Heroic Surge - One of the best yet obscure feats for melee

[HurinTheCursed]

(Need of) mobility has always been one of the main problems of melee classes, especially in core.
You need to be the one moving to get tactical advantage by defining who will fight who, but as you move you usually sacrifice most offensive power while your opponents now can fight back with full power. Moving with no action cost is a Holy Grail of most melee builds past level 5, at least in char-op, hence ubercharger which are quite common to keep damage rising with levels. Still, wall of mooks or terrain can easily defeat this strategy.

A quite obscure feat we use in my group for a few years now, Heroic Surge, largely keeps melee at reasonable distance from decent but not min/maxed casters. It is described in the Dragonlance setting, unfortunately not in the campaign setting (recognized by WOTC) but in Age of Mortals and in Knightly Orders of Ansalon.

You may take an additional move or attack action, either before or after your regular actions. You may use Heroic Surge once per day based on your character level, but never more than once per round. 1st-4th level, once per day; 5th-8th level, twice per day; 9th-12th level, three times a day; 13th-16th level, four times a day; 17th-20th level, five times a day.

Unlike Belt of battle, this feat acts an equalizer since mundane get much more use of it than magic users, it allows to go nova the same way as magic users can quicken spells. It also makes melee less predictable tactically and brings a heroic feeling usually limited to casters.

Exemple:
- A paladin uses it to get in position (while drawing his lance) in order to charge a creature he could not reach and ensures he can run away from their full attacks or avoid being surrounded with Ride-by-attack (and still casts a spell as a swift),
- A pouncer uses it to get in position in order to charge where he can use all his iteratives and cleave (and still knockbacks and makes them prone for no action),
- A swift ambusher uses it to trigger both flanking and skirmish, and follows by a full attack,
- A character can run twice to easily catch up a fleeing ennemy,
- A character can search for an item appropriate for the situation without sacrifing his full attack.

Once you brought the line of battle to the enemy, your casters are safer and you are usually close enough to engage other ennemies still hiding behind bodyguards using the more common twisted charge.
If needed, an extra attack at full BAB can be helpful to bring down the BBEG but it usually matters less than moving to get a good full attack.

Obviously, a caster can move each round and still be 100% useful, he doesn't have to find a good item to solve problems (batman has spells for that) and it's easy for him to stop anyone fleeing, but melee feels useful longer with that feat.
I begin to wonder if giving extra actions each round according to tiers wouldn't go a long way to balance combat at middle level. After that, if your ennemies use an evasion technique you're not prepared to counter (battlefield control, flying, invisibility, etherealness), obviously you're still trumped.

Better known but still interesting, if you can get one of these books accepted by your DM, War of the Lance also propose a class that can craft weapons with a non-magical +5 enhancement to hit for a mere 1500 coins.

[LTwerewolf]

Dealing damage wasn't ever the reason mundanes are considered bad. In fact other than a couple exceptions, they're pretty good at it. Extra actions don't change that. The discrepancy comes from where the fighter is still saying "I move and attack" when the wizard is saying "I solve the problem while eating funyins on my couch." An extra action here and there doesn't change that.

[OldTrees1]

Dealing damage wasn't ever the reason mundanes are considered bad. In fact other than a couple exceptions, they're pretty good at it. Extra actions don't change that. The discrepancy comes from where the fighter is still saying "I move and attack" when the wizard is saying "I solve the problem while eating funyins on my couch." An extra action here and there doesn't change that.

To be fair, martials rarely say "I move and attack" anymore. For a long time even fighters were doing things more similar to "I move and cast Greater Martial Fusion(Forceful Hand & Martial Fusion(Daze & Attack))"

[Afgncaap5]

I like the look of it. It's sort of like Eberron's Action Surge feat, but with a daily limitation instead of a per-level limitation. (Theoretically, both of those could be used at once. Sadly, I think a Full Round Action is just a Full Round Action, and not something you cash in a Standard and Move action to get, otherwise you could get two full-round actions in a really important turn.)

[HurinTheCursed]

@OldTrees1, I'm affraid your references were too cryptic for me....


Dealing damage wasn't ever the reason mundanes are considered bad. In fact other than a couple exceptions, they're pretty good at it. Extra actions don't change that.
Doing damage at all is already problematic when you spend actions to reach the ennemy, and that your single attack cannot take him down. Or it is problematic when you only take one down and that he is expendable tactically, moreso if you couldn't use all your attacks. In most unoptimized builds, outside this forum, it is what happens. In most of my groups, mundane had problems dealing 5*HD damage EACH round, by optimizing more 10*HD damage each round is doable but it's not necessarily meaningful and contributing in itself.



The discrepancy comes from where the fighter is still saying "I move and attack" when the wizard is saying "I solve the problem while eating funyins on my couch." An extra action here and there doesn't change that.

Obviously, against standard monsters, the group is less at risk and tactics are less important. it is just an emergency button that you keep.
And if the baddie fights alone, uberchargers were already doing well or poorly depending on the context and I agree Heroic Surge utility gets quite marginal.

