starting from a weaker position.
Second, the part I've already mentioned - the double standard. Casters can do anything, and they can be silly. Martials can't do anything, and you're also saying they can't be silly. I've said my piece on this, and won't repeat it.
The bottom line is that martial characters aren't "of equal value to the party" to begin with; by imposing further limitations, you're further limiting their options. (Yes, I know you offered a rework of the feat. I wasn't talking about that option. I was talking about the option of being silly.)
Kudaku
2014-10-07, 12:14 PM
Meh. I don't play modern shooters. I knew one tried to emulate the success of the other and I thought it was CoD that came first. Switch the two. Or don't, it wasn't a serious remark. Rather different games? Not what I heard.
Neither one is trying to emulate the success of the other, they're independently developed games focusing on very different gameplay mechanics. The "copycat"-argument is usually made by fanboys to bring down whichever game they're not emotionally invested in. IE don't believe everything you hear. :smallsmile:
Deadline
2014-10-07, 12:19 PM
Sure, I wasn't objecting to its power.
You keep saying this, but when you changed the feat, you changed both the fluff (which you found silly), and the power (you made it weaker). You do clearly have a small issue with the power of the feat (it stuns, and you don't want it to be able to stun). If you didn't, then why not simply change the fluff to reflect something the martial character could do that would make sense to you? The only mechanical change at that point would be removing the references to being withing 20ft. of a door the fighter kicks in to being within 20ft. of the fighter.
And I missed it, but do you also veto the Barbarian who intimidates that was brought up earlier in the thread? Because cowering makes a bad guy look like way more of a wuss than stunned does.
Neither one is trying to emulate the success of the other, they're independently developed games focusing on very different gameplay mechanics. The "copycat"-argument is usually made by fanboys to bring down whichever game they're not emotionally invested in. IE don't believe everything you hear. :smallsmile:
I dunno, when one company does really well others tend to follow suit. Hence why resident evil started to become more action horror and less survival. Plus the prevalence of the cover based shooter, that wasn't because every company just happened to develop games like that simultaneously and independently. No, cover based shooters started to become a success so other companies emulated that in their own games.
The problem with that position is twofold.
First, martial characters are not just as useful as casters.
But they can be, and they generally are in my games, due to heavy handed but necessary (at least by my judgement) house rules. So any thoughts originating from this in general isn't that useful to me or my games.
You keep saying this, but when you changed the feat, you changed both the fluff (which you found silly), and the power (you made it weaker).
I did? It no longer requires a door and no longer has a 20ft range, rather its now based on seeing/hearing the fighter.
And I missed it, but do you also veto the Barbarian who intimidates that was brought up earlier in the thread? Because cowering makes a bad guy look like way more of a wuss than stunned does.
The more optimized versions yes.
Psyren
2014-10-07, 12:26 PM
Well, there is conditions within conditions. Don't spend your feat on something you can't assume.
Martial Master? You can get this in less than 6 seconds whenever you need it :smallbiggrin:
Plus its great for entering taverns.
Smash through window, stunning entire room.
A 20ft. bar probably isn't a very fun place to drink anyway.
Kudaku
2014-10-07, 12:31 PM
I dunno, when one company does really well others tend to follow suit. Hence why resident evil started to become more action horror and less survival. Plus the prevalence of the cover based shooter, that wasn't because every company just happened to develop games like that simultaneously and independently. No, cover based shooters started to become a success so other companies emulated that in their own games.
...And I have to ask, are you aware that neither Battlefield or Call of Duty are cover-based shooters? It's hard to discuss the similarities and differences with someone who makes a point of saying he hasn't played the games but bases his opinion on what someone else has told him.
stack
2014-10-07, 12:34 PM
Pick a centrally located window then. Or figure out a way to break through multiple in one turn.
...And I have to ask, are you aware that neither Battlefield or Call of Duty are cover-based shooters?
I never said they were. I brought up cover based shooters as an example of games developed independently never the less trying to emulate the success of previous games.
It's hard to discuss the similarities and differences with someone who makes a point of saying he hasn't played the games but bases his opinion on what someone else has told him.
Yes I do, as humans tend to. The vast majority of what we know is because someone else has told us, be it the news, our teachers, friends. I respect the sources that told me that the games are similar that includes a friend who plays the games and professionals within the industry. Should I listen to you instead?
Deadline
2014-10-07, 12:50 PM
I did? It no longer requires a door and no longer has a 20ft range, rather its now based on seeing/hearing the fighter.
Yes. And Dazed on a failed save + Shaken on a successful save is still worse than Stunned on a failed save. The feat you made is still something that I could see a martial character taking, so you didn't make it pointless, but you did reduce the power of the feat.
For what it's worth, an exploding door or the like could easily have enough force to tear the weapon out of someone's grasp (or a minion bumps into him in disarray, knocking the weapon away). That way they can still be bad*ss and drop their weapon. Also, if this is happening in the surprise round, perhaps the BBEG doesn't have his weapon drawn yet, in which case there is nothing to drop, and he'll simply draw it on the move for free when it's his turn to go. And let's not even get into BBEGs who don't even need a weapon. :smalltongue:
That said, if I understand your objection correctly, it isn't that you object to a bad guy being stunned and dropping his sword because of the fighter kicking in the door, because if that were the case, you'd simply remove the door nonsense. You quite clearly also don't want your big bad stunned when the PC's bust in. Maybe it's just the area effect nature of it? Because you did state you thought it would be ok for the same result to happen due to something like Stunning Fist. Is there any fluff you'd be happy with where the end result is the Big Bad being stunned? Or is it more not liking the martial PCs being intimidating bad mamajamas in their own right? The wispy bookworm can do it because magic, but the guy who has the skill and attitude to stare down a mama dragon while eating baby dragon steaks isn't allowed to do so because reasons?
And lest you misunderstand, I'm not mocking your playstyle here or anything (I can at least agree that kool-aid manning in is rather silly). If the answer to that last question above is simply "yes", then so be it. I may not really understand it, but as long as you and your players have fun, you are doing it right. :smallbiggrin:
Goodness knows that I've got plenty of hangups myself (*gives the stinkeye to BoED Conversion rules using Diplomacy*). :smallwink:
The more optimized versions yes.
I'm unclear here. What is a "more optimized version"? Is it the Imperious Command feat (which makes the bad guy cower)?
Snowbluff
2014-10-07, 12:51 PM
How many non-situational feats are there for melee? There's less situational feats, but feats that are useful in every situation tend to be weak to compensate, and PF, like 3.5, requires some specialization. And so, a surprise round is not an auto win.
You wouldn't take this feat in 3.5, either. You take things like Power Attack and Cornugan Smash, and if you have those you find better feats to take than this after that. It's more of a failing of the system if this is considered a good option, ALA Weapon Focus in PF and 4e (by any other name) as opposed to 3.5.
In 3.5 you have too many good feats to choose from, and specialization is for ants.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/94/Fire_ants_01.jpg/220px-Fire_ants_01.jpg
Martial Master? You can get this in less than 6 seconds whenever you need it :smallbiggrin:
True, but I it would make a better maneuver (initiator or otherwise, but it's redundant with surprise rounds, anyway). I think I would just smash every door and window I see if I had to take it. In my experience of PF Adventure Paths, that like 1 door every session. :l
EDIT: IN short, this feat is the Watchdogs or Ground Zeroes of PF feats. Overspecialized and too expensive. :smalltongue:
Ssalarn
2014-10-07, 01:44 PM
True, but I it would make a better maneuver (initiator or otherwise, but it's redundant with surprise rounds, anyway).
Not really redundant. It negates the advantages of any enemies able to act in the surprise round, and for 1 round thereafter making surprise rounds even more valuable; conjurers actually have enough breathing room to successfully cast those full-round summonings without fear of reprisal.
I don't really think this feat is that silly either. Sure, the Kool-Aid Man references are a little ridiculous, but having worked in construction with a bunch of crazy rednecks, I can tell you for a fact that having a dude leap through a freaking wall with a weapon in hand will scare the bejeezus out of even a hardened veteran, right down to making him drop whatever he's holding. It's also a standard part of the shock and awe tactics used by SWAT teams all over the country to ensure that by the time the hardened criminals they're there to arrest can react, they've already got heavily armed officers with high powered rifles knocking them to the ground.
Which brings up another point: if the enemy doesn't know this is coming, why the hell are they standing around in a room with a weapon in hand? I would assume that more often or not the "drop what they're holding" portion of stun is going to be cinematic since people standing around in a room are generally only armed if they're waiting for trouble (in which case some readied actions with crossbows should still go off and they'd probably have dropped them anyways after).
Psyren
2014-10-07, 01:49 PM
True, but I it would make a better maneuver (initiator or otherwise, but it's redundant with surprise rounds, anyway). I think I would just smash every door and window I see if I had to take it. In my experience of PF Adventure Paths, that like 1 door every session. :l
It really depends on your DM. If you have the kind that likes to ambush the party, then obviously this is a waste. If you have the kind that regularly rewards scouting with a first move advantage though, this is useful.
EDIT: IN short, this feat is the Watchdogs or Ground Zeroes of PF feats. Overspecialized and too expensive. :smalltongue:
How on earth is it too expensive? The requirements are things literally every class that relies on a strength score will have.
Kudaku
2014-10-07, 01:55 PM
Yes I do, as humans tend to. The vast majority of what we know is because someone else has told us, be it the news, our teachers, friends. I respect the sources that told me that the games are similar that includes a friend who plays the games and professionals within the industry. Should I listen to you instead?
You shouldn't listen to either of us, I'm just some guy on the internet and despite being "professionals within the industry" whoever you've been talking to are extraordinarily wrong. Instead I suggest that you should find out for yourself. :smalltongue:
You shouldn't listen to either of us, I'm just some guy on the internet and despite being "professionals within the industry" whoever you've been talking to are extraordinarily wrong. Instead I suggest that you should find out for yourself. :smalltongue:
So I shouldn't listen to either of you, except when you say they are wrong. Then I should listen to. And then find out for myself. Not going to happen, I have very little desire to.
