Insightful Strike - Tome of Battle

[Irreverent Fool]

Among the 3rd-level maneuvers in the Tome of Battle is a delicious little Diamond Mind maneuver called 'Insightful Strike'. When you successfully strike an opponent with it, you do damage equal to the result of a Concentration check. The maneuver specifically states: "Your Strength modifier, your weapon's magical properties, and any other extra damage you normally deal do not modify this check (including extra damage from class abilities, feats, or spells)."

That seems pretty straight forward. What I'd like to know is if I can get a critical hit or not. Given the description, I would tend to say you can't since I would put criticals under the heading of 'other extra damage you normally deal' as well as the fact that the SRD says 'a critical hit means that you roll your damage more than once' and no damage is actually being rolled here.

The reason I ask is because I'm currently playing a 6th-level Mongrelman Warblade in a fairly run-of-the-mill game. I usually soak up attacks with my tower shield and large HPs. Nobody is optimized despite our ability to build world-shattering monstrositites. We're just having fun. I never intended to be making players jaws drop and the DM's brow furrow with my character's damage. But in our game we came to the conclusion that I can critical with this ability (we didn't really dissect the description) and on a confirmed critical, I happened to roll a 20 on my concentration check, resulting in a 37 (9 ranks, +6 con mod, +2 blade meditation) while using a battleaxe (x3). Sooooo I did 111 damage. (We flat-multiply in this game rather than rolling multiple damage).

Can you acheive a critical hit with Insightful Strike? Is it a bad idea to allow it to?

[Reel On, Love]

Insightful Strike replaces your melee damage. It has no effect on your ability to critical, the damage for which is based off of your damage roll concentration check.

You can, in fact, crit with Insightful Strike. I don't see why this is a problem--x3 crits are always going to hurt. An Insightful Strike crit compared to a normal crit is the same damage ratio as an Insightful Strike compared to a normal attack.

ETA: to use Insightful Strike you're giving up a full attack (but gaining mobility).

[Fako]

I personally don't allow Insightful Strike to crit for a few reasons:

1) It's really easy to up your skill check. Skill Focus (Con) is +3 for only one feat, and you can get a magic item that grants +10 to Concentration for a mere 10,000 gp.

2) You're rolling a d20 and adding that to your Concentration. At level 6, if you have +0 on your CON and you put max ranks in Concentration, you do anywhere from 7 to 27 points of damage. This is before adding in reason #1.

3) Greater Insightful Strike. It does damage equal to double the check result on a successful hit, meaning you can do quite an incredible amount of damage. If you allow criticals to apply for the lesser version of an ability, then they apply to the greater version as well. I have a level 13 Warblade using this ability to do (on average) 70 damage whenever he connects with it... Imagine if you did that with a x3 critical weapon and allowed criticals to stack... 210 damage on average on a critical... painful... and he normally rolls low on the Concentration check...

Well, that's my two copper... both sides of the reasoning make sense. It's still damage, so criticals should work. But if you allow criticals to work, then it's going to greatly overpower the ability whenever a critical is landed. However, you guys don't optimize, so some of the concern is lessened.

[Reel On, Love]

But the x3 critical on Insightful Strike should be compared to a normal x3 critical. If the normal Insightful Strike damage isn't a problem compared to normal damage, why is the critical a problem?

[Fako]

Because ToB is meant to up the power of melee classes to that of arcane casters through a "spell" system. (Yes, I know they're maneuvers, but they're level 1~9...) With this in mind, just compare Insightful Strike (3rd level) to Fireball (also 3rd level).

At level 6, Insightful Strike does (assuming a +2 CON) 9~29 damage with an attack roll to hit. However, no save.

Fireball does 6~36 damage with no attack roll. However, it allows a save for half, and hits multiple targets.

Those look pretty balanced to me when put in those terms due to the fact that the Warblade has potentially infinite uses a day. Add in the critical modifier, and that's where it gets troublesome...