The matter I believe is about doing useful damage rather than only piling hundreds on meaningless bodyguards. It's about the fighter being enough of a threat to force the boss or sub-boss to use some actions to counter him rather than ignore him. If it's just a battle of magic on one side and a battle of fighters on the other one, then the mundane have little to no impact on the result. By the time they finish the mook wall, the winner of the mage battle has already won the encounter.
This feat makes mooks less of a disturbance, it makes battlefield control and blasts less relevant. Leaders tend to fear opponent casters and believe they can easily deal with fighters by swarming them with their own. If you surprise the BBEG by having the mobility to move around his defenses and chop most of his life in one round, or kill his right hand, he is a lot more likely to panic, react to your actions rather than keeping his plan. By taking the aggro, the meleer so protects the group while the main villain has lost his buffer which makes him vulnerable to a lot more threats, such as the ally casters left untargetted. A mobile fighter avoids them to eat too many spells, gives them that much "couch time" and takes it away from the enemy casters.
Once the leader is down, his bodyguards are much less willing to fight so you save HP/spells ressources for another fight.

Yes, casters remain in security because it is part of the meatshield role because HE is strong enough to take it. But at least meleers can ask for buffs knowing that'll be useful rather than just charity, trading HP ressources for casting ressources. And yes obviously, it doesn't make mundane near as useful as caster in non-combat situations. But with more mobility, a prepared meleer can remain relevant a lot longer in combat situations IMO.

@Afgncaap5
Yes, no full round but you cannot cast spells with Heroic Surge, only attack or move, both are better used by warriors. Thus it works in reducing the gap between mundane and magic unlike action surge if I understand correctly.

[LTwerewolf]

I didn't say the feat wasn't helpful. Just that it doesn't affect tiers in the slightest. It doesn't change who is capable of what, nor the potency of that what. At very low op tables the feat helps more, but the tiers don't really apply at super low op tables where wizards are blasting and fighters are "tanking."

[OldTrees1]

@OldTrees1, I'm affraid your references were too cryptic for me....
"I move & knock them back & daze them & oh and I guess I'll roll some damage too." is much closer than the old myth of "I move & attack". However we keep seeing the "I move & attack" myth raised time and again. That is why I parodied Arcane Fusion and Greater Arcane Fusion (by replacing Knockback and Daze with the comparable Bigsby's Forceful Hand and Daze).

[LTwerewolf]

That's still moving and attacking with a couple rider effects that aren't necessarily guaranteed.

[eggynack]

Given that most of the utility here is in the extra movement, rather than the extra attack, I don't see what here is all that much better than, say, travel devotion. Or better at all. the baseline state of travel devotion means that you're getting a whole battle's worth of extra movement. Heroic surge is, at higher levels, theoretically more flexible, but there's no denying the capacity of travel devotion to grant strictly more movement than this feat. And you're not stuck at the baseline state, either. Take it through a cleric dip, and now you're getting this kind of extra movement in two, maybe three if you invest, full combats each day. That seems much better than heroic surge, which again, is gaining the ability to use this in more combats for whole encounters' worth of actions. And it's not like the dip costs much of anything either, cause cleric dips are sweet business. And that's not the only ability that has such an extra movement effect either, though it is among the best. Person_Man has a whole fancy list (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?103358-3-X-Ways-to-get-Pounce-or-Free-Movement) of the things. It's hard to see heroic surge as that powerful in that context, and the possibility of extra attacks instead does not represent enough of an upgrade to make the feat crazy.

A few other issues: First, I'd hesitate to call it best. Sure, it's good, but even without travel devotion hanging around, there are still other ways to boost your ability to get around the battlefield, and there are a lot of great feats out there. Say, shock trooper, or improved trip, or combat reflexes. Really great feats, those. Second, I wouldn't exactly call it obscure. Sure, it's not widely known, but as you yourself note, that's primarily because it's not actually a part of the game. So, not so much obscure as non-existent. If you're bringing in all the widest masses of third party, then I'm sure you can do lots of crazy things. Third and finally, I strongly disagree with your claim that there's a nova effect going on here. Best case scenario, you're having the exact battlefield impact you'd have otherwise, plus one attack. Usual case scenario, you get to have your exact usual battlefield impact, but maybe a turn sooner. Novaing, to my mind at least, connotes that you're having a significantly wider impact on an encounter, that you are, in fact, presenting an offense against which most defenses will just collapse. An extra move action here and there doesn't seem to come close.

[BowStreetRunner]

Your fighter is in a 90 foot by 90 foot room. At the center of the room is a lich inside a prismatic sphere. Around the room are a group of four adamantine golems.

You can choose to play a fighter who is wearing a belt of battle and has the feats Heroic Surge and Action Surge, or a Wizard.

Do the extra actions really help solve the problems posed in the encounter?

[OldTrees1]

That's still moving and attacking with a couple rider effects that aren't necessarily guaranteed.