Yes. And Dazed on a failed save + Shaken on a successful save is still worse than Stunned on a failed save. The feat you made is still something that I could see a martial character taking, so you didn't make it pointless, but you did reduce the power of the feat.
I'm well aware of that, but I made it less situational. Usually a trade off is involved in such circumstances.
Or is it more not liking the martial PCs being intimidating bad mamajamas in their own right? The wispy bookworm can do it because magic, but the guy who has the skill and attitude to stare down a mama dragon while eating baby dragon steaks isn't allowed to do so because reasons?
What we are doing is approaching the same concept from different angles. You are focusing on the user, I am focusing on the recipient. My exact problem is that "the guy who has the skill and attitude to stare down a mama dragon while eating baby dragon steaks" should not drop his weapon and cry for mommy just because somebody kicked the door down, which is what this feat can result in. This is my problem with this kind of stuff, in order for melee to be badass and intimidating also means you need to allow for them to become wusses because somebody looked at them meanly. (By contrast it doesn't matter that this can happen to casters, because they aren't martial). There is obviously room for intimidate, and I have nothing wrong shaken or dazed, but I am hesitant about stunning or greater fear effects.
I'm unclear here. What is a "more optimized version"? Is it the Imperious Command feat (which makes the bad guy cower)?
More a sky high boosted intimidate check. I've never had a player use Imperious Command though.
Kudaku
2014-10-07, 02:32 PM
So I shouldn't listen to either of you, except when you say they are wrong. Then I should listen to. And then find out for myself. Not going to happen, I have very little desire to.
Good, you're learning! :smallbiggrin:
Thiyr
2014-10-07, 03:01 PM
My exact problem is that "the guy who has the skill and attitude to stare down a mama dragon while eating baby dragon steaks" should not drop his weapon and cry for mommy just because somebody kicked the door down, which is what this feat can result in. This is my problem with this kind of stuff, in order for melee to be badass and intimidating also means you need to allow for them to become wusses because somebody looked at them meanly.
See, but that's why I felt like you were underselling it. You're not just kicking a door down. You're breaking through a door, window, or -wall-, with the key word in the description being "violently". Unless its made of paper, that's gonna take some force, hence why I compare it to explosive breaching. If you're standing close to ground zero of that much concussive force, it isn't being weak that's screwing you over, its standing next to a freaking explosion. The sensationg would, I think, feel not too dissimilar to getting punched by someone using Stunning Fist. Nothing silly or wussy about getting stunned by the violence of a blow. And if someone is supposed to be so B.A. that they wouldn't be effected, that's why stun immunity is a thing. Or having a notably high save and steadfast determination.
Plus, if the PCs are doing this, they should be on a similar scale of B.A. as the baddie, so it makes sense to me that they can potentially knock they guy around, so long as it isn't a garuntee (and this hardly seems to be that successful).
See, but that's why I felt like you were underselling it. You're not just kicking a door down. You're breaking through a door, window, or -wall-, with the key word in the description being "violently". Unless its made of paper, that's gonna take some force, hence why I compare it to explosive breaching. If you're standing close to ground zero of that much concussive force, it isn't being weak that's screwing you over, its standing next to a freaking explosion. The sensationg would, I think, feel not too dissimilar to getting punched by someone using Stunning Fist. Nothing silly or wussy about getting stunned by the violence of a blow. And if someone is supposed to be so B.A. that they wouldn't be effected, that's why stun immunity is a thing. Or having a notably high save and steadfast determination.
I disagree. It does no damage, it won't kill a commoner, it cannot be that forceful, certainly not equivalent to a stunning fist. Not to mention it should by all logic be a will save, making melee even more vulnerable to it.
Ssalarn
2014-10-07, 03:27 PM
I disagree. It does no damage, it won't kill a commoner, it cannot be that forceful, certainly not equivalent to a stunning fist. Not to mention it should by all logic be a will save, making melee even more vulnerable to it.
This ability allows a character, who at the time he can qualify for this feat has reached a level equivalent to the very peaks of what is possible in our world, to burst through a standing structure with enough force to stun the people closest to the source of the impact. If you've ever been near a sudden and violent explosion, a Fortitude save makes perfect sense. The impact and noise of such an event creates a visceral and physical reaction. From a gamist perspective, this ability requires a Fortitude save for the exact same reason that most offensive sonic spells and abilities grant Fortitude saves.
Even the shaken condition makes sense. As anyone who has been involved in a sudden and intense physical altercation, or even the sudden and real threat of such, can tell you, the body often reacts by becoming shaky and unreliable, maybe even producing tears and symptoms similar to crying, as it recovers from the massive and unexpected surge of adrenaline shocking the system. Avoiding this is one of the reasons that professional athletes often take time to get "psyched up", warming up their bodies and getting used to the increasing levels of adrenaline.
The ability and its results are actually very logical from both a gamist and simulationist perspective.
Deadline
2014-10-07, 03:32 PM
What we are doing is approaching the same concept from different angles. You are focusing on the user, I am focusing on the recipient. My exact problem is that "the guy who has the skill and attitude to stare down a mama dragon while eating baby dragon steaks" should not drop his weapon and cry for mommy just because somebody kicked the door down, which is what this feat can result in. This is my problem with this kind of stuff, in order for melee to be badass and intimidating also means you need to allow for them to become wusses because somebody looked at them meanly. (By contrast it doesn't matter that this can happen to casters, because they aren't martial). There is obviously room for intimidate, and I have nothing wrong shaken or dazed, but I am hesitant about stunning or greater fear effects.
Then why not simply remove the greater fear effects and stunning entirely? Or are you using them on the PCs? If so, why can their towering bad*ss not be immune to it like yours are?
More a sky high boosted intimidate check. I've never had a player use Imperious Command though.
I'm going to go out on a limb and figure that, based on your "I don't want my bad guys to look like wusses" comment that you may want to ban the feat, as it could result in your big bad guy cowering in fear from a martial character, which seems to be something you don't want to allow.
Snowbluff
2014-10-07, 03:37 PM
It really depends on your DM. If you have the kind that likes to ambush the party, then obviously this is a waste. If you have the kind that regularly rewards scouting with a first move advantage though, this is useful.
Situational.
How on earth is it too expensive? The requirements are things literally every class that relies on a strength score will have.
It takes a feat slot. Hasn't my comment about maneuvers made it obvious?
Then why not simply remove the greater fear effects and stunning entirely?
I'm not against martial ever causing stunning or fear, its when it is caused by their mere presence that I don't like, because they are also vulnerable to that. But I'm weary of blanket banning them because, well I am weary of nerfing them.
I'm going to go out on a limb and figure that, based on your "I don't want my bad guys to look like wusses" comment that you may want to ban the feat, as it could result in your big bad guy cowering in fear from a martial character, which seems to be something you don't want to allow.
I just explained why I don't like that feat, and that wasn't it. In order for martial characters to be able to do this, they also need to be vulnerable to this. It makes no difference whether the martial character is an NPC or PC, mine or someone else.
Even the shaken condition makes sense.
I know, I never questioned that part of the feat. Only the save type, the stun and the requirement of breaking something.
The ability and its results are actually very logical from both a gamist and simulationist perspective.
For you maybe, not more me.
Deadline
2014-10-07, 03:54 PM
I just explained why I don't like that feat, and that wasn't it. In order for martial characters to be able to do this, they also need to be vulnerable to this. It makes no difference whether the martial character is an NPC or PC, mine or someone else.
I was referring to Imperious Command there, which you mentioned not knowing about your players not using. I was just throwing the suggestion of banning it out there because it quite literally makes it possible that an NPC big bad could wind up cowering in fear from a martial PC just due to their mere presence.
I was referring to Imperious Command there, which you mentioned not knowing about your players not using. I was just throwing the suggestion of banning it out there because it quite literally makes it possible that an NPC big bad could wind up cowering in fear from a martial PC just due to their mere presence.
Or a PC martial badass. Which I do find a problem. If it required inflicting damage it would be fine, but the party fighter who has saved the realm, fought the red dragon and turned back the star spawn hoard suddenly cowers helplessly just because drow ninja stared at them meanly?
At the same time I am hesitant about banning it, because it is a powerful feat, and martial characters need those.
Psyren
2014-10-07, 04:02 PM
Situational.
"Situational" doesn't mean "useless." It means "useful in that situation."
Thing is, it's pretty easy to tell if you're in the kind of campaign where this won't be any good, just like it's easy to tell if your DM rewards scouting.
It takes a feat slot. Hasn't my comment about maneuvers made it obvious?
Fighters get plenty of those, Martial Masters even moreso.
Deadline
2014-10-07, 04:04 PM
Or a PC martial badass. Which I do find a problem. If it required inflicting damage it would be fine, but the party fighter who has saved the realm, fought the red dragon and turned back the star spawn hoard suddenly cowers helplessly just because drow ninja stared at them meanly?
At the same time I am hesitant about banning it, because it is a powerful feat, and martial characters need those.
So the PCs have the same immunity to the "fetch me my brown pants" scenarios? That's not so bad, because then at least you aren't also invalidating the players from having martial badasses.
So the PCs have the same immunity to the "fetch me my brown pants" scenarios? That's not so bad, because then at least you aren't also invalidating the players from having martial badasses.
In that I don't use them? Pretty much. I use intimidate/frightening presence, but I haven't stacked it for the higher fear effects yet. Of course I don't mind spells causing frightened or panic, because magic, but I also don't mind martial characters doing that if the effect requires a weapon strike, because I can buy that such a thing would be scary even to a seasoned warrior.
Thiyr
2014-10-08, 12:30 AM
I disagree. It does no damage, it won't kill a commoner, it cannot be that forceful, certainly not equivalent to a stunning fist. Not to mention it should by all logic be a will save, making melee even more vulnerable to it.