The OP did 111 damage with a 3rd level maneuver; Fireball caps out at 60 when you hit level 10... just over half of what the critical did... and at four levels sooner... ouch.

There are also weapons that do x4 damage on a crit (Scythe). Put that in and he would have done 138 damage, more than double what a Fireball or Lightning Bolt can do. :smalleek:

Also compare this to Iron Heart's level 9 maneuver (I don't have the book with me at the moment). The maneuver adds 100 damage to a normal melee attack at level 17. It also forces you to give up your full attack, similar to Insightful Strike. However, you get this 12 levels later... and while your weapon will be better then, so will your Concentration modifier, keeping them around the same power level (if you score a crit with Insightful Strike).

Complete Arcane includes rules for criticals using weaponlike spells (Scorching Ray, etc.) The rule is that it does x2 on a roll of a natural 20. Since the Maneuvers can be compared to Spells, you could consider this as an alternate. That would tone it down a bit, and (in my opinion) make it a bit more reasonable...

Please note that this isn't meant to be a rant or anything... I'm trying to point out facts... I'm sorry if I said anything offensive... That was not the idea...

Also, one more point to consider: I have 2 powergamers in my group that I have to keep in line, so I always err on the side of caution...

As always, your game means your rules. Feel free to disregard me completely if you want to... :smallbiggrin:

[Thrawn183]

You're comparing a 9th level maneuver to.... what?

When you look at how much damage is actually done with that maneuver (+100), look at how much health enemies have at that level! When combined with a recovery mechanic, its really not all that impressive.

Edit: Let me put it this way. You'll probably kill anybody that you hit that has only a little more than 100 hp. Power Word Kill can guarantee almost that with no save.... Power word stun can disable enemies with even more hp (again, no save).

That maneuver really isn't ludicrous.

[Fako]

I was comparing a level 9 maneuver to a level 3 maneuver to show how ludicrously powerful the level 3 one is if criticals are allowed...

[Reel On, Love]

Because ToB is meant to up the power of melee classes to that of arcane casters through a "spell" system. (Yes, I know they're maneuvers, but they're level 1~9...) With this in mind, just compare Insightful Strike (3rd level) to Fireball (also 3rd level).

At level 6, Insightful Strike does (assuming a +2 CON) 9~29 damage with an attack roll to hit. However, no save.

Fireball does 6~36 damage with no attack roll. However, it allows a save for half, and hits multiple targets.

Those look pretty balanced to me when put in those terms due to the fact that the Warblade has potentially infinite uses a day. Add in the critical modifier, and that's where it gets troublesome...
And Fireball is a weak spell for its level, while Insightful Strike is a strong maneuver for its level. Damage is something Warblades are supposed to be good at; it's not something Wizards are particularily good at.


The OP did 111 damage with a 3rd level maneuver; Fireball caps out at 60 when you hit level 10... just over half of what the critical did... and at four levels sooner... ouch.

There are also weapons that do x4 damage on a crit (Scythe). Put that in and he would have done 138 damage, more than double what a Fireball or Lightning Bolt can do. :smalleek:
So what? That critical happens less than 5% of the time (roll a 20, make the confirmation roll). If you confirm half the time, that means the maneuver does a little under 2 points more on average. It's just that those extra points are gathered together in each critical.


Also compare this to Iron Heart's level 9 maneuver (I don't have the book with me at the moment). The maneuver adds 100 damage to a normal melee attack at level 17. It also forces you to give up your full attack, similar to Insightful Strike. However, you get this 12 levels later... and while your weapon will be better then, so will your Concentration modifier, keeping them around the same power level (if you score a crit with Insightful Strike).
Your concentration check will be 23, let's be generous and say +5 from CON, +2 from a Masterwork tool. Hell, let's buy a +30 item, for a check of 58. That's about 60% of the +100, since x3 criticals happen less than 5% of the time. And then we factor in the strength (let's say 30, x1.5 for a two-handed weapon for ), the +5 weapon, the weapon damage itself, the weapon's special abilities... that's, what, 15+5+2d6+another 2d6 at least. Oh, and Power Attack. And all of that except the last 2d6 multiplies on a critical.
Iron Heart's level 9 maneuver is one of the lamer ones, to boot.