That is like reducing a snowcaster to "I move and deal cold damage" regardless of what spells they are casting. Just because attacking happens does not mean reducing it to "and attack." is not fallacious.

I did preface my first post with "To be fair" as in your oversimplification arrives at the right conclusion but did so by not being fair in your description of the weaker side.


Your fighter is in a 90 foot by 90 foot room. At the center of the room is a lich inside a prismatic sphere. Around the room are a group of four adamantine golems.

You can choose to play a fighter who is wearing a belt of battle and has the feats Heroic Surge and Action Surge, or a Wizard.

Do the extra actions really help solve the problems posed in the encounter?
Is your question "do the extra actions help the Fighter?" or is your question "do the extra actions help the fighter as much as being a wizard instead would have helped?" or perhaps your question was "do the extra actions help the fighter enough to overcome the problems?"
Yes, No, and No* respectively.

*level was unspecified but for all levels I would assume the answer is No.

[eggynack]

I don't think the answer to that first possible question is yes. Sure, the extra action will make dealing with the golems slightly more manageable, but all it'll really do against the lich is allow you to run headfirst into a prismatic sphere faster. Overall, it's like the difference between hucking peas at an elephant and hucking marginally larger peas at an elephant. Can you really say the marginally larger peas are helping you defeat the elephant?

[OldTrees1]

I don't think the answer to that first possible question is yes. Sure, the extra action will make dealing with the golems slightly more manageable, but all it'll really do against the lich is allow you to run headfirst into a prismatic sphere faster. Overall, it's like the difference between hucking peas at an elephant and hucking marginally larger peas at an elephant. Can you really say the marginally larger peas are helping you defeat the elephant?

You conflate the 1st and 3rd questions. The extra actions do something (some damage, move away from danger, trip a golem, or chug a potion) but they are not enough to result in a victory (Yes to 1st, No to 3rd by a big margin).

Although the most optimal use of the extra actions would probably be UMD/Greater Dispelling Weapon to bring down the sphere. (Still Yes to 1st and No to 3rd by a big margin).

[eggynack]

You conflate the 1st and 3rd questions. The extra actions do something (some damage, move away from danger, trip a golem, or chug a potion) but they are not enough to result in a victory (Yes to 1st, No to 3rd by a big margin).
If you're moving from zero percent to zero percent victory chance, then how are you being aided in your ability to solve this problem? You're not, is the point. If you were moving from, say, a .00001% chance to a .000012% chance, then that'd be one thing, but as long as you're hanging out in the exact same probability, zero, you're not really being helped.

[OldTrees1]

If you're moving from zero percent to zero percent victory chance, then how are you being aided in your ability to solve this problem? You're not, is the point. If you were moving from, say, a .00001% chance to a .000012% chance, then that'd be one thing, but as long as you're hanging out in the exact same probability, zero, you're not really being helped.

See question 1? See question 3? I listed the 3 questions asking which of the 3 questions was being asked and giving the corresponding answers. If you think question 1 is a weak enough question that you will continue to blindly insist that it is question 3, then what purpose do you have responding to my posts? See question 1? See question 3?

To answer you another way: What if we made the fighter immune to spells. That would help a lot right? But they would still lose the fight. (Yes to 1st, No to 3rd). But what if they got both lots of actions & immunity to magic? Now we are getting closer to a Yes to 3rd. Just because an infinite number of a particular benefit will not be sufficient for victory (aka 0% chance of victory to 0% chance of victory) does not mean the distance to victory being possible has not shrunk. It just means that it will never be enough by itself. Aka 1st vs 3rd.

Again, my answer to question 3 is "No".

[HurinTheCursed]

Your fighter is in a 90 foot by 90 foot room. At the center of the room is a lich inside a prismatic sphere. Around the room are a group of four adamantine golems.

You can choose to play a fighter who is wearing a belt of battle and has the feats Heroic Surge and Action Surge, or a Wizard.

Do the extra actions really help solve the problems posed in the encounter?

For my specific build, I'm not sure one golem would be such a problem to flee or even to beat, even considering the CR, but the lich is in another league. Hopefully, none of my groups ever encoutered this kind of threat, yet. This is what I call high level play, while I mainly said the Heroic surge stitched the gap in middle levels. I'm still not convinced that even acting first, the wizard can beat a protected lich and 1 golem in 1 round before it gets crushed.

Person_Man's list is really great, I sure read it before I decided my build. And yes, I have a build that uses dungeoncrusher, knockback, shock trooper and such stuff to be sure to send flying prone and injured any enemy 20' around but practically it is a lot easier to use meaningfully with extra mobility. Otherwise, you don't pick your opponents, your DM's "deployment" does it for you.
Travel devotion doesn't work for mundane, it's cleric specific thus it doesn't balance the classes in the slightest. And in all tables I played, there were xp penalty for multiclassing outside limitations and in most of them, dipping is not well regarded. I found that in my setting (Dragonlance), heroic surge was my best way to get extra moves. No reliance on spells, no need to mix 5 classes, no need to swap a charge item several times a day. So far, only power attack proved to be more crucial, but I don't have to explain why.

