PDA

View Full Version : [3.5] Elusive Target



Gorbash
2008-09-14, 09:12 PM
If I, as a DM, use Elusive Target with my NPCs against PCs to negate Power Attack, would they be aware that they're not doing any extra damage to him?

If they're aware, then this seems like a one use only feat (which is a waste), since when they figure it out, they'll stop using it.

Aneantir
2008-09-14, 09:15 PM
If I, as a DM, use Elusive Target with my NPCs against PCs to negate Power Attack, would they be aware that they're not doing any extra damage to him?

If they're aware, then this seems like a one use only feat (which is a waste), since when they figure it out, they'll stop using it.

When using this feat, I generally rule that the attacking character rolls a spot check against a hide check to notice that the damage has been mitigated. That's a house-rule, though. Strictly RAW, they wouldn't notice the difference.

The_Snark
2008-09-14, 09:15 PM
I'm not sure, but it's not really a one-use only feat even if so. It prevents them from using that attack option, after all, which is one of the most common and reliable sources of damage for melee-types. (It also has other uses, at least one of which could easily be used against a PC.)

KillianHawkeye
2008-09-14, 09:25 PM
It really depends on your game, specifically "How abstract is abstract HP?"

If you normally describe the effects of damage in direct proportion to how much is dealt (or how much of their max HP it is) then they're going to notice the difference right away.

If you describe the effects of damage differently when at high HP than when at low HP (having the target only taking actual wounds once they're getting closer to death) then it will be much harder to notice or it will be similar to if the guy just had way more HP.

Gorbash
2008-09-14, 09:29 PM
Nah, we go by the HP = Damage done, but the thing is, that particular NPC also has Damage Reduction, so if I say that their attacks are not as effective as they should have been, maybe they'd atribute it to his DR?

Chronos
2008-09-14, 11:42 PM
I know that the name of a feat is just fluff, but I think it's instructive, here. It suggests to me that the way you're decreasing damage taken is by rolling with the punch, or the equivalent. So you could say something like "You swing hard and connect with your sword, but the villain shifts weight away from you as you hit, decreasing the impact of the blow". Taken in isolation, that could be interpreted as something like the rogue's Defensive Roll ability, or possibly just a low damage roll, but if the villain does it several times in a row, the player will probably figure out that something's up.

You shouldn't just outright say "Power attack didn't work"-- It's almost never a good idea for the DM to describe actions in metagame terms like that. But you should give the players at least some indication of what's going on. A trained warrior should have a good experience of how it feels when he hits something with his weapon, and should be able to feel when a blow isn't as solid as it should be.

Douglas
2008-09-15, 12:33 AM
Sooo, wizards can easily identify exactly what each other are doing but fighters don't get more than ambiguous hints? I find that hard to accept. An experienced melee combatant should be every bit as much of an expert on the tricks possible in melee combat as a wizard of the same level is on the tricks possible with magic. A skilled melee combatant of reasonably high level should be able to recognize that his strategy isn't working and why.

Elusive Target can be qualified for at level 6 by any full BAB class. That's the minimum for learning it. Recognizing it, or just figuring it out conceptually on seeing it for the first time, should be easier. At levels 1-3, I'd say it wouldn't be unreasonable to describe it in little more detail than "It's too advanced a technique for you to figure out just yet, but your hit didn't do as much damage as it should have." Any higher than that, give him straight mechanics - "Power Attack isn't working."

If the character doing the attacking is not a primary melee fighter then you could reasonably push the level up a bit, but such characters are unlikely to be using - or even have - Power Attack in the first place.

Tsotha-lanti
2008-09-15, 05:38 AM
If they're aware, then this seems like a one use only feat (which is a waste), since when they figure it out, they'll stop using it.

Are you kidding? A feat that denies Power Attack damage? That's pretty much the most hugely advantageous feat you can have in melee combat. (And it's still got the other two maneuvers associated with it, but I totally forget what they do.)

I'd say yes, they can tell that their opponent is nimbly dodging and negating their hugely powerful attacks - but you're not really obliged to tell them "Your Power Attack damage does nothing! NOZZING!" It would, however, make it easier for you if they tell you the non-PA damage.

Dhavaer
2008-09-15, 07:04 AM
(And it's still got the other two maneuvers associated with it, but I totally forget what they do.)

One of them lets you redirect an attack from an enemy that's flanking you to the other flanking enemy.

Eldariel
2008-09-15, 07:14 AM
And the final one allows you to make a free trip attempt against an opponent you provoked an AoO from if he misses. So it's a handy tool against AoO-builds too provided that you've got the AC. You don't even need to be able to reach the opponent to use the last ability!