Complete Arcane includes rules for criticals using weaponlike spells (Scorching Ray, etc.) The rule is that it does x2 on a roll of a natural 20. Since the Maneuvers can be compared to Spells, you could consider this as an alternate. That would tone it down a bit, and (in my opinion) make it a bit more reasonable...
What? Why? Weapon damage is being multiplied, and should follow the usual rules.
How is being hit with a high-damage critical (rare) any different from failing a save vs. Phantasmal Killer (more likely) or any single-save-or-lose (much more likely)?


Please note that this isn't meant to be a rant or anything... I'm trying to point out facts... I'm sorry if I said anything offensive... That was not the idea...

Also, one more point to consider: I have 2 powergamers in my group that I have to keep in line, so I always err on the side of caution...

As always, your game means your rules. Feel free to disregard me completely if you want to... :smallbiggrin:
You're neglecting the fact that critical hits are freaking rare. That x3 multiplier kicks in 5% of the time in an ideal case, and actually, there are confirmation rolls, crit-immune creatures, and so on.
If you don't like occasional large spikes in damage, make x3 weapons 19-20 x2 and x4 weapons 18-20 x2. 20 x3 and x4 weapons result in really high damage on rare occasions. This is how criticals work, and it has nothing to do maneuvers. A level 6 fighter critting with a greataxe can do more damage than a level 17 fighter landing a normal attack in just the same way that a crit on Insightful Strike can possibly do more damage than the 9th level Iron Heart maneuver.

You also seem to be totally ignoring the fact that a greataxe or scythe crit does huge damage, very likely to kill whatever it hits, even *without* the maneuver.

[SurlySeraph]

Wow... I'd never heard of Insightful Strike before. I really need to buy ToB one of these days. Even not allowing crits, this gives me so many optimization ideas... *scurries off to the WoTC CharOp boards, to review how the Diplomancer works*

Hmm... can you use Aid Another on a Concentration check?

[Talya]

This isn't a balance issue. In fact, if he can pull off a full attack instead, he'll usually outdamage it.

[Fako]

I have to congratulate you, sir... You've convinced me. I had been looking at it from a spell standpoint, not a weapon standpoint. With what you've pointed out, the crit doesn't seem that obscene...

[Reel On, Love]

I have to congratulate you, sir... You've convinced me. I had been looking at it from a spell standpoint, not a weapon standpoint. With what you've pointed out, the crit doesn't seem that obscene...

Frankly, besides there being nine levels of them, maneuvers have basically nothing to do with spells. Examining them as if they were is almost always a mistake.

[AslanCross]

I find it really strange that the Insightful Strike maneuver does not stack with the Swordsage's Discipline Focus (Insightful Strike) Wis-to-damage ability or the Swashbuckler's Insightful Strike Int-to-damage bonus. It would really rock if all those worked together, though. After all, the fluff of the maneuver says that you use the power of your mind instead of your brawn.

[Leon]

It makes sense.

you roll the attack, it comes up a 20 and is confirmed = your "insight" lead you to strike at the neck of the target

[shaggz076]

Because ToB is meant to up the power of melee classes to that of arcane casters through a "spell" system. (Yes, I know they're maneuvers, but they're level 1~9...) With this in mind, just compare Insightful Strike (3rd level) to Fireball (also 3rd level).



To be fair you should at least compare insightful strike to a spell that has a touch attack since you can crit on touch spells. As such, lets us Vampiric Touch as our sample spell:

Insightful Strike @ 6th level (18 Con) gives you 1D20+13 Damage. With a x2 crit you can deal a maximum of 66 Damage and that is the only effect.