In my experience, an extra move at the right moment really makes a huge difference on the behaviour of meleers. In a fight that last 3 turns or less, impacting 1 turn sooner and choosing where and how proved to be critical. Like an APC, it does not bring a unit as far as parachuting (read teleportation) does, but really makes this unit more useful than just walking to destination. I consider it affected tiers because it changed how well characters could fulfill their roles. They could not break the campaign or bring polyvalence to a build but they helped crushing several BBEG who believed they had more time than they had. Defenses collapsed because of that surprise effect and the inability to handle all pressing threats in due time. In turn, this allowed to concentrate efforts elsewhere so get more polyvalence.

Regarding the feat existance in most tables, I'm pretty sure every mundane knows about legendary items thanks to the weapon and armor enhancement handbooks that refer to an even more obscure source from Dragonlance. Thus, if it is of some use to some players, I thought this feat would also be.
I never said it was the best feat for meleers but only one of the best. It's not as decisive for the right build as power attack or improved trip for exemple but it's more polyvalent and I'm pretty sure most meleers would be improved by taking it while many others don't care about tripping or power attack, such as rogues. Sure, not all builds, more optimized melee builds have better, a few may need each and every feat before the synergy kicks in at full effect but I'm pretty sure no fighter 20 would leave the tavern without it if he knew.

[SirNMN]

That's still moving and attacking with a couple rider effects that aren't necessarily guaranteed.

Throw enough and they will fail some, and those rider effects are what may casters use in combat anyway

[eggynack]

See question 1? See question 3? I listed the 3 questions asking which of the 3 questions was being asked and giving the corresponding answers. If you think question 1 is a weak enough question that you will continue to blindly insist that it is question 3, then what purpose do you have responding to my posts? See question 1? See question 3?

To answer you another way: What if we made the fighter immune to spells. That would help a lot right? But they would still lose the fight. (Yes to 1st, No to 3rd). But what if they got both lots of actions & immunity to magic? Now we are getting closer to a Yes to 3rd. Just because an infinite number of a particular benefit will not be sufficient for victory (aka 0% chance of victory to 0% chance of victory) does not mean the distance to victory being possible has not shrunk. It just means that it will never be enough by itself. Aka 1st vs 3rd.

Again, my answer to question 3 is "No".
I understood what you were saying. What I'm saying is that, under certain circumstances, question one and question three are identical. Basically, it all depends on how you define "help". You seem to define it as anything that somehow increases your utility in a circumstance. So, regardless of odds, the ability to move better could be said to help. That definition usually suffices, because things usually have non-zero odds of success. Tbat's not really how I define "help", however. My definition of a thing helping in a particular sitation is that it, to any extent, represents an increase in victory odds. Otherwise, how are you really being helped.

As an example, let's consider a different and comparable situation. You are a fourth level character, either a fighter or a monk, at the top of a 5,000 ft. empty shaft, falling downwards. You don't have enough HP to survive, ever, at all, and you have no resources except those granted by class. The key difference here, of course, is that the monk has the slow fall ability. You, under your definition, would look at the monk's ability to cut off 20 ft., and say that's helping. However, unless the monk has any actual chance of succeeding here, and they don't, I wouldn't call that helping. If you can compound together enough ways to cut down on distance, such that the odds become non-zero, then sure, but until you cross that threshold, nothing you've done actually helps. Similarly, if you think this fighter can plausibly hit non-zero odds of victory against the lich, then sure, I agree, this thing is helping. Based on your question three, however, I don't think it is helping.

So, in other words, there's a huge difference between zero odds and any non-zero odds. At some non-zero odds, you might say that there's basically no chance of success, and you might similarly give a no to the third question. Would you say that the fighter is overcoming the problem at one percent, for example? I wouldn't. And yet, at one percent, I would agree that this is helping. You're moving the needle, from somewhere to somewhere else, and that's what helping looks like. But there's no such thing as more or less zero. Either you have a chance, or you don't, and as long as you go from chanceless to chanceless, I don't think of that as helping. Maybe you do, for some reason, but I do not, cause help's gotta mean something.


Travel devotion doesn't work for mundane, it's cleric specific thus it doesn't balance the classes in the slightest.
It's not cleric specific, cause technically anyone can take it. The feat isn't even necessarily worse than heroic surge without turn undead, cause you get that whole combat of moving. Also, as you would attest, the movement speed is arguably more valuable for the melee character, even if it's better in the hands of the cleric. There's more to be gained relative to the base level of power, at least. Travel devotion definitely has a positive impact on the game. Also, I don't really care about balancing the classes. No way does heroic surge really balance the classes anyway. All that matters is how good this is for melee characters, cause it's gonna exist for clerics either way, and also how it compares to heroic surge as a feat, because a melee character shouldn't care about the upper limits on feat power in the hands of a cleric.