Tsotha-lanti
2008-09-15, 01:11 PM
One of them lets you redirect an attack from an enemy that's flanking you to the other flanking enemy.

That's the stuff. Is the new target considered flatfooted or anything like that? If so, that's a nifty way to negate PA and (sometimes) sneak attack, the main sources of melee damage.

Epinephrine
2008-09-15, 02:34 PM
That's the stuff. Is the new target considered flatfooted or anything like that? If so, that's a nifty way to negate PA and (sometimes) sneak attack, the main sources of melee damage.

Yes:

"Diverting Defense – To use this maneuver, you must be flanked and you must designate one of the flanking attackers to be affected by your Dodge feat. The first attack of the round from the designated attacker automatically misses you and may strike the other flanking foe instead; the attacking creature makes an attack roll normally, and its ally is considered flat-footed. If the designated attacker is making a full attack against you, its second and subsequent attacks function normally."

Person_Man
2008-09-15, 02:47 PM
I'd say no, because it seriously dilutes the usefulness of the feat. Once the PC knows that they're not dealing extra damage, then they'll stop using Power Attack. While this by itself is helpful, its not nearly as helpful as having a PC take the To-Hit penalty without gaining any benefits.

Turn the situation around - if enemies did the same thing to a PC who had invested in it, then the PC would be royally pissed. So why should enemies have a structural disadvantage?

Tsotha-lanti
2008-09-15, 02:52 PM
Yes:

A new problem arises:

You have to decide whether you want to negate the melee monster's PA and redirect the rogue's sneak attack to the melee monster, or to make the melee monster PA-smack the rogue out of the battlefield...

:smallamused:

Frosty
2008-09-15, 02:54 PM
You're a trained combatant. You'll get more and more clues as the rounds go on. Eventually you'll notice that something's off. Not immediately, but eventually, the person attacking will notice.

mangosta71
2008-09-15, 02:56 PM
Not only should you not explicitly tell them that their PA does nothing, you should also word resistances/immunities/evasion to be abstract enough that the casters don't realize exactly what's going on either. He avoids all damage from a fireball? "He looks singed, but he's not slowing down."

Douglas
2008-09-15, 02:58 PM
Turn the situation around - if enemies did the same thing to a PC who had invested in it, then the PC would be royally pissed. So why should enemies have a structural disadvantage?
If I were playing that PC, I wouldn't be pissed at all. In fact, if he did not stop using Power Attack I would most likely be seriously annoyed at how unrealistically stupid the NPC was being.

A melee combat focused adventurer is an EXPERT on melee combat. Unless he is substantially below the level required to qualify for the feat, he should be able to figure it out very quickly. So should any similar NPC.

Frosty
2008-09-15, 03:01 PM
I'd say he can figure it out after landing 2 to 3 hits.

mangosta71
2008-09-15, 03:05 PM
Maybe a will save to keep his cool in the heat of battle. Most fighter types will say "I'm not doing enough damage. I should swing harder!" in this situation (if they're being roleplayed realistically). If he can keep his wits about him with the adrenaline pumping through his system, give him an int check. DC low enough that he'll probably realize what's up after a couple rounds, but not necessarily.

Prometheus
2008-09-15, 03:10 PM
Let the attacker make a BAB check against the opponent's Bluff.

Douglas
2008-09-15, 03:11 PM
Not only should you not explicitly tell them that their PA does nothing, you should also word resistances/immunities/evasion to be abstract enough that the casters don't realize exactly what's going on either. He avoids all damage from a fireball? "He looks singed, but he's not slowing down."
I fail to see how any of these would not be immediately obvious in character.

Resistance: "He's hit, but the burn marks are a lot smaller than you expected."
Immunity: "He ignores the fireball completely."
Evasion: "He dodges/ducks for cover/wraps himself in his cloak/etc, and comes out barely touched."

Each of these mechanics has drastically different fluff, and the difference should be obvious in character.


Maybe a will save to keep his cool in the heat of battle. Most fighter types will say "I'm not doing enough damage. I should swing harder!" in this situation (if they're being roleplayed realistically). If he can keep his wits about him with the adrenaline pumping through his system, give him an int check. DC low enough that he'll probably realize what's up after a couple rounds, but not necessarily.
If you are playing a low intelligence hot-headed barbarian, maybe. If you are playing a skilled fighter, an appropriate first reaction would be "This guy's rolling with my blows too well. I need to be more careful about my attacks so he can't do that."

mangosta71
2008-09-15, 03:35 PM
Resistance: "He's hit, but the burn marks are a lot smaller than you expected."
Immunity: "He ignores the fireball completely."
Evasion: "He dodges/ducks for cover/wraps himself in his cloak/etc, and comes out barely touched."