Why does something that stuns need to do damage? It's not like the damage affects the stunning, seeing as you could quite literally flick the ear of the BBEG for one damage and stun him with stunning fist, whereas this requires at least a minimum expenditure of force to break things in a violent fashion. If you really wanted to, you could say that the collapse of a wall would hurt someone standing right next to it, but given different materials, how it would work for doors/windows, etc, it's a bit much in terms of complexity for an otherwise simple feat, so I can see why it would be left out from a design perspective. The basic idea is "Explode into a room, knock people out of their senses with the force of it", and adding damage to that just muddies things up in an inelegant fashion.
Heck, this reminds me of games where concussion grenades are a non-lethal option. Knock people out via explosive force. Granted, that's a bit of a departure from reality, but I'm willing to take liberties on realism for the sake of gameplay.
edit: Also, I did take the word violence straight from the description of the feat. In this case, given context, a fitting definition would be "intense, turbulent, or furious and often destructive action or force" which does seem to imply that it is supposed to be that forceful. Nonlethal, but forceful.
Why does something that stuns need to do damage? It's not like the damage affects the stunning, seeing as you could quite literally flick the ear of the BBEG for one damage and stun him with stunning fist,
Yes, the difference is you are deliberately trying to make stunning fist seem silly here.
The basic idea is "Explode into a room, knock people out of their senses with the force of it", and adding damage to that just muddies things up in an inelegant fashion.
Not to me. It would have made it far more elegant. Why are you so adamant I accept your interpretation of the feat? I never said you have to accept its silly.
Nonlethal, but forceful.
But its not non-lethal, it debuff. It doesn't deal non-lethal damage or knock you unconscious.
Hmm...actually:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dazing Surprise (I'm not payed to think of good feat names)
Prerequisite(s): Charisma 15, base attack bonus +2.
Benefit(s): Whenever you get a surprise round you can bellow, roar or utter a battle cry as free action. All those who can see or hear you do so must make a Will saving throw (DC = 10 + half your level + charisma modifier) or be dazed instead of acting in the surprise round if they have not yet acted plus 1 round thereafter. Characters who succeed at this save are instead shaken for 1d4 rounds.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stunning Eruption
When you smash your way into a room, you gain more than just the element of surprise.
Prerequisite(s): Str 15, Power Attack, base attack bonus +5.
Benefit(s): Before starting combat, you can attempt to break through a door, window, or wall to enter a room.
If you succeed, the violence of your arrival is so great that all characters within 20 feet of your entry point take 2d6 + strength modifier non-lethal damage and must succeed at a Fortitude saving throw (DC = 10 + your base attack bonus) or be stunned instead of acting in the surprise round (if there is one) plus 1 round thereafter. Characters who succeed at this save are instead sickened for 1d4 rounds.
There, that solves the issue nicely.
Shinken
2014-10-08, 09:03 AM
Right, so when I make an honourable rogue who doesn't want to sacrifice his minions because he values their life I am doing it wrong, ofcourse. And having my BBEG not be always on alert and sometimes being caught unprepared by the PCs was my other mistake. Thank you Psyren for showing me how to properly DM.
Or maybe, just maybe, a wuss character trying to protect other characters gets screwed because he is a wuss.
That would happen anyway, with this feat or without this feat. A smart boss Rogue can care about his crew and protect them from the shadows. A smart boss Rogue is Don Corleone, not Zé Pequeno.
Snowbluff
2014-10-08, 10:02 AM
"Situational" doesn't mean "useless." It means "useful in that situation."
Thing is, it's pretty easy to tell if you're in the kind of campaign where this won't be any good, just like it's easy to tell if your DM rewards scouting. Well, for one we have to rely on the GM. After that, situational means "useless in certain situations" and "you can count on 1 hand how many times you use this and it will be effective."
Fighters get plenty of those, Martial Masters even moreso.
Well, for starters: Fighters.
Secondly: This is a crappy feat being hyped up because we can't fill a fighters progression with enough serviceable feats.
Jacob.Tyr
2014-10-08, 10:05 AM
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dazing Surprise (I'm not payed to think of good feat names)
Prerequisite(s): Charisma 15, base attack bonus +2.
Benefit(s): Whenever you get a surprise round you can bellow, roar or utter a battle cry as free action. All those who can see or hear you do so must make a Will saving throw (DC = 10 + half your level + charisma modifier) or be dazed instead of acting in the surprise round if they have not yet acted plus 1 round thereafter. Characters who succeed at this save are instead shaken for 1d4 rounds.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stunning Eruption
When you smash your way into a room, you gain more than just the element of surprise.
Prerequisite(s): Str 15, Power Attack, base attack bonus +5.
Benefit(s): Before starting combat, you can attempt to break through a door, window, or wall to enter a room.
If you succeed, the violence of your arrival is so great that all characters within 20 feet of your entry point take 2d6 + strength modifier non-lethal damage and must succeed at a Fortitude saving throw (DC = 10 + your base attack bonus) or be stunned instead of acting in the surprise round (if there is one) plus 1 round thereafter. Characters who succeed at this save are instead sickened for 1d4 rounds.
There, that solves the issue nicely.
Y'know, it is weird that there wouldn't be damage involved if you're breaking through a wall so violently that people near it have to make a fort save to avoid being stunned. These two both work well together, as well. Smash through the wall, let out a battle cry, and start combat with a bunch of debuffed or stunned enemies. I actually really like this.
Psyren
2014-10-08, 10:25 AM
Well, for one we have to rely on the GM. After that, situational means "useless in certain situations" and "you can count on 1 hand how many times you use this and it will be effective."
How can you count something whose frequency you don't know? Are you clairvoyant?
Again, some DMs reward scouting, some don't. If you have one of the latter, obviously don't bother with this feat.
Well, for starters: Fighters.
Secondly: This is a crappy feat being hyped up because we can't fill a fighters progression with enough serviceable feats.
Yeah, Fighters. You know, that class people still like to play to this day (even if only just for the challenge.)
Also, some feats are taken because they let you do fun things, not for sheer effectiveness. (You do remember fun, don't you?)
Or maybe, just maybe, a wuss character trying to protect other characters gets screwed because he is a wuss.
That would happen anyway, with this feat or without this feat. A smart boss Rogue can care about his crew and protect them from the shadows. A smart boss Rogue is Don Corleone, not Zé Pequeno.
You'll be amazed how difficult this notion is to impart.
Or maybe, just maybe, a wuss character trying to protect other characters gets screwed because he is a wuss.
Or not, as has been my experience.
Also, some feats are taken because they let you do fun things, not for sheer effectiveness. (You do remember fun, don't you?)
You'll be amazed how difficult this notion is to impart.
Yes, it is amazing how difficult it can be to get people to accept they are playing the game wrong. I know you don't think this, but its what comes across in your posts.
"A honourable rogue, they are meant to die". "This feat is fun, not effective" - What if your definition of fun in 3.5 also involves effective? Are you doing fun wrong?
Snowbluff
2014-10-08, 12:08 PM
How can you count something whose frequency you don't know? Are you clairvoyant?
Again, some DMs reward scouting, some don't. If you have one of the latter, obviously don't bother with this feat.
I sure as hell am!
More importantly, grab an adventure path. How many fights take place in unfurnished caves? In the open? After that, how many of the other fights can be scouted? What is your party's percent chance of scouting it successfully at that level? What is the chance that the scout would be noticed and combat be engaged? What is the chance that the loudest and least stealthy member of your team will be able to get up to the door without anyone doing anything about it?
Do you see the problem here? I'm just working off of what I see as typical.
(You do remember fun, don't you?)
I'm saying it's not feat material. As a maneuver, skill trick, or surprise round option, I think it would be fine. Like a free intimidate or something. Hell, I'd love to be able to grab a guy through a wall like a Terminator.
Thiyr
2014-10-08, 01:00 PM
Yes, the difference is you are deliberately trying to make stunning fist seem silly here. But that's still a way stunning fist can work, which is part of my point (the other being that amount of damage done doesn't affect how well stunning works, but I digress). I could reverse that given how you're describing stunning irruption, as there's a perfectly valid non-silly way to describe it (that is more accurate to the given descriptive text in the feat).
Not to me. It would have made it far more elegant.
Must be working off of different definitions of elegance, then. -shrug- (Just for reference, "the quality of being pleasingly ingenious and simple; neatness." is what i'm working off of. When the concept is "stunning people with the force of your entry", adding damage takes away from the simplicity, and static damage takes away from neatness when you consider different materials broken through, at least imo.)
But its not non-lethal, it debuff. It doesn't deal non-lethal damage or knock you unconscious.
I was talking non-lethal in terms of "Things that don't kill", rather than "Things that do nonlethal damage". The general-purpose use of the word, rather than the in-game damage type. The same way that Glitterdust, Irresistable Dance, or tripping someone is non-lethal.
Why are you so adamant I accept your interpretation of the feat? I never said you have to accept its silly. I don't mean this to be offensive, but it's mostly that it felt like you were trying really hard to ignore how it -could- be taken seriously. I'm certain that you're not actively/intentionally being difficult though, so I apologize if I've come across as being too forceful/confrontational. To avoid letting myself become even more of a giant douchecanoe, I'll just shut my mouth at this point. Conciliatory handshake? -offers hand-
Shinken
2014-10-08, 01:27 PM
Or not, as has been my experience.
Please, enlighten me on the tanking potential of the Pathfinder Rogue. I'm listening.
I'm saying it's not feat material. As a maneuver, skill trick, or surprise round option, I think it would be fine. Like a free intimidate or something. Hell, I'd love to be able to grab a guy through a wall like a Terminator.
I actually agree, it sounds too situational to be a feat. Then again, it's far too late to eliminate this from d20 systems, since it's been around since the system's inception. Yes, some feats are very situational. Sometimes you want to take them anyway. I don't think it's too big of a deal. I like this feat better than I like Power Attack - it's something cool a character can do, however situation it is, while Power Attack is basically a class feature disguised as a feat.