Vampiric Touch @ 6th level gives you 3D6 damage and an equal amount of life. With the x2 crit you deal a maximum of 36 damage but you gain 36 hp for a total hp gain/loss of 72.

Now when using a compareable single target spell with a similar chance to crit you can see that it is more on par with a spell of the same level than being more overpowered. And even so if you were to consider the mass effect of Fireball then even without having a chance for crit you blow the total amount of damage potential out of the water. After all how many targets could you effectively hit with a fireball compared to a single target.

[sombrastewart]

In all honesty, Tome of Battle is one of, if not my favorite source book.

Maneuvers in ToB aren't spells, and as was said, comparing them as such is incorrect. The major assumptions to make are:

1) For most maneuvers, you have to hit with a melee weapon. At best, you've got reach to do this with, but that's far less than close (25 ft +5 ft/level) range for a spell.

2) Strikes always have to hit on that melee roll, and usually with full AC.

3) Would you do better with just a flat-out full attack? That's the problem with Iron Heart's level 9 strike; plus 100 damage at that level for one strike doesn't mean squat. The level 7 maneuver from Stone Dragon, Ancient Mountain Hammer, adds 12d6 damage that bypasses DR and hardness. Is Ancient Mountain Hammer better with a weapon that's got three elemental damage types than the same weapon doing a full attack action? (ie: greatsword, 2d6, plus 3 elemental damages, 3d6 total, brings up 17d6 for the maneuver as opposed to a full attack at the same level that does 5d6 per hit, for 15d6. However, blow your attack roll with the maneuver and it's all gone, as opposed to having 3 attacks at the same level, so you'd still be doing some damage.)

Sorry, had to edit a typo.

[Roderick_BR]

I can't check now, but I think somewhere in the ToB, they state that damage from maneuvers doesn't crit, like the extra dices from the Stone Dragon maneuvers, and those extra static damage from Iron Heart maneuvers. I don't know if the bonus from Insightful Strike is considered a "maneuver damage", and thus not crittable. But since he replaces the normal damage, it seems fair to allow it.

[ChaosDefender24]

Before this thread explodes any further, I think the issue here is whether or not insightful strike can crit, not whether or not you personally think it's balanced, and therefore that is what we should discuss.

As for myself, I think that since the critical is applied AFTER the damage is calculated, it works.

[Reel On, Love]

I can't check now, but I think somewhere in the ToB, they state that damage from maneuvers doesn't crit, like the extra dices from the Stone Dragon maneuvers, and those extra static damage from Iron Heart maneuvers. I don't know if the bonus from Insightful Strike is considered a "maneuver damage", and thus not crittable. But since he replaces the normal damage, it seems fair to allow it.

That would be "extra" or "bonus" damage (I forget which word is used), like the +2d6 from Mountain Hammer or +1d6+IL from Burning Blade or +100 from the Iron Heart strike. Insightful Strike replaces your normal damage.

[SpikeFightwicky]

3) Would you do better with just a flat-out full attack? That's the problem with Iron Heart's level 9 strike; plus 100 damage at that level for one strike doesn't mean squat. The level 7 maneuver from Stone Dragon, Ancient Mountain Hammer, adds 12d6 damage that bypasses DR and hardness. Is Ancient Mountain Hammer better with a weapon that's got three elemental damage types than the same weapon doing a full attack action? (ie: greatsword, 2d6, plus 3 elemental damages, 3d6 total, brings up 17d6 for the maneuver as opposed to a full attack at the same level that does 5d6 per hit, for 15d6. However, blow your attack roll with the maneuver and it's all gone, as opposed to having 3 attacks at the same level, so you'd still be doing some damage.)


Another factor is the non-dice damage bonus. Suppose that sword is a +3, and the melee-ist has 30 strength. That means that Ancient Mountain Hammer deals 17d6 + 15 damage, but the full attacking melee-ist deals 15d6+45. Depending on how often the melee-ist can hit with his iterative attacks, he'll be possibly dealing alot more damage. However, this is balanced by him having a much smaller chance of cashing in all 3 attacks. This doesn't fact in DR, however.