Each of these mechanics has drastically different fluff, and the difference should be obvious in character.


Well, evasion in the case of fireball, you could say that the caster's view is obscured by the explosion, so he can't really see what the monster/NPC does. Maybe his cloak and hair are briefly aflame, or he has surface burns that look bad but they actually aren't. On immunity, unless his clothing is immune, there could be enough damage there to make it appear to have hit and dealt damage. Resistance could have the same appearance of the target making the save or having more hit points.

Spiryt
2008-09-15, 03:39 PM
If I, as a DM, use Elusive Target with my NPCs against PCs to negate Power Attack, would they be aware that they're not doing any extra damage to him?

I will join the "should be aware" choir. Possible "realise this" checks should be fairly easy Intelligence checks. Some stereotypical, dumb 8th Intelligence Half Orc could have problems, but some more average 10 - 12 Int guy should be able to tell it.


Trying to land a blow against you can be a maddening experience.

The fact that you aren't able to land a good blow should be arguably visible to anyone.



If they're aware, then this seems like a one use only feat (which is a waste), since when they figure it out, they'll stop using it.

Eh, so what? Power attack with it's additions (Leap Attack, Favored PA, Shock Trooper, Frenzied Berzerker abilites and many more) is the absolutely best source of damage for Fighter types, and arguably the best source of damage in game (don't counting Tippy's orb cheese and so).

The whole fact that you're immune to it makes ET very solid feat IMO.


Maybe a will save to keep his cool in the heat of battle. Most fighter types will say "I'm not doing enough damage.

Not really. The whole point of Elusive Target is that it doesn't make your body steel or something, but that you can move in combat in such way that landing a good, clean strike on you is impossible.

Wolfpack
2008-09-15, 04:48 PM
Just a point of note. A Human Wizard level 8 with 18 starting Int and 5 ranks in knowledge arcana has a +19 Spellcraft check. Meaning that he automatically, even on a one, identifies every spell of level 5 and lower.

That means he has not just encyclopedic knowledge of all spells level 5 and under (as well as 90% of those over level 5), but that in the midst of combat there is 0 chance that he won't recognize his opponents spell.

I'd argue that any Fighter has a similar 0 percent failure chance to recognize a feat that he himself could haven taken, if he was built differently. If wizards can identify obscure druid spell number 65657, I'm sure the fighter can figure out that his opponent is avoiding his extra power attack damage.

Epinephrine
2008-09-15, 05:35 PM
I'd probably allow an easy enough check to tell that the blow wasn't that effective, but I'd make it an opposed check if the "Elusive Target" has Bluff. I'd probably make it a base of an Int check, though if an opposed check were required, I'd allow Heal or Sense Motive to serve as the skills used - either to gauge the actual injury via Heal, or to sense the Bluff via Sense Motive.

Spiryt
2008-09-15, 05:48 PM
When I think about it, the problem is that this feat is just way too outright flat.

Why it makes Power attacking completely impossible?

Making it something like

" If that foe uses the Power Attack feat against you, the foe gains bonus to damage equal to 1 additonal point of damage for each - 3 penalty on attack rolls he take, rounded down (in case of penalty -2 or -1, no additional damge)"

would be more logical.

It would probably make the feat much weaker, so some other manuever could be add (preferably some anti magic stuff - someone is all elusive and stuff, but have about the same ability to escape solid fog like average frog). Or just take away this useless Mobility from prerequisities.

I wandered into Homebrew territory, but what do you think?

Idea Man
2008-09-15, 10:33 PM
I, for one, am fine with anyone who actively is entering melee combat being able to identify when a power attack doesn't hit home. Makes the opponent all the more frightening. :smallamused:

As for changing the feat, I don't see the need. If you have two characters with power attack (not a typical arrangement, but by no means impossible), one should be able to land a power attack. If you don't have that luxury, you're stuck with a long, drawn-out fight, until one of the spellcasters nips the bad guy in the bud.

I had the joy of using a hexblade-bladesinger with this feat against my party in tight quarters. The barbarian and the rogue couldn't get any devastating hits in, and the magic wolf she conjured (I can't remember the real name of the spell, but it's cool) was keeping the cleric and wizard dancing. I love testing my players limits. :smallbiggrin: