Quote Originally Posted by Deepbluediver View Post
When I originally did two-weapon fighting I had prerequisites like: BAB+7 or "Dex 13 and BAB+3"; but that seemed very complicated. I was trying to simplify things.
If you think the 13/15/17 setup is not high enough, I could change it to 13/16/19 or even 13/17/21 I guess, but I really don't like forcing melee classes to make such huge sacrifices to achieve basic levels of competency.
Mostly, I would encourage you not to raise ability score prerequisites, but choose one or the other. I don't think having either/or works.

The way I've always seen it interpreted is that there really isn't a change in battle strategies, just a difference in who they focus.
You should try and focus on that then. Rather than restricting an opponent to a single course of action by completing a simple effect, you should exclude them from the course of action you don't want them to take.
That is, rather than making the effect "they must attack you if you hit them" say "they may not attack anyone else if you hit them." That way, all other actions are still open to them.

Is the DC really that much worse? I know that there are lots of methods to improve caster-level, and casters tend to be able to boost their one relevant stat much higher. My reasoning for making it full progression instead of 1/2 was that I've read complaints about the save DC for the monk's stunning fist being too low. What formula does ToB use?
Yes. It is really that much worse.
You basically double the main part of the formula by doing it that way, which is an extra +10 across 20 levels. When looking at a d20 system, every 1 is a 5% chance.
So you make it 50% more likely than a normal DC to be successful by doing it like this.

It's not quite as dry cut as that, obviously- but that gives you the basic idea of how drastic it is.

A few things to note about your stunning fist comparison- first, the monk is MAD. It's generally assumed that they will have low ability scores, which will further lower the DC. In addition, you may not use it more than once per round. In addition, it only works a limited number of times per day (and the attempt is declared before you know if it will even come into play). It also incorporates a wide number of entities that cannot be affected (daze is able to affect far more creatures).

Tome of Battle uses the same DC calculation as Spells, which incidentally, is also based on the 10+1/2HD+Stat calculation that nearly every save in the game is based on. The only difference is that instead of 1/2 HD, spells and maneuvers use Maneuver or Spell level... incidentally, most characters have access to a spell or maneuver level equal to no more than half their HD.

Also also, I changed shield bash so that rather than being 2WF, it just replaces normal attacks, meaning you can't do this multiple times a turn until at least level 6.
I was already aware of that. It's still too much.

What kind of creature can you hit with 8 times your normal damage and not have it explode into chunky little bits anyway? At worst, this seems like a melee version of Save or Die spells, except it's based on the attacker's roll instead of the target's.
Four times, actually. But part of my point was that even if you're just using a keen falchion (something which only uses core material and is really simple to spot), you're dealing enough ability damage (6d4) to drop anything in one critical hit.

Here's the thing- if you argue that a critical hit should drop someone anyway, then this feat is worthless, because it doesn't do anything you couldn't do already. If you argue that a critical hit shouldn't drop someone, then this feat is overpowered, because it's quite easy to use it to drop someone every time you get a critical hit.

If you must keep it tied to critical hits, don't make the ability damage amount tied to the crit range. Disassociate it so it isn't so easily blown out of proportion.

Yes, yes it is, but it's only a penalty. It makes things harder but it doesn't really "stop" very much.
Technically, while your attack rolls are penalized, you can instead still hit. But you're far less likely to hit, so it makes it a much worse option.
Technically, while your armor is penalized, the enemy might still miss. But if they're only missing on a handful of rolls, then you're really just quibbling over details.
No, it doesn't all out stop things. But at higher levels, it reduces their effectiveness enough that they become irrelevant.

For the saves, I really REALLY like counting on full BAB; I think it makes BAB more important, which certainly helps melee-heavy classes. What if I took out the +10 part? That means its a little low at low levels, but you where worried about the feats being OP anyway.
By making BAB the all important stat, you do combative classes with lower BAB- of which there are quite a few- a significant disservice. Incarnate, Psychic Warrior, Swordsage- you can find combative scouts, rogues, and factotums too.
I think you'd be well advised to find another method that keeps the DC scaling on a similar level to other DCs.

Also, AoO are triggered by a lot of things, but to my knowledge the easiest and most generally available method of being able to make an AoO more than once per round relies on Combat Reflexes and a Dexterity score. And since reach weapons are 2-handed, there's no real other benefit for a Reach-build to stack dexterity.
The reason to have reach is to make an AoO based build. That's generally what they're really good at and good for.

What if instead of ending the turn, it just stops that action? For example, if some one provokes the AoO by moving, they can't move but they still have their standard action? Or if you interupt a spell or grapple attempt or something, they can still move?
Making the effect vague like that generally has consequences outside of your vision. It's better to decide on a simple, clear effect that matches your vision, and doing that.
Also, I can picture pairing it with something like Karmic Strike to ensure that no fighter ever gets off more than one or two attacks against you.