But that's still a way stunning fist can work, which is part of my point (the other being that amount of damage done doesn't affect how well stunning works, but I digress). I could reverse that given how you're describing stunning irruption, as there's a perfectly valid non-silly way to describe it (that is more accurate to the given descriptive text in the feat).
Non-silly is subjective. There is a "a perfectly valid non-silly way to describe it" for you. Without adding damage to the feat, there isn't "a perfectly valid non-silly way to describe it" for me, otherwise we wouldn't be having this conversation.
Must be working off of different definitions of elegance, then. -shrug- (Just for reference, "the quality of being pleasingly ingenious and simple; neatness." is what i'm working off of. When the concept is "stunning people with the force of your entry", adding damage takes away from the simplicity, and static damage takes away from neatness when you consider different materials broken through, at least imo.)
We aren't using definitions, its just that elegance is subjective. To me, the static HP damage is far less inelegant than stunning people with a force that deals no damage. HP is already abstract, so your issue with my fix isn't an issue to me.
I don't mean this to be offensive, but it's mostly that it felt like you were trying really hard to ignore how it -could- be taken seriously. I'm certain that you're not actively/intentionally being difficult though, so I apologize if I've come across as being too forceful/confrontational. To avoid letting myself become even more of a giant douchecanoe, I'll just shut my mouth at this point. Conciliatory handshake? -offers hand-
Sure, its not exactly an important issue, as long as someone doesn't object because its too powerful or something.
Please, enlighten me on the tanking potential of the Pathfinder Rogue. I'm listening.
I wasn't taking notes at the time. They generally did stuff like tumble, use the terrain to their advantage and use team work well. Plus being a major antagonist they generally had a level advantage over the PCs. All I know is that when the fight began there were at the front, and barring once incident of bad luck with the dice they were not curbstomped.
EisenKreutzer
2014-10-08, 02:00 PM
Honestly, all the melee classes are silly to begin with. Fighting with two weapons doesn't mean you attack any faster or more often in real life, for example. Shooting an arrow into a melee and reliably hitting the target and not your friend is extremely silly. Wielding a Great Sword in one hand is silly, even if it requires a Feat. Monks jumping far higher and further than is humanly possible is silly. Gunslingers reloading a double-barreled musket as a free action is unbelievably silly. Do I need to go on?
Also, hit points are ridiculous. A 1st level commoner cannot kill a high-level character. Ever. If an 18th lvl Fighter was asleep in his bed, and a 1st lvl Commoner snuck up to him with a knife and slit his throat, there is no possible way for the FIghter to die. This goes for all classes, naturally, but it's not portrayed as magic. It's just a silly side effect of the way hit points work.
My point with all this is that Pathfinder is supposed to be cinematic. Fighters need all the opportunities they can get to shine, because the casters outshine them on a very regular basis.
I don't think this Feat is any more silly than the tons of other silliness that Pathfinder has to offer for all the classes, not just spellcasters.
Shinken
2014-10-08, 02:00 PM
I wasn't taking notes at the time. They generally did stuff like tumble, use the terrain to their advantage and use team work well. Plus being a major antagonist they generally had a level advantage over the PCs. All I know is that when the fight began there were at the front, and barring once incident of bad luck with the dice they were not curbstomped.
How does tumbling around and teamwork have anything to do with protecting people? :smallconfused:
No one is saying Rogues can't be on the frontlines, they frequently are - but they are also fragile and so act as glass cannons. You are the one saying you've seen Rogues protect their minions - unless you tell us how, I can't believe you.
How does tumbling around and teamwork have anything to do with protecting people? :smallconfused:
No one is saying Rogues can't be on the frontlines, they frequently are - but they are also fragile and so act as glass cannons. You are the one saying you've seen Rogues protect their minions - unless you tell us how, I can't believe you.
In post 39 what I actually said was: "an honourable rogue who doesn't want to sacrifice his minions because he values their life". You seem to have misinterpreted that as "protect", as you were the first one to use that word.
Psyren
2014-10-08, 02:05 PM
"A honourable rogue, they are meant to die". "This feat is fun, not effective" - What if your definition of fun in 3.5 also involves effective? Are you doing fun wrong?
Not "meant to die" - "likely to die." Succeeding against stacked odds can be fun too, but that doesn't change the fact that the odds are stacked.
More importantly, grab an adventure path. How many fights take place in unfurnished caves? In the open?
How many take place in buildings? Towers? Basements? Anywhere with a door or window between yo
After that, how many of the other fights can be scouted?
As I've said before, this depends on your DM's style and nothing else.
I'm saying it's not feat material. As a maneuver, skill trick, or surprise round option, I think it would be fine. Like a free intimidate or something. Hell, I'd love to be able to grab a guy through a wall like a Terminator.
It would be better as those things, certainly, but it's fine as a feat too. "Less optimal" is not "worthless."
Shinken
2014-10-08, 02:07 PM
In post 39 what I actually said was: "an honourable rogue who doesn't want to sacrifice his minions because he values their life". You seem to have misinterpreted that as "protect", as you were the first one to use that word.
Oh, my bad.
So he just rushes in and gets killed before they do? Yeah, that's very stupid of him and he would get killed quiickly with or without this feat around anyway.
Oh, my bad.
So he just rushes in and gets killed before they do?
No they didn't. Sorry for my brief answers, I have already had this conversation with someone in this thread and it wasn't productive the first time.
Shinken
2014-10-08, 02:12 PM
No they didn't. Sorry for my brief answers, I have already had this conversation with someone in this thread and it wasn't productive the first time.
Nevermind, I got what I wanted from this discussion anyway. Somehow for some reason in your game table Rogues are not glass cannons, right? Interesting, but unimportant since they are still glass cannons everywhere else.
Nevermind, I got what I wanted from this discussion anyway. Somehow for some reason in your game table Rogues are not glass cannons, right?
No, more that they can be build to mitigate this, like a rogue who is a mercenary/army leader. Specifically the type to lead from the front.
Jacob.Tyr
2014-10-08, 02:17 PM
No, more that they can be build to mitigate this, like a rogue who is a mercenary/army leader. Specifically the type to lead from the front.
Shouldn't you build your BBEG rogue so that he can mitigate it, then?
Shouldn't you build your BBEG rogue so that he can mitigate it, then?
I did. Which probably contributed to him not being curbstomped like some other posters in this thread predicted they would.
Shinken
2014-10-08, 02:21 PM
So he presumably wouldn't be curbstomped by this one situational feat as well, right? I mean, what is the point? If you can build resilient frontliner Rogues, this feat can't change that.
So he presumably wouldn't be curbstomped by this one situational feat as well, right?
It doesn't matter now that I've added damage to the feat. Getting curbstomped was never the problem, but rather fluff-wise what caused that.
Snowbluff
2014-10-08, 02:38 PM
How many take place in buildings? Towers? Basements? Anywhere with a door or window between yo
I'm playing through Curse of the Crimson Throne. I haven't seen a door or window in 2 session. The last place we were at that had doors and windows didn't have a fight in it. Then we had a fight where we were attacked by a crab monster, eating the surprise round. Before that, the last building we were in had a curtain to a hospital and a place that had no doors..
As I've said before, this depends on your DM's style and nothing else.
Outside of what we assume therefore worthless with a hint of Oberoni. Thank you. :smallsmile:
It would be better as those things, certainly, but it's fine as a feat too. "Less optimal" is not "worthless."
Unless it happens to be worthless, which this feat is. Not to mention Strawman Fallacy. This isn't even a question of suboptimal. This is not optimization. It doesn't even register on what we can work with. At least I had the sense to give a printed example of how this doesn't work.
Shinken
2014-10-08, 02:44 PM
It doesn't matter now that I've added damage to the feat. Getting curbstomped was never the problem, but rather fluff-wise what caused that.
So Rogues are tanks and melee can't have nice things. Got it.
So Rogues are tanks and melee can't have nice things. Got it.
No, no you don't, but let's just say you did. Well done, whatever twisted meaning you gleamed from my posts was definitely what I intended to say, keep that information close to your heart, whatever it is.
Snowbluff
2014-10-08, 02:52 PM
No, no you don't, but let's just say you did. Well done, whatever twisted meaning you gleamed from my posts was definitely what I intended to say, keep that information close to your heart, whatever it is.
Great. You wanna go somewhere we can be productive?
Psyren
2014-10-08, 03:48 PM
So he presumably wouldn't be curbstomped by this one situational feat as well, right? I mean, what is the point? If you can build resilient frontliner Rogues, this feat can't change that.
It's like he's saying he's perfectly willing to build around the feat for some foes while complaining that he has to build around the feat for some foes.
I'm playing through Curse of the Crimson Throne. I haven't seen a door or window in 2 session. The last place we were at that had doors and windows didn't have a fight in it. Then we had a fight where we were attacked by a crab monster, eating the surprise round. Before that, the last building we were in had a curtain to a hospital and a place that had no doors.
Fascinating, but given how ubiquitous doors are in this game, your experiences in a single adventure path are anecdotal at best.
Unless it happens to be worthless, which this feat is. Not to mention Strawman Fallacy. This isn't even a question of suboptimal. This is not optimization. It doesn't even register on what we can work with. At least I had the sense to give a printed example of how this doesn't work.
If you find it worthless, great, don't take it. Not all feats are meant for Snowbluff.
It's like he's saying he's perfectly willing to build around the feat for some foes while complaining that he has to build around the feat for some foes.
How would I build around a feat I had never heard of before?
No, what happened was I didn't like this feat, but because I am not a master of own thought process I wasn't sure why at first. Over the course of some of the more productive exchanges on this thread, I realized why I didn't like it: I didn't like the idea of a 20ft burch powerful enough to stun but not enough to deal any damage.
Maybe you should just stop trying to interpret what I am saying.
Psyren
2014-10-08, 04:29 PM
Great. You wanna go somewhere we can be productive?
That might honestly be best, yes.