And in all tables I played, there were xp penalty for multiclassing outside limitations and in most of them, dipping is not well regarded.
Most melee builds that use a cleric dip, all good ones really, avoid those penalties completely. Not cause of the penalties, caus

[KillianHawkeye]

However we keep seeing the "I move & attack" myth raised time and again

That is hardly a myth. Can a Fighter take feats that give him options other than attacking? Yes. Are there tons and tons of feats that just make them better at using their basic attack options? Also yes.

There are certainly people who play Fighters with no more depth in combat than "Attack", "Full Attack", and "Charge" with only the occasional "Trip" or "Feint" or "Disarm" thrown in for variety. These characters exist and are hardly mythical.

[OldTrees1]

I understood what you were saying. What I'm saying is that, under certain circumstances, question one and question three are identical. Basically, it all depends on how you define "help". You seem to define it as anything that somehow increases your utility in a circumstance. So, regardless of odds, the ability to move better could be said to help. That definition usually suffices, because things usually have non-zero odds of success. That's not really how I define "help", however. My definition of a thing helping in a particular situation is that it, to any extent, represents an increase in victory odds. Otherwise, how are you really being helped.

Well then the context that I was asking someone which question they were asking should have been enough to inform you that for the purpose of my question obviously I was using a meaning of "help" that resulted in 3 questions rather than a repeated question. You seem to have (eventually?) worked out the meaning of my post, and then rather than act upon that meaning you are being rather unhelpful.

Do you see why I am annoyed with you right now? You could have just read my answer to #3. No need to read my post, understand my post as meaning 3 different questions, and then purposely try to force upon my post a meaning that was obviously irrelevant to my post. Usually you are much better than that. :smallannoyed:


That is hardly a myth. Can a Fighter take feats that give him options other than attacking? Yes. Are there tons and tons of feats that just make them better at using their basic attack options? Also yes.
The myth is that all fighters can only attack roll + damage roll. Everyone knows it is false but it is still used as a talking point. Read earlier in this subthread for details.

[P.F.]

When I was in college Heroic Surge was one of the most commonly requested feats to port in from Star Wars d20.

[eggynack]

Well then the context that I was asking someone which question they were asking should have been enough to inform you that for the purpose of my question obviously I was using a meaning of "help" that resulted in 3 questions rather than a repeated question. You seem to have (eventually?) worked out the meaning of my post, and then rather than act upon that meaning you are being rather unhelpful.

Do you see why I am annoyed with you right now? You could have just read my answer to #3. No need to read my post, understand my post as meaning 3 different questions, and then purposely try to force upon my post a meaning that was obviously irrelevant to my post. Usually you are much better than that. :smallannoyed:

Again, I understand the distinction you're trying to create. I understand the thing you're saying. I just think it's pointless. Help is only actually helpful insofar as it actually has an impact on reality. What does it even mean otherwise? What are you helping? Is the fighter being helped, surviving an extra round before still inevitably dying? I don't think they are. I think this is a distinction without a difference.

[OldTrees1]

Again, I understand the distinction you're trying to create. I understand the thing you're saying. I just think it's pointless. Help is only actually helpful insofar as it actually has an impact on reality. What does it even mean otherwise? What are you helping? Is the fighter being helped, surviving an extra round before still inevitably dying? I don't think they are. I think this is a distinction without a difference.

I don't care if you think the 1st question is pointless. I care about you trying to tell me my 1st question is actually the same as my 3rd question despite you being smart enough to know otherwise from context clues & then later trying to simultaneously claim you understand I meant 3 different things while still trying to tell me they are the same. :smallmad:

It was within your power to read the 3 questions and only read the answers that pertained to the questions you cared about. Just like the person who's question I was asking clarification on would pick out the question they were asking and read my answer to that question. This is not that hard and I know you could have done it, so why did you intentionally decide to not (rhetorical question)?

[eggynack]

I don't care if you think the 1st question is pointless. I care about you trying to tell me my 1st question is actually the same as my 3rd question despite you being smart enough to know otherwise from context clues & then later trying to simultaneously claim you understand they are different while still trying to tell me they are the same. :smallmad:
I'm not just saying it's pointless. I'm saying there's no realistic difference. And, if there's no realistic difference, then the answers should logically be the same. And, in fact, they are the same. The fighter isn't being helped. So, I understand the difference you're trying to construct. I just don't think you actually created that difference.


It was within your power to read the 3 questions and only read the answers that pertained to the questions you cared about. Just like the person who's question I was asking clarification on would pick out the question they were asking and read my answer to that question.
It was within my power, and I did read the questions. I just disagree with your claim as regarding the questions, because I think that the definition of help you're using is too broad. To that point, do you indeed think that the literally shafted monk is being helped by slow fall? If so, then sure, there's a distinction to you. I, however, do not think the monk is being helped, so there is no distinction to me.

[OldTrees1]

It was within my power, and I did read the questions. I just disagree with your claim as regarding the questions, because I think that the definition of help you're using is too broad.