[shaggz076]

Before this thread explodes any further, I think the issue here is whether or not insightful strike can crit, not whether or not you personally think it's balanced, and therefore that is what we should discuss.

As for myself, I think that since the critical is applied AFTER the damage is calculated, it works.

Well I happen to have the book at hand. Do you know where the notation regarding crits would be? I looked at the "Martial Powers" and "Maneuver and Stance" portions of the book and I found that they don't multiply on a crit. Page 42 - 43 "Strikes: You can make a critical hit with a strike, and in a few cases, a critical hit grants you additional benifits. You do not multiply extra damage from a strike with a successful critical hit. You treat it just as you would extra damage from another special ability, such as sneak attack.


SORRY I had to edit this as I looked a little closer and came across the answer we were all looking for.

[Reel On, Love]

Shaggz is actually right. Double-checking the ToB and some FAQ threads on it, ToB doesn't talk about maneuver bonus damage anywhere.

The relevant rule is in the PHB: flat bonus damage multiplies; bonus damage dice do not. The +100 would indeed multiply on a crit; the 20d6 from the ninth-level Tiger Claw strike would not.

[shaggz076]

Sorry, I had to edit my previous post as it does indeed have a notation about it. Please re-read my previous note.

[Shhalahr Windrider]

However, blow your attack roll with the maneuver and it's all gone, as opposed to having 3 attacks at the same level, so you'd still be doing some damage.)
Remember, iterative attacks are at a reduced bonus. How likely are we to see all your attacks hit? Not very.

Let's take your example. Say I have that elemental greatsword and take three iterative attacks with my highest bonus at +25 versus a fella with AC 35. Ignoring for the moment Strength bonus to damage, Power Attack, and the possibility that my opponent is immune, vulnerable, or resistant to any of the elemental damage, you average only about 15 damage per full attack. Assuming you get the opportunity to full attack.

Conversely, putting all your damage into one accurate blow, that Stone Dragon maneuver averages about 27 damage per hit. And it can be performed with just a standard action.

[shaggz076]

Conversely, putting all your damage into one accurate blow, that Stone Dragon maneuver averages about 27 damage per hit. And it can be performed with just a standard action.

...And only a mximum of twice an encounter...if you use your recover maneuver ability.

[Roderick_BR]

Shaggz is actually right. Double-checking the ToB and some FAQ threads on it, ToB doesn't talk about maneuver bonus damage anywhere.

The relevant rule is in the PHB: flat bonus damage multiplies; bonus damage dice do not. The +100 would indeed multiply on a crit; the 20d6 from the ninth-level Tiger Claw strike would not.
Suddenly keen kurkris, rapiers, and scimitar becomes awesomelly powerful. As does keen lances and scythes.
Imagine a large group of characters with keen weapons (or with improved critical), and you unleash a Warmaster's Charge (that is already cheesy as it is).

As for the Stone Dragon manuevers, most of them are good if you want to avoid rolling a lot of different attacks, or when dealing with DR, since most maneuvers ignore DR at all.

[Yakk]

The real issue is the balance problem with weapons.

The Scimitar/Rapier/Pick all have 3 crit pips each. Keen they have 6.

That's +30% damage on average.

Meanwhile, a keen longsword grants +20%, and the keen 1-pip weapons get +10%.

Ie: crit monkey weapons become the clear weapon of choice for the concentration-based damage dealer.

[Douglas]

Shaggz is actually right. Double-checking the ToB and some FAQ threads on it, ToB doesn't talk about maneuver bonus damage anywhere.
Yes it does. I don't have my book with me to look up the exact page reference, but I remember reading it quite clearly. It's somewhere in the section talking about maneuver effects, I think, and goes something like this: "bonus damage from maneuvers is not multiplied on critical hits". I'll post the page number tonight if no one beats me to it.