EisenKreutzer
2014-10-08, 04:30 PM
How would I build around a feat I had never heard of before?
No, what happened was I didn't like this feat, but because I am not a master of own thought process I wasn't sure why at first. Over the course of some of the more productive exchanges on this thread, I realized why I didn't like it: I didn't like the idea of a 20ft burch powerful enough to stun but not enough to deal any damage.
Maybe you should just stop trying to interpret what I am saying.
I think the stun effect is intended to be from confusion, and possibly splinters and debris from the shattered door/wall.
I think the stun effect is intended to be from confusion, and possibly splinters and debris from the shattered door/wall.
Right, but then that also needs damage. At least to me, otherwise the ability is not only silly, it makes characters its used upon look silly.
EisenKreutzer
2014-10-08, 04:47 PM
Right, but then that also needs damage. At least to me, otherwise the ability is not only silly, it makes characters its used upon look silly.
I dont think it's silly at all. It's perfectly feasible for someone to get debris in their face to be stunned for a while before getting their bearings, especially if a screaming, armour-clad madman with an axe just came bursting through the door you got pieces of in your face and eyes. It doesn't need to do any damage, hit point-wise to produce an effect like that. It's like throwing sand in someones eyes. That doesn't cause any damage either.
Also, I replied to you earlier (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=18227850&postcount=119) about the "silliness" argument and how I think it's fallacious.
I dont think it's silly at all. It's perfectly feasible for someone to get debris in their face to be stunned for a while before getting their bearings, especially if a screaming, armour-clad madman with an axe just came bursting through the door you got pieces of in your face and eyes. It doesn't need to do any damage, hit point-wise to produce an effect like that. It's like throwing sand in someones eyes. That doesn't cause any damage either.
1. Sand in someones eyes will blind, not stun.
2. Good for you for not finding this feat silly. But that means as much to me as me finding this feat silly should to you.
Also, I replied to you earlier (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=18227850&postcount=119) about the "silliness" argument and how I think it's fallacious.
There's is no objective measure of when something is silly and when it isn't. No game can be 100% realistic, but all games will have some ties to reality. Where to draw the line is up to each individual, and needs to be worked out in groups for their game.
EisenKreutzer
2014-10-08, 04:54 PM
1. Sand in someones eyes will blind, not stun.
2. Good for you for not finding this feat silly. But that means as much to me as me finding this feat silly should to you.
Meh, the difference between Blinded and Stunned is purely mechanical. Blindness is a more severe condition than Stunned, so having the Feat impart that condition would be too much. Personally I'm fine with the Stun-effect of the Feat.
As for your other point.. We're on the internet! Why would we be on the internet if we didn't have massive arguments over opinions?
EisenKreutzer
2014-10-08, 04:58 PM
There's is no objective measure of when something is silly and when it isn't. No game can be 100% realistic, but all games will have some ties to reality. Where to draw the line is up to each individual, and needs to be worked out in groups for their game.
This is true of course. But I can't help but wonder at the logic which says a fighter bursting through a door and stunning his opponents (a scenario I could to a certain degree see happen IRL) is too silly and unrealistic, but a Gunslinger who reloads his double-barreled musket in one second or less is completely fine and plausible.
It just irks me how selective you are with your "no silliness" stance, especially when discussing a game as unrealistic and cinematic as Pathfinder.
Meh, the difference between Blinded and Stunned is purely mechanical.
Yes, that is rather the point.
Blindness is a more severe condition than Stunned, so having the Feat impart that condition would be too much. Personally I'm fine with the Stun-effect of the Feat.
Er, no. Noway, no not even then. Stunned prevents you from acting, makes you drop what you are holding and makes you lose you dex to AC and take a further -2 penalty.
Blindness allows your full set of actions, halves you move speed, gives you a 50% miss chance and requires you to guess your opponent's square, makes you lose dex to AC and gives you a -4 penalty to attack rolls and AC.
How is being able to act but ineffectually worse than not being able to do anything and dropping what you are holding?
As for your other point.. We're on the internet! Why would we be on the internet if we didn't have massive arguments over opinions?
Sure, but there needs to be some structure to the debate, otherwise its just "My opinion is right, yours is wrong" "Na ah, MY opinion is right, yours is wrong".
This is true of course. But I can't help but wonder at the logic which says a fighter bursting through a door and stunning his opponents (a scenario I could to a certain degree see happen IRL) is too silly and unrealistic
Only if they do so without dealing damage.
EisenKreutzer
2014-10-08, 05:04 PM
Er, no. Noway, no not even then. Stunned prevents you from acting, makes you drop what you are holding and makes you lose you dex to AC and take a further -2 penalty.
Blindness allows your full set of actions, halves you move speed, gives you a 50% miss chance and requires you to guess your opponent's square, makes you lose dex to AC and gives you a -4 penalty to attack rolls and AC.
How is being able to act but ineffectually worse than not being able to do anything and dropping what you are holding?
Mea culpa, I had it backwards for some reason.
As for your other point, I fail to see why they would NEED to deal damage for the Feat to be ok. If I throw a handful of rocks, sawdust and splinters in your face I would most likely not damage you in any significant way, but you would be pretty distracted.
Mea culpa, I had it backwards for some reason.
As for your other point, I fail to see why they would NEED to deal damage for the Feat to be ok. If I throw a handful of rocks, sawdust and splinters in your face I would most likely not damage you in any significant way, but you would be pretty distracted.
Distracted? Sure, but I doubt I would be stunned. Even if I was, it doesn't really matter, as I am a 1st level expert. I tend not to model PF combat based off what we can and cannot take.
EisenKreutzer
2014-10-08, 05:15 PM
Distracted? Sure, but I doubt I would be stunned. Even if I was, it doesn't really matter, as I am a 1st level expert. I tend not to model PF combat based off what we can and cannot take.
Ok, let me phrase it differently then: A human, or humanoid, who got a fistful of splinters, rocks and dust in their face would need some time to recover and clear the debris from their eyes. This is because all humanoids have faces with forward-facing eyes, and several orifices clustered together that would be irritated by the debris. Having a higher character level would not change this, since the eyes, nostrils, mouth and ears remain in their original locations and maintain their vulnerability regardless of training and resistance to damage.
That should eliminate any confusion.
Ok, let me phrase it differently then: A human, or humanoid, who got a fistful of splinters, rocks and dust in their face would need some time to recover and clear the debris from their eyes. This is because all humanoids have faces with forward-facing eyes, and several orifices clustered together that would be irritated by the debris. Having a higher character level would not change this, since the eyes, nostrils, mouth and ears remain in their original locations and maintain their vulnerability regardless of training and resistance to damage.
That should eliminate any confusion.
The main differences here is that the face is being targeted, compared to this feat which is a blanket 20ft area of effect.
Besides, mechanically I'd still find the above to be better represented by blindness, with a note that a character can get a new save/get a bonus to their save/automatically end the condition by using a standard/full round action to clear their eyes.
EisenKreutzer
2014-10-08, 05:34 PM
The main differences here is that the face is being targeted, compared to this feat which is a blanket 20ft area of effect.
Besides, mechanically I'd still find the above to be better represented by blindness, with a note that a character can get a new save/get a bonus to their save/automatically end the condition by using a standard/full round action to clear their eyes.
True and true. But do you agree that the mechanic of the Feat in question can be a convenient mechanical "short-hand" to model the same broad kind of effect you are describing?
These systems aren't designed to model reality, after all. Theyre designed to provide a cinematic, tactical experience.
True and true. But do you agree that the mechanic of the Feat in question can be a convenient mechanical "short-hand" to model the same broad kind of effect you are describing?
These systems aren't designed to model reality, after all. Theyre designed to provide a cinematic, tactical experience.
Maybe, but I can just add a damage effect to the feat and then I don't have to compromise.
EisenKreutzer
2014-10-08, 05:58 PM
Maybe, but I can just add a damage effect to the feat and then I don't have to compromise.
Maybe is good enough for me! :smallbiggrin:
Raven777
2014-10-08, 07:59 PM
Guys. Guys! This thread is silly. Which I guess means mundanes can't have it.
Red Fel
2014-10-08, 08:29 PM
Guys. Guys! This thread is silly. Which I guess means mundanes can't have it.
Not silly enough! Nobody has made the obvious transition from a feat entitled "Stunning Irruption" to the even sillier "Stunning Eructation."
Get on it, people! Melee needs more silly things!
Guys. Guys! This thread is silly. Which I guess means mundanes can't have it.
Silly fun thread. Thread discussing what melee can and cannot have.
Pick one.
EisenKreutzer
2014-10-08, 08:41 PM
I have to say, this thread started out heading in a kind of bad direction, but I like where it ended up.
So to summarize:
Pros:
Potentially fun in a not too serious gaming environment.
Potentially fun in a serious gaming environment.
Gives martial an option they rarely have (area of effect debuff).
Reasonable prerequisites.
Good balance of power and situationalness making it a valid choice without becoming a must have, i.e. feat tax.
Even if you do not like it, it can be tweak and it can give you ideas for others.
Simple and potentially elegant.
Cons:
Not available or as good for dex based martial classes or ¾ BAB martial characters.
A bit unclear on how it works. Is the stun due to surprise or flying debris?
Maybe a bit too situational, certainly for higher powered groups.
May require DM to change his typical encounter layout to be of use.
Divisive: some people thinks it’s silly, other people think it isn’t, which can be an issue if the group has both types of people.
Possibly inorganic.
Incorrect semantics.
That sound fair?
EisenKreutzer
2014-10-08, 09:13 PM
So to summarize:
Pros:
Potentially fun in a not too serious gaming environment.
Potentially fun in a serious gaming environment.
Gives martial an option they rarely have (area of effect debuff).
Reasonable prerequisites.
Good balance of power and situationalness making it a valid choice without becoming a must have, i.e. feat tax.
Even if you do not like it, it can be tweak and it can give you ideas for others.
Simple and potentially elegant.
Cons:
Not available or as good for dex based martial classes or ¾ BAB martial characters.