Eggy! Who the **** cares what your definition of "help" is with regards to a post where I use my definition as part of a clarifying question I am asking to someone that is not you about what their question meant! :smallfurious:

I am done talking with you about this. If you continue to insist that my clarifying question to someone other than yourself must have used your definition rather than my own, then I will demand to know why you are trolling me. Take a hint! :smallannoyed::smallmad::smallfurious:

[eggynack]

Eggy! Who the **** cares what your definition of "help" is with regards to a post where I use my definition as part of a clarifying question I am asking to someone that is not you about what their question meant! :smallfurious:
I care cause it's not just some simple argument from definition. It's about the actual meaning behind the words. The situation he constructed is one in which the underlying meaning was clear, primarily because there wasn't a difference between those two questions you constructed.


I am done talking with you about this. If you continue to insist that my clarifying question to someone other than yourself must have used your definition rather than my own, then I will demand to know why you are trolling me. Take a hint! :smallannoyed::smallmad::smallfurious:

Consider that by insisting that there's some difference between these two questions, you are, in turn, making a claim that's at least as pedantic as the one I'm making. In particular, you're arguing that there is a distinction between those two questions, and thus separating the together in the same way that I'm togethering separate things. Why are you so insistent that this distinction, one you've admitted has no impact at all in the game, has any meaning or purpose?

[OldTrees1]

I care cause it's not just some simple argument from definition. It's about the actual meaning behind the words. The situation he constructed is one in which the underlying meaning was clear, primarily because there wasn't a difference between those two questions you constructed.

Consider that by insisting that there's some difference between these two questions, you are, in turn, making a claim that's at least as pedantic as the one I'm making. In particular, you're arguing that there is a distinction between those two questions, and thus separating the together in the same way that I'm togethering separate things. Why are you so insistent that this distinction, one you've admitted has no impact at all in the game, has any meaning or purpose?

As I stated I will no longer continue this discussion.
Why are you trolling me? I will not reply to your response regardless of length.

[eggynack]

As I stated I will no longer continue this discussion.
Why are you trolling me? I will not reply to your response regardless of length.
That's your prerogative. It's not trolling. I just generally respond to responses to me. it's not like I decided to not respond to things. That's what you decided.

[icefractal]

That's still moving and attacking with a couple rider effects that aren't necessarily guaranteed.That is an absolutely huge underselling. Dazed is one of the best conditions (better than Stunned because almost nothing is immune), and most casters would be well satisfied in spamming 3-6 dazes on the BBEG each round.

Also, the conversation around martials always gets a bit hyperbolic. In actual gameplay, a huge pile of damage kills things. Yes, the enemy "could" be immune to swording at all, but they almost never are. And for that matter, while it's nigh-impossible to be immune to all spells, it's pretty damn easy to be immune to the spells that a particular Wizard is packing in their standard load-out. Which, like being immune to swording, is rare, because most GMs aren't just trying to frustrate the players.

Now, like a sword-n-board fighter that's doing 1d8+10 or something at 15th level? Yeah, that guy is screwed. But an optimized martial contributes just fine in 99% of combat situations.

Their main deficiency is outside of combat, where spells can just straight-up accomplish things while skills are often limited to how generous the GM is feeling.

[Troacctid]

Third party material is rarely discussed because it's not canon. If you're using unofficial content, you can just take that one third-party feat that lets you full attack as a standard action—that seems a lot better than this.

[T.G. Oskar]

Third party material is rarely discussed because it's not canon. If you're using unofficial content, you can just take that one third-party feat that lets you full attack as a standard action—that seems a lot better than this.

Technically...it's a 3rd-party adaptation of a 1st-party feat for another system. Heroic Surge is part of the d20 Modern group of feats, working exactly as described. Except there, it's less "I move and add a bunch of rider effects to my attack" and more "I move to cover, then I use Burst Fire Full Attack with High Explosive Rounds while wielding a Light .50". But yeah - it's not part of D&D 3.5 proper.

[Aharon]

Your fighter is in a 90 foot by 90 foot room. At the center of the room is a lich inside a prismatic sphere. Around the room are a group of four adamantine golems.

You can choose to play a fighter who is wearing a belt of battle and has the feats Heroic Surge and Action Surge, or a Wizard.

Do the extra actions really help solve the problems posed in the encounter?

Assuming a level 23 lich, that is an EL 30 encounter, so a character should be about 25th level when facing it (and it's still an overpowering encounter). At that level, WBL is 2.100.000 GP. That's very helpful for solving problems...

[HurinTheCursed]

The problem is not only doing damage, but that builds have to be constrained, optimized in a few certain ways to do it, usually by charging and/or controlling a large area. Doing so, there are tactical limitations added which might prevent doing this damage or prevent this damage from being useful. It is difficult to contribute without these specific builds because of the rules and the way they are (un)balanced. It may seem natural here to do 200+ damage per round but you are driven into this by the comprehension of the rule and the desire to have a well-working character. Those who do may restrict themselves to play a variation of one of the few working archetypes. Those who do not might not be able to regularly make something contributive in combat with their build however nice it is to roleplay.
A said, Sword & Board is harder to optimize to such highs past early levels, but I guess any build that doesn't have the ability pick his opponent (move) and incapacitate the enemy in the same round have similar problems. At least this feat helps a bit those builds more than others, 40 dmg is better than 15, it might not make any difference 95% of the time but it is nice when it does.