[shaggz076]

Yes it does. I don't have my book with me to look up the exact page reference, but I remember reading it quite clearly. It's somewhere in the section talking about maneuver effects, I think, and goes something like this: "bonus damage from maneuvers is not multiplied on critical hits". I'll post the page number tonight if no one beats me to it.

I already corrected this with the page number and heading it is listed under. Read my previous notes...

[Talya]

And since insightful strike does neither "bonus damage" nor "extra damage", neither way of reading it apply. Insightful strike does standard damage, it's just different standard damage than the weapon normally does. Therefore, it can crit.

[Shhalahr Windrider]

...And only a mximum of twice an encounter...
:smallconfused:

You can use a maneuver as many times as you reready it. There's only a full on cap of 1/encounter for maneuvers gained through the martial study feat. No cap for martial adept classes.

But you are right to bring up recovery. At the bonus and AC in my example, two full attacks do better average damage than one ancient mountain hammer and a round of recovery. Though a warblade probably evens it out by being able to make a standard attack as part of his or her recovery.

[Frosty]

actually, as long as you perform any sort of melee attack after the swift action, you can recover maneuvers.

So, a full attack, or even a Charge can work.

[Yakk]

And since insightful strike does neither "bonus damage" nor "extra damage", neither way of reading it apply. Insightful strike does standard damage, it's just different standard damage than the weapon normally does. Therefore, it can crit.


A critical hit means that you roll your damage more than once, with all your usual bonuses, and add the rolls together. Unless otherwise specified, the threat range for a critical hit on an attack roll is 20, and the multiplier is ×2.

Exception: Extra damage over and above a weapon’s normal damage is not multiplied when you score a critical hit.

It could easily be read as "this is what normal damage is" -- ie, you would normally do 2d6+10 damage on a critical hit.

Insightful Strike replaces the normal damage with the concentration check. Under this interpretation, the 1d20+concentration skill replaces the 2d6+10.

[Uthug]

I always thought that Insightful Strike was more of a roll concentration against your opponent's AC then roll concentration to see damage dealt; nothing there about rolling attack rolls, so no crit. I might be wrong here, if so, just correct me, ok?

[Shhalahr Windrider]

actually, as long as you perform any sort of melee attack after the swift action, you can recover maneuvers.

So, a full attack, or even a Charge can work.
Okay. I was thinking the recovery specified a standard attack.

So This maneuver is really nice for a warblade. less so for a Crusader or Swordsage since they have to wait to recharge the maneuver.

[Fawsto]

The problem is that the manouver in question is not "bonus damage". It will replace your damage entirely. This make that rulke hard to apply to the situation.

Now, since it is :one: attack that deals such damage, it is ok to let it crit. A Warblade by lvl 20, even using improved insightful strike will have a hard time dealing more damage than he would with a full attack from his weapon. He wouldn't even need to PA with the weapon or use it 2handed, he just swings his +4 Flaming Burst Keen Longsword 4 times to deal something like (assuming the best chance of 3/4 hits) 1d8+1d6+4+4(strg bonus), or something like 45 (on average) points of damage, and 66 max. The same guy with the manouver will deal (if it conects) 2x 27 (concentration) + 1d20, on average 74 points of damage and a max of 94 points of damage. How can we compare this?

Option A: 4 attacks where at least 1 or 2 are expected to hit.
Magical benefits from the weapon.
A damn bigger chance to crit.
You can't move.

Option B: More damage than A
One chance, tigger. I hope you dont screw this.
You can move.
I guess you won't apply that "Flaming" when trying to overcome some DR or double afecting a creature, will you?

Sounds balanced to me.

Oh BTW. If this manouver was SO great, why the 9th level manouver would allow you to make 2 full attacks? If Insightful Strike (greater or not) was so good, why not something like "Ultimate Insightful Strike" dealing 4 times your concentration check in damage?

At least if you are so concearned with the crits, let it be a x2 crit.