A bit unclear on how it works. Is the stun due to surprise or flying debris?
Maybe a bit too situational, certainly for higher powered groups.
May require DM to change his typical encounter layout to be of use.
Divisive: some people thinks it’s silly, other people think it isn’t, which can be an issue if the group has both types of people.
Possibly inorganic.
Incorrect semantics.
That sound fair?
Yep, that is a perfectly valid summary of the points brought up in this thread.
Kudaku
2014-10-09, 01:48 AM
I'm not sure it's a con that it's a feat that synergizes primarily with high strength - there are tons of awesome dex-only feats already.
Shinken
2014-10-09, 06:16 AM
It's like he's saying he's perfectly willing to build around the feat for some foes while complaining that he has to build around the feat for some foes.
It's almost... silly. :smallamused:
That might honestly be best, yes.
A thread crosses a line when Psyren and Snowbluff agree on something.
Divisive: I think it’s silly, other people think it isn’t, which can be an issue if I'm in the group.
Fixed that for you.
Fixed that for you.
Yes you did, unless of course other people in this thread have said they too find it silly, in which case you would in fact be weirdly defensive over the integrity of a feat.
It's almost... silly. :smallamused:
Yes your inability to understand my position is a bit ridiculous. Especially when people think it makes them clever.
I'm not sure it's a con that it's a feat that synergizes primarily with high strength - there are tons of awesome dex-only feats already.
Maybe, but as I said, it gives martial characters something they rarely get. How much area debuff do dex based martial get through feats?
Kudaku
2014-10-09, 10:17 AM
Maybe, but as I said, it gives martial characters something they rarely get. How much area debuff do dex based martial get through feats?
Combat Reflexes is the cornerstone of just about any martial reach controller build.
It's a feat that rewards you for breaking through walls, it doesn't really seem fitting for a low-strength duelist. I'd be fine with a similar feat that focused more on the Errol Flynn-side of things. I'm not opposed to martial characters getting more feat options, but I like the idea of trying to make 30 strength characters and 30 dexterity characters play more differently.
Ssalarn
2014-10-09, 10:19 AM
Right, but then that also needs damage. At least to me, otherwise the ability is not only silly, it makes characters its used upon look silly.
As I pointed out several times in the thread, IRL it is a common tactic for military and law enforcement personnel to use sudden and violent entry to quickly subdue a group of hardened criminals or enemy combatants without injury, when a more subdued approach might lead to an all-out gun fight.
Thinking the feat is logically inconsistent actually has nothing to do with it accurately simulating a real situation (which it does admirably) and more to do with some people just not being familiar with the realities of situations like those the feat is designed to emulate. Basically, it's shock and awe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shock_and_awe) on a localized scale.
Psyren
2014-10-09, 10:27 AM
Combat Reflexes is the cornerstone of just about any martial reach controller build.
It's a feat that rewards you for breaking through walls, it doesn't really seem fitting for a low-strength duelist. I'd be fine with a similar feat that focused more on the Errol Flynn-side of things. I'm not opposed to martial characters getting more feat options, but I like the idea of trying to make 30 strength characters and 30 dexterity characters play more differently.
This. It makes no sense for a dex-based character.
As I pointed out several times in the thread, IRL it is a common tactic for military and law enforcement personnel to use sudden and violent entry to quickly subdue a group of hardened criminals or enemy combatants without injury, when a more subdued approach might lead to an all-out gun fight.
Thinking the feat is logically inconsistent actually has nothing to do with it accurately simulating a real situation (which it does admirably) and more to do with some people just not being familiar with the realities of situations like those the feat is designed to emulate. Basically, it's shock and awe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shock_and_awe) on a localized scale.
I don't think special forces breeches is an accurate parallel to this feat, as they are used in a world without leveling. You not wrong for thinking it is, but I hold a different opinion. You can either keep trying to convince me I am wrong, or accept that in order for this feat to make sense to me, I'm going to tweak it to deal damage as well (and change shaken to sickened)
Combat Reflexes is the cornerstone of just about any martial reach controller build.
It's a feat that rewards you for breaking through walls, it doesn't really seem fitting for a low-strength duelist. I'd be fine with a similar feat that focused more on the Errol Flynn-side of things. I'm not opposed to martial characters getting more feat options, but I like the idea of trying to make 30 strength characters and 30 dexterity characters play more differently.
Sure, but it is still a con. Every con on the list is subjective (except for the one that really doesn't count). Combat reflexes doesn't really count as its function is different and it is regularly taken by strength based characters, or at least recommended to them.
You don't have to view it as a draw back, but it arguable is one that a feat which allows martial characters to do something they almost never get to do is only available to half of them.
Kudaku
2014-10-09, 11:12 AM
Sure, but it is still a con. Every con on the list is subjective (except for the one that really doesn't count). Combat reflexes doesn't really count as its function is different and it is regularly taken by strength based characters, or at least recommended to them.
The function of Combat Reflexes is crowd control, but if you combine it with maneuvers it's an outstanding debuff and control feat. Most martials that take Combat Reflexes want at least 14 dex for +2 AoOs, and typically higher if you want full advantage of the feat. For comparison to Stunning Irruption, 15 Strength would be plenty to break through a window, but you'll want a higher strength to take full advantage of the feat. I think it's a fairly good comparison, actually. :smallsmile:
You don't have to view it as a draw back, but it arguable is one that a feat which allows martial characters to do something they almost never get to do is only available to half of them.
This I agree with - Stunning Irruption is an unusual and fun feat, and I hope we see more of like it. I do think there's plenty of room to make interesting feats that are strength-centric AND dex-centric, we don't need all the martials to drink the same kool-aid. Build diversity is a good thing. :smallsmile:
torrasque666
2014-10-09, 11:19 AM
I don't think special forces breeches is an accurate parallel to this feat, as they are used in a world without leveling. You not wrong for thinking it is, but I hold a different opinion. You can either keep trying to convince me I am wrong, or accept that in order for this feat to make sense to me, I'm going to tweak it to deal damage as well (and change shaken to sickened)
Actually its an entirely accurate parallel. I don't see how it isn't. Enlighten me.
Shinken
2014-10-09, 11:24 AM
Actually its an entirely accurate parallel. I don't see how it isn't. Enlighten me.
Oh, please, torrasque666. It's not his fault if you can't see how inaccurate the parallel is. Really. It's just his personal experience!
I hope he does enlighten you on how Rogues are the best tank class in Pathfinder, how Combat Reflex is not a Dex feat and - of course - about how real life military tactics are unrealistic because melee can't have nice things.
The function of Combat Reflexes is crowd control, but if you combine it with maneuvers it's an outstanding debuff and control feat. Most martials that take Combat Reflexes want at least 14 dex for +2 AoOs, and typically higher if you want full advantage of the feat. For comparison to Stunning Irruption, 15 Strength would be plenty to break through a window, but you'll want a higher strength to take full advantage of the feat. I think it's a fairly good comparison, actually. :smallsmile:
I'm not so sure. SI requires power attack (not generally taken by dex based character, and even if they would they have a better version of the feat), and some will be delayed by two levels to meat the BAB requirements. Then they will also need a way to reliable break open doors.
By contrasts a strength paladin can pick up combat reflexes at level one, if they aren't human. It shouldn't be their first feat, but it could be.
This I agree with - Stunning Irruption is an unusual and fun feat, and I hope we see more of like it. I do think there's plenty of room to make interesting feats that are strength-centric AND dex-centric, we don't need all the martials to drink the same kool-aid. Build diversity is a good thing. :smallsmile:
Yeah, I think they should get different toys as well, only a cursory glance of the combat feats in PF doesn't give much extra to do with a surprise round. Hellcat pounce and Silent Kill where the only ones I could fine. As I said, its not an objective flaw, and it does more reflect the system than the feat, but I noted it down because I did feel it was worth considering.
Actually its an entirely accurate parallel. I don't see how it isn't. Enlighten me.
Because D&D includes characters who can have a dragon land 20ft away from them and continue calmly enjoying their lunch, whilst the real world does not (presumably, result are inconclusive due to a lack of finding dragons to take part in the tests)?
I hope he does enlighten you on how Rogues are the best tank class in Pathfinder, how Combat Reflex is not a Dex feat and - of course - about how real life military tactics are unrealistic because melee can't have nice things.
Well at least you are giving variety in your twisted interpretations of what I say. Any chance you can quote where I said any of those?
Ssalarn
2014-10-09, 11:32 AM
I don't think special forces breeches is an accurate parallel to this feat, as they are used in a world without leveling. You not wrong for thinking it is, but I hold a different opinion. You can either keep trying to convince me I am wrong, or accept that in order for this feat to make sense to me, I'm going to tweak it to deal damage as well (and change shaken to sickened)
I'm not trying to convince you you're wrong, just pointing out that your "logic" has no basis in game balance, mechanical simplicity, or even real world simulationism so that others reading the thread have enough information to form their own well-rounded opinions.
Moving on-
Having recently run a short campaign where I played a Slayer (Vanguard) organizing a street gang into a powerful thieve's guild, I absolutely would have taken this feat. I literally lost count of the number of times I came crashing through windows or doors as part of my "catch the other gang leaders with their pants down" blitz. Hopefully I'll get a similar opportunity to create that much work for the city's pool of skilled laborers in a future campaign now that there's actually a feat supporting it.
Shinken
2014-10-09, 11:34 AM
Moving on-
Having recently run a short campaign where I played a Slayer (Vanguard) organizing a street gang into a powerful thieve's guild, I absolutely would have taken this feat. I literally lost count of the number of times I came crashing through windows or doors as part of my "catch the other gang leaders with their pants down" blitz. Hopefully I'll get a similar opportunity to create that much work for the city's pool of skilled laborers in a future campaign now that there's actually a feat supporting it.