I personnaly never saw a character with multiclassing penalty because even if my tables use thoses rules, no player was willing to hold his character progession after being explained how to avoid it, it's just another constraint to min/max after all. Anyway two thirds of the players I have played with would go straight to L20 single-classed, not only druid players. I like travel devotion for a non-cleric, but I prefer the flexibility of heroics surge if I cannot feed additional uses with turn attempts, while levels of a cleric gives a lot more mileage of that feat. While it might imply additional roleplay conditions, I recognize it comes from a book that is easily available.


Third party material is rarely discussed because it's not canon. If you're using unofficial content, you can just take that one third-party feat that lets you full attack as a standard action—that seems a lot better than this.
If I have to draw a line, I guess it's not available for most groups.
However, I see cannon as sometime more blurry: some are limited to core, or can add your setting, completes, other canon settings, 3.0 canon, dragon compendium, dragon magazines, third party stuff, your own stuff.
To be fair, Dragonlance setting has 1 canon book in 3.5, unlike most (any ?) 3rd party settings and it is influencial enough to have the draconian added in newer editions and it is sometimes mentionned in handbooks or forum questions. None of the feats or items I have seen are broken, a few are very good and the large majority is weak; some spells may be campaign-breaking.
Your exemple feat would allow mundane to use their best offensive action in the same time duration as casters do, sure it would be great for the balance, especially for weaker builds, so most mundane would pick it. But I guess the source is even further from canon. I suppose once a group is used to a supplement, it is easier for the DM to allow it in another campaign save for the few crazy powerful content that he already knows.

[eggynack]

I personnaly never saw a character with multiclassing penalty because even if my tables use thoses rules, no player was willing to hold his character progession after being explained how to avoid it, it's just another constraint to min/max after all.
The weird thing about the multiclassing penalty, and the reason I think it's stupid, is that it doesn't really hurt min/maxing at all. Leaving aside simple caster builds, that never really touch multiclassing and derive their complexity from prestige classes, high power melee builds just don't care about this rule. Consider something like a fighter 2/barbarian 2/cleric 1/warblade 1 and then prestige classes for the rest of the progression. There's not much room there where optimization would demand more levels were this multiclassing rule not in place. It's just how builds tend to come together on this sort of mundane build. Of course, a fully ToB oriented build, or something using incarnum, or a couple of other things, could be built with just a single base class and maybe some PrC's, but such things are inefficient with these front loaded classes.

I like travel devotion for a non-cleric, but I prefer the flexibility of heroics surge if I cannot feed additional uses with turn attempts, while levels of a cleric gives a lot more mileage of that feat.
The cleric dip is so sweet though. You have the travel devotion, and you get to go cloistered cleric and pick up knowledge devotion to make up the attack point loss somewhat, and then you get a whole other combat oriented feat free. That can be anything from law devotion, for a simple and solid bonus, to animal devotion, for a set of smaller bonuses with more variety, or magic domain, for piles of wands, or time domain, for improved initiative. And then you also get a smattering of first level spells, good skill points, and low level turning. It's all so nice.

[LTwerewolf]

That is like reducing a snowcaster to "I move and deal cold damage" regardless of what spells they are casting. Just because attacking happens does not mean reducing it to "and attack." is not fallacious.

I did preface my first post with "To be fair" as in your oversimplification arrives at the right conclusion but did so by not being fair in your description of the weaker side.



The difference here is consisting of the way things are done. If a wizard were casting nothing but damage spells with a rider here or there, I'd say the same thing. They move and blast. The fighter that's shield slamming is always targeting the same save, regardless of whether or not it's the best save to target. Casters don't have that problem. They also have more options regardless of feats with a bit of variety in spells, which doesn't destroy a theme builds. A fighter, however, essentially has to throw everything they have into one thing (which is the exact same "i move and attack" routine from level 1, except now with "and might daze" on there. We're not really seeing a change in what the character actually does here. The character rushes forward heroically and hits with their shield. Just like 5 levels ago when they heroically rushed forward to hit with their shield.

[OldTrees1]

The difference here is consisting of the way things are done. If a wizard were casting nothing but damage spells with a rider here or there, I'd say the same thing. They move and blast. The fighter that's shield slamming is always targeting the same save, regardless of whether or not it's the best save to target. Casters don't have that problem. They also have more options regardless of feats with a bit of variety in spells, which doesn't destroy a theme builds. A fighter, however, essentially has to throw everything they have into one thing (which is the exact same "i move and attack" routine from level 1, except now with "and might daze" on there. We're not really seeing a change in what the character actually does here. The character rushes forward heroically and hits with their shield. Just like 5 levels ago when they heroically rushed forward to hit with their shield.