That looks like a kickass campaign if I ever saw one
Psyren
2014-10-09, 11:34 AM
Because D&D includes characters who can have a dragon land 20ft away from them and continue calmly enjoying their lunch, whilst the real world does not (presumably, result are inconclusive due to a lack of finding dragons to take part in the tests)?
If you don't notice a dragon until it's 20 ft. away, then your awareness is so stunted that being startled by doors breaking is the least of your problems.
I'm not trying to convince you you're wrong, just pointing out that your "logic" has no basis in game balance, mechanical simplicity, or even real world simulationism so that others reading the thread have enough information to form their own well-rounded opinions.
Yeah, you are right. Quick, check post number 112. Jacob.Tyr actually agrees with my "logic", at least to some extent. Oh no, you better get on that stat. PM, make him see the error of his ways.
If you don't notice a dragon until it's 20 ft. away, then your awareness is so stunted that being startled by doors breaking is the least of your problems.
Fine, the dragon teleports in 20ft away. Or demon.
Shinken
2014-10-09, 11:35 AM
If you don't notice a dragon until it's 20 ft. away, then your awareness is so stunted that being startled by doors breaking is the least of your problems.
Also, frightful presence.
Also, surprise rounds.
Also, frightful presence.
Also, surprise rounds.
The first one sure (but doesn't that only make you shaken if you have 5+ HD?), the second only if the dragon is immediately hostile.
You are right though, I shouldn't have said dragon. Let's say high CR demon teleports in.
Kudaku
2014-10-09, 11:39 AM
I'm not so sure. SI requires power attack (not generally taken by dex based character, and even if they would they have a better version of the feat), and some will be delayed by two levels to meat the BAB requirements.
Piranha Strike only works with light weapons, while the most popular dexterity combat feats (dervish dance and slashing grace) only work with one-handed weapons, which do not qualify. In my experience a large majority of dex-fighters will either not take piranha strike/power attack at all (swashbucklers) or take a strength of 13 and power attack unless they're assured they can get a hold of an agile weapon first thing - typically by starting at level 6 or later.
I'm not sure what you mean when you talk about 'martials', but I typically expect 'martials' to have full BAB progression. Either way "my BAB is too low" is not a strength/dexterity issue.
[QUOTE=Boci;18232386]Then they will also need a way to reliable break open doors.
Why? Do the dexterity thing, find a window to crash in through. It's not "as good" a feat for a primary dex user as a primary strength user, but it's still perfectly viable - much the same way a primary dex user gets more mileage out of Combat Reflexes than a primary strength user.
Piranha Strike only works with light weapons, while the most popular dexterity combat feats (dervish dance and slashing grace) only work with one-handed weapons, which do not qualify. In my experience a large majority of dex-fighters will either not take piranha strike/power attack at all (swashbucklers) or take a strength of 13 and power attack unless they're assured they can get a hold of an agile weapon first thing - typically by starting at level 6 or later.
Kinda my point. SI is harder to qualify for than CR.
I'm not sure what you mean when you talk about 'martials', but I typically expect 'martials' to have full BAB progression. Either way "my BAB is too low" is not a strength/dexterity issue.
You don't consider rogues to be a martial class?
Ssalarn
2014-10-09, 11:42 AM
Because D&D includes characters who can have a dragon land 20ft away from them and continue calmly enjoying their lunch, whilst the real world does not (presumably, result are inconclusive due to a lack of finding dragons to take part in the tests)?
Actually, most dragons that are bigger than the creatures a human would commonly interact with have a frightful presence powerful enough to reliably scare away even a strong-willed character who hadn't taken substantial magical and/or special training related (i.e. feats) abilities to bolster their will. In fact, without magical items and feats, a 13th level Fighter with the Bravery class feature still has a 70% chance of wetting his pants and running away screaming when a same CR dragon lands 20 feet away from his picnic table. (Okay, that's an exaggeration, he's really just trembling in his boots)
Kudaku
2014-10-09, 11:43 AM
You don't consider rogues to be a martial class?
Nope. Truth be told I barely consider them a class.
Actually, most dragons that are bigger than the creatures a human would commonly interact with have a frightful presence powerful enough to reliably scare away even a strong-willed character who hadn't taken substantial magical and/or special training related (i.e. feats) abilities to bolster their will. In fact, without magical items and feats, a 13th level Fighter with the Bravery class feature still has a 70% chance of wetting his pants and running away screaming when a same CR dragon lands 20 feet away from his picnic table.
Fair enough, my bad. High CR demon teleports in, martial characters continues enjoying his stake.
Also you are immune to FP if you have more hitdie than the dragon, which is not an inconceivable scenario.
Nope. Truth be told I barely consider them a class.
Fair enough, difference of opinion.
Ssalarn
2014-10-09, 11:53 AM
Fair enough, my bad. High CR demon teleports in, martial characters continues enjoying his steak.
I'm reasonably certain that if the demon's entry involved a massive explosion of noise and violence, it would interrupt dinner. I don't think the fact that demons (as a general rule) don't really know how to make an entrance means that sudden and explosively violent actions don't have any effect on characters. A pit fiend would ruin the crap out of that dinner with all the jumping and screaming that'd be going on just because he walked in.
I'm reasonably certain that if the demon's entry involved a massive explosion of noise and violence, it would interrupt dinner. I don't think the fact that demons (as a general rule) don't really know how to make an entrance means that sudden and explosively violent actions don't have any effect on characters. A pit fiend would ruin the crap out of that dinner with all the jumping and screaming that'd be going on just because he walked in.
Who said anyone else was there? They could be enjoying it on their own, and suddenly a CR: 13 demon teleports in and the fighter says "Be with you in a moment". Then an 8th level paladin kicks the door down and suddenly he has to make a save or be stunned. If they also damage by flying debris, then I can sort of get how that happened, but it is a lot harder without the damage.
And they are a high level martial character. If they want to eat a wooden stake they bloody well can!
Ssalarn
2014-10-09, 11:58 AM
Who said anyone else was there? They could be enjoying it on their own, and suddenly a CR: 13 demon teleports in and the fighter says "Be with you in a moment". Then an 8th level paladin kicks the door down and suddenly he has to make a save or be stunned. If they also damage by flying debris, then I can sort of get how that happened, but it is a lot harder without the damage.
And they are a high level martial character. If they want to eat a wooden stake they bloody well can!
The Paladin was trained on how to make an entrance. Seems like the real problem here is that the demon needs to learn some assertiveness how to speak up a bit.
The Paladin was trained on how to make an entrance.
But if its purely a show thing it should be a will save.
Ssalarn
2014-10-09, 12:08 PM
But if its purely a show thing it should be a will save.
As I discussed earlier, real life would disagree with you, and the game actually does too. Phantasmal killer is a great example. It's a Will save to determine whether you believe it's real or not, but a Fortitude save to stop you from dying in fright when you believe it is real. It's the intense physical reaction to something frightening and unexpected that kills you. There's no Will save involved in Stunning Irruption because it's really, for real, happening, so you get a Fortitude save to deal with the sudden shock of that intense eruption of noise and violence.
As I discussed earlier, real life would disagree with you, and the game actually does too. Phantasmal killer is a great example. It's a Will save to determine whether you believe it's real or not, but a Fortitude save to stop you from dying in fright when you believe it is real. It's the intense physical reaction to something frightening and unexpected that kills you. There's no Will save involved in Stunning Irruption because it's really, for real, happening, so you get a Fortitude save to deal with the sudden shock of that intense eruption of noise and violence.
And phantasmal killer does damage if you think its real, because system shock hurts even if it doesn't kill/stun you. Not too sure the game disagrees with me.
Deadline
2014-10-09, 12:13 PM
And phantasmal killer does damage if you think its real, because system shock hurts even if it doesn't kill/stun you. Not too sure the game disagrees with me.
Doesn't that one require a Fortitude save to avoid death?
Doesn't that one require a Fortitude save to avoid death?
Yes, pass the will you are fine, fail the will but succeed the fort nets you 3d6 damage, fail both and you are dead.
Deadline
2014-10-09, 12:21 PM
Yes, pass the will you are fine, fail the will but succeed the fort nets you 3d6 damage, fail both and you are dead.
Probably not the best spell to go with as your example then. There are tons of spells that would back up your point better, like Color Spray (will save or be stunned).
Of course, I'm fairly certain there are a few stunning spells that require Fort saves, so I'm not sure this route is all that definitive.
*shrug* But like I said earlier, a person doesn't have to have solid reasoning for their opinion (I have a hatred for the BoED diplomacy rules), just acknowledge it and make your players aware of it. :smalltongue:
Probably not the best spell to go with as your example then.
I wasn't the one who brought it up, besides PK deals lethal damage, the damage I assigned to SI was non-lethal to reflects its nature.
Of course, I'm fairly certain there are a few stunning spells that require Fort saves, so I'm not sure this route is all that definitive.
How many don't don't deal damage? Besides, I already said I allow magic to get away with more, because its magic, and thus has less to tie it to reality. Its martial and magic being balanced that concerns me.
*shrug* But like I said earlier, a person doesn't have to have solid reasoning for their opinion (I have a hatred for the BoED diplomacy rules), just acknowledge it and make your players aware of it. :smalltongue:
But I do feel I have solid reasoning for my opinions, solid reasoning that has stood up to the many attempts to explain why it is wrong. Other people don't have to see things this way, but I do.
Raven777
2014-10-09, 12:28 PM
The Will save on Phantasmal Killer is for realizing it's an illusion. That's why you are 100% fine if you pass the Will save : because you know the thing is not real and just ignore it. But if you fail and believe it, then the shock of your worst nightmare popping in your face requires a Fortitude save to be survived.
The Will save on Phantasmal Killer is for realizing it's an illusion. That's why you are 100% fine if you pass the Will save : because you know the thing is not real and just ignore it. But if you fail and believe it, then the shock of your worst nightmare popping in your face requires a Fortitude save to be survived.
Right, no one is disputing that. Ssalarn brought it up as an example of surprise/system shock in the rules and I pointed out that system shock, at least from PK, does deal damage if you think its real (and it doesn't kill you).
Ssalarn
2014-10-09, 12:46 PM
Right, no one is disputing that. Ssalarn brought it up as an example of surprise/system shock in the rules and I pointed out that system shock, at least from PK, does deal damage if you think its real (and it doesn't kill you).
Shock great enough to kill you does a small amount of physical damage if it fails. I don't think anyone is claiming that a healthy adult is taking enough shock to kill them when someone bursts through the wall, just enough to activate their flight or fight response and force an unwilling biological reaction (i.e. stun or shaken). Power word stun, while not allowing a save, still goes off your general health and wellness; your hit point total determines whether or not you can be affected (making it more similar to a Fortitude save than anything else, as no amount of willpower changes the results), and the effect itself deals no damage. Stunning finale "assaults the senses" forcing the target to make a Fortitude save or be stunned but deals no damage (possibly the best comparison). The vrock's Stunning Screech is a loud and sudden noise that forces all creatures to make a Fortitude save or be stunned, but does not deal any type of damage.
So, a little digging around shows that saves vs. stunning are almost always Fortitude saves, and there's at least two examples of abilities where sudden, loud effects can stun a target who fails a Fortitude save while not otherwise dealing any damage at all.
Psyren
2014-10-09, 12:48 PM
You are right though, I shouldn't have said dragon. Let's say high CR demon teleports in.
The demon would get a surprise round but teleport doesn't seem to be particularly dramatic/startling. It would be like dropping invisibility, he is just there.
Shock great enough to kill you does a small amount of physical damage if it fails. I don't think anyone is claiming that a healthy adult is taking enough shock to kill them when someone bursts through the wall, just enough to activate their flight or fight response and force an unwilling biological reaction (i.e. stun or shaken). Power word stun, while not allowing a save, still goes off your general health and wellness; your hit point total determines whether or not you can be affected (making it more similar to a Fortitude save than anything else, as no amount of willpower changes the results), and the effect itself deals no damage. Stunning finale "assaults the senses" forcing the target to make a Fortitude save or be stunned but deals no damage (possibly the best comparison). The vrock's Stunning Screech is a loud and sudden noise that forces all creatures to make a Fortitude save or be stunned, but does not deal any type of damage.
So, a little digging around shows that saves vs. stunning are almost always Fortitude saves, and there's at least two examples of abilities where sudden, loud effects can stun a target who fails a Fortitude save while not otherwise dealing any damage at all.
I did a little digging as well. Here is what I cam up with (I did find and note stunning finale, but you've already mentioned that).
Colour spray, Scintillating pattern, Stunning Barrier, Symbol of Stunning, Power Word: Stun, Waves of Ecstasy, Word of Chaos, = no damage, but doesn’t involve a fort save (either will save or no save).
Kai shout, Shout, Resonating Word, Sound Burst, Daze spell, = fort save, but also deals damage.
Massive damage system shock, Phantasmal killer = Fortitude save to avoid shock, but all involve taking damage. They also all kill you however.
So, that vs. the two. From this we can establish that in all likelihood, fort save stunning with no damage is an exception to the rules. There could be more exception we didn't fiend, but in there absence this is the likely conclusion.
So, you then need to ask yourself, what would you prefer?
Having another options that breaks a loosely established formula?
Add a small amount of damage to SI?
Is one answer more right than the other? Hell no, unless RAW is a particular consideration and you would like to avoid even small tweaks to it.
The demon would get a surprise round but teleport doesn't seem to be particularly dramatic/startling. It would be like dropping invisibility, he is just there.
I consider a powerful demon suddenly being there to be about on par with someone kicking the door down.
Psyren
2014-10-09, 01:06 PM
II consider a powerful demon suddenly being there to be about on par with someone kicking the door down.
And you're certainly free to houserule it to behave similarly but nothing in the RAW considers them equivalent.
And you're certainly free to houserule it to behave similarly but nothing in the RAW considers them equivalent.
I just covered this in my previous post. Whilst loose, there is a formula that correlates to what I am saying.
Ssalarn
2014-10-09, 01:18 PM
I did a little digging as well. Here is what I cam up with (I did find and note stunning finale, but you've already mentioned that).
Colour spray, Scintillating pattern, Stunning Barrier, Symbol of Stunning, Power Word: Stun, Waves of Ecstasy, Word of Chaos, = no damage, but doesn’t involve a fort save (either will save or no save).
Kai shout, Shout, Resonating Word, Sound Burst, Daze spell, = fort save, but also deals damage.
Massive damage system shock, Phantasmal killer = Fortitude save to avoid shock, but all involve taking damage. They also all kill you however.
So, that vs. the two. From this we can establish that in all likelihood, fort save stunning with no damage is an exception to the rules. There could be more exception we didn't fiend, but in there absence this is the likely conclusion.
So, you then need to ask yourself, what would you prefer?
Having another options that breaks a loosely established formula?
Add a small amount of damage to SI?
Is one answer more right than the other? Hell no, unless RAW is a particular consideration and you would like to avoid even small tweaks to it.
So, if we carve out all the no saves (several of which we already established actually support the physical side of things, not the mental side of things), and the fact that you claimed spells which do deal damage don't (like daze, which also is limited by physical health i.e. hit die and doesn't cause the stunned condition anyways), we'll see that your argument actually has very little backing it beyond poor research practices and false suppositions, and many of the things you tried to say support your vision of how things should work actually indicate the opposite.
So, yeah, one answer is more right than the other. Mine is literally the RAW of the Paizo staff who currently own and design the game, yours is a house-rule by a guy who claimed he researched something and still didn't know how it worked. That comes off a little mean, and I don't mean it to, but I literally don't know a nicer way of saying it.
So, if we carve out all the no saves (several of which we already established actually support the physical side of things, not the mental side of things),
Why? That still supports the trend that damageless stun is not a fort save thing.
and the fact that you claimed spells which do deal damage don't (like daze,
I meant the MM feat, which requires the spell to deal damage. I mean to delete it though because it daze, not stun.
which also is limited by physical health i.e. hit die),
How is that relevant? I meant to delete it because it dazes, it doesn't stun, but if we are includingit it deals no damage and has a will save, so falls into the formula I pointed out.
we'll see that your argument actually has very little backing it beyond poor research practices and false suppositions, and many of the things you tried to say support your vision of how things should work actually indicate the opposite.
Or your attempts to dismiss my argument is very weak.
So, yeah, one answer is more right than the other. Mine is literally the RAW of the Paizo staff who currently own and design the game, yours is a house-rule by a guy who claimed he researched something and still didn't know how it worked. That comes off a little mean, and I don't mean it to, but I literally don't know a nicer way of saying it.
Yo arrogantly dismiss the opinion of someone who disagrees with you for questionable objections to their logic and fall back on an appeal to authority by implying Paizo's ownership of the IP somehow exempts them from the small mistakes, like the one I believe they made in the mechanics of this feat. I'm starting to wonder if you truely think your answer is better, or if you are just desperate to get me, and anyone who agreed I had a point, to admit I'm wrong for some unknown and pointless reasons.
Ssalarn
2014-10-09, 02:14 PM
Nope, just pointing out that your arguments are full of holes. And I wasn't appealing to authority. You said "Is one answer more right than the other? Hell no, unless RAW is a particular consideration", to which my response was that when talking about mechanics RAW certainly should be a consideration, especially when you're making illogical and unnecessary tweaks that result in muddled mechanics and peddling them as equivalent to the work of professional game designers.
{{scrubbed}}
Red Fel
2014-10-09, 02:17 PM
... So, does this mean we're not making "Stunning Eructation" next?
But whatever. You are clearly determined to dominate the thread with defensive attacks and one-upsmanship.
Sure, that statement above applies to me with my "Here's my opinion, but you're not wrong if you disagree" and not you with you "You are wrong, here is why. Sorry if this insults you, but I cannot possibly avoid that". Hi pot, I'm kettle.
I can agree however that it is best we stop this, whilst debating opinions can be productive (its what made me realize what precisely about this feat I disliked), there is far too much bile between us for it being worthy on continuation.
... So, does this mean we're not making "Stunning Eructation" next?
Stunning Eructation
Preq: Base fort save: +2
Benefit: As a move equivalent action you can unleash a powerful eructation in a 30ft cone. All creatures caught in the area must succeed on a fortitude save or be nauseated for 1d4 rounds. If your last meal was particularly foul, this saving throw is made at a -4 penalty. You can use this ability at will, but if you use it a second time in the same encounter the range of the con drops to 15ft, any meal bonuses are lost and effected creatures get a +4 bonus to their save, as you now lack the element of surprise.
Psyren
2014-10-09, 02:39 PM
{{scrubbed the post}}
*applauds*
I believe I shall join you. Let's go weave some veils.
Shinken
2014-10-09, 03:02 PM
{Scrubbed}
Red Fel
2014-10-09, 04:30 PM
Stunning Eructation
Preq: Base fort save: +2
Benefit: As a move equivalent action you can unleash a powerful eructation in a 30ft cone. All creatures caught in the area must succeed on a fortitude save or be nauseated for 1d4 rounds. If your last meal was particularly foul, this saving throw is made at a -4 penalty. You can use this ability at will, but if you use it a second time in the same encounter the range of the con drops to 15ft, any meal bonuses are lost and effected creatures get a +4 bonus to their save, as you now lack the element of surprise.
You are a magical person, and I like you.
You are a magical person, and I like you.
Thank you. See everyone, I can be fun if I choose to be. Now just to prove how limited that aspect of my being is...I deigned that feat really badly. Giving PCs, or NPCs, a chance to debuff instead of moving will turn a lot of fights into static exchanges, so it should be avoided. On the other hand, I think you should be able to belch and attack in the same round. It should probably become a standard action for subsequent uses, in addition to the other reductions. Maybe also add in a 1d4 round cool down. Alternatively leave it as is, but add that it can only be used after a hearty, rich meal. Either way should be fine.
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.