You are right that "I move and roll vs AC to Daze" and "I move and roll vs AC to Forceful Hand" both roll against attack. However notice how "I move and attack" implies merely an attack roll and a damage roll or at the very least implies the damage roll is of prime importance. Likewise notice how by calling the action by what is trying to be done suddenly I cannot sum all of the attempts into 1.

Which do you think is more honest:
"I move and expend a spell slot, he moves and attacks"
or
"I move and cast _insert spell_, he moves and rolls vs AC for _insert point of the action_"
I know which I think is more honest and which I think is critically underselling. Wizards still have a massive advantage so we don't need to stoop to underselling to show the difference.

For example:
I move and try to knock the orc into that pit
I move and try to stagger that giant
I move and try to knock the troll off balance
I move and try to frighten the goblins
I move and try to ... (some more examples)
I move and try to charm the harpy
I move and try to entangle the treant
I move and try to roast the knight
I move and try to blind the guards
I move and try to summon a small army of animals
I move and try to ... (lots of unspoken examples remaining)

[HurinTheCursed]

The weird thing about the multiclassing penalty, and the reason I think it's stupid, is that it doesn't really hurt min/maxing at all. Leaving aside simple caster builds, that never really touch multiclassing and derive their complexity from prestige classes, high power melee builds just don't care about this rule. Consider something like a fighter 2/barbarian 2/cleric 1/warblade 1 and then prestige classes for the rest of the progression. There's not much room there where optimization would demand more levels were this multiclassing rule not in place. It's just how builds tend to come together on this sort of mundane build. Of course, a fully ToB oriented build, or something using incarnum, or a couple of other things, could be built with just a single base class and maybe some PrC's, but such things are inefficient with these front loaded classes.

The cleric dip is so sweet though. You have the travel devotion, and you get to go cloistered cleric and pick up knowledge devotion to make up the attack point loss somewhat, and then you get a whole other combat oriented feat free. That can be anything from law devotion, for a simple and solid bonus, to animal devotion, for a set of smaller bonuses with more variety, or magic domain, for piles of wands, or time domain, for improved initiative. And then you also get a smattering of first level spells, good skill points, and low level turning. It's all so nice.

Bad design allowed front loaded classes, cleric being a pretty good exemple among plenty others. I will not pretend dipping is not effective to make a character more powerful, just that it can be frown upon at some tables. But at the same time at these tables, you can get away with leadership or polymorph because when unoptimized it doesn't break a campaign and if the DM has never seen how broken it could be, then he does not estimate the feat at its full potential. Sometimes ignorance is a blessing, so if you choose an option that seems simple rather than something that looks obscure or complicated, you get a pass as long you don't abuse. Too bad for the balance or the flavour if you need convoluted means to achieve them.

[HurinTheCursed]

You are right that "I move and roll vs AC to Daze" and "I move and roll vs AC to Forceful Hand" both roll against attack. However notice how "I move and attack" implies merely an attack roll and a damage roll or at the very least implies the damage roll is of prime importance. Likewise notice how by calling the action by what is trying to be done suddenly I cannot sum all of the attempts into 1.

Which do you think is more honest:
"I move and expend a spell slot, he moves and attacks"
or
"I move and cast _insert spell_, he moves and rolls vs AC for _insert point of the action_"
I know which I think is more honest and which I think is critically underselling. Wizards still have a massive advantage so we don't need to stoop to underselling to show the difference.

For example:
I move and try to knock the orc into that pit
I move and try to stagger that giant
I move and try to knock the troll off balance
I move and try to frighten the goblins
I move and try to ... (some more examples)
I move and try to charm the harpy
I move and try to entangle the treant
I move and try to roast the knight
I move and try to blind the guards
I move and try to summon a small army of animals
I move and try to ... (lots of unspoken examples remaining)


Casters can have tenths of spells but they still enter in few categories such as blast, buff, debuff, control, save or suck or a mix. But there are more flavours, saves, resistance, schools, elements, single / multi targets... everything is multidimensional, feels more unique and can be changed everyday.
Since D&D doesn't not care if you aim for a body part or another you mainly aim for HP, true. Meleers have to specialize and outside ToB, they don't have many options for each attack. They can choose a target, they can choose between the few tricks they have, but cannot decide they will grapple tommorrow because they expect to fight halfling rogues when the caster will decide to pick spells targetting will.
Some mundane characters are given more choices (use melee or range, which arrow should I pick, should I use a "special attack", frighten, tumble, jump, use a limit per day power, find and use an equipment fitting the situation...) even more with ToB, but having several good options is probably more the exception than the rule.

Mundane can be highly ineffective and boring or very useful and interesting. Move and attack is usually the former, move and full attack gets closer to the latter. Additionnal actions give them more options which makes them both more effective and more interesting to play. Once they are "effective enough", they can choose another specialty for more diversity.