1. - Top - End - #11
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Deepbluediver's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    The US of A

    Default Re: Feat Chains- THF, SnB, Reach, & Single-Weapon [PEACH]

    My response to your comments about saves have been grouped together at the end of the post. Everything else is in order.

    Quote Originally Posted by AmberVael View Post
    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.
    But WHY don't you think it will work?
    It's pretty easy to change my mind about little stuff like this, but you're going to have to try harder than "I don't think it will work because I don't like it".


    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.
    Done. I have also removed the necessity of having a shield for this feat and capped the number of targets you can effect.


    I was already aware of that. It's still too much.
    With the reduced save, do you still think it should be further capped at once per round or made into a standard action? You can deal damage with the shield bash, but I don't want it to seem like a wasted action if the dazing effect fails.


    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.
    *snip*
    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.
    I looked it over a lot, and decided that I still really like linking it to crit. I've removed the crit-range part of the calculation though, so hopefully it shouldn't scale so explosively.

    If I make it into a special attack, then I'd almost certainly also make it guaranteed ability damage because I don't think sacrificing a round's worth of HP damage for a CHANCE at non-Con ability damage is a good trade off. I will keep considering alternate options to refine this feat.


    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.
    *snip*
    No, it doesn't all out stop things. But at higher levels, it reduces their effectiveness enough that they become irrelevant.
    The penalty has been reduced by half, and I have capped the number of creatures you can penalize. Does that look better?


    The reason to have reach is to make an AoO based build. That's generally what they're really good at and good for.
    Ok, fair enough. I'll keep that in mind.

    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.
    What about this is vague, exactly? What sort of thing do you think it could affect that I wouldn't want it too?


    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.
    The feat is called LOCKDOWN, it's SUPPOSED to make it difficult to do things. I looked up Karmic Strike, and between all the prerequisites you've spent at least 5 feats on this build. That reminds me of something else, though I can't remember exactly what right now...

    Frankly, that would seem to be the textbook definition of a "build". A build isn't just any random feats slapped together; each choice is supposed to complement the others and open up new, more powerful options.


    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.

    ....

    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.
    Ok, I'll change it; but for now I'm sticking with BAB+Stat instead.

    Here's why: I think that WotC did melee-heavy classes a grave disservice when they valued a full BAB as highly as they did compared to other class features.
    Even when only considering combat, many of the partial BAB classes have other options to boost their power or get around immunities, high saves, and special defenses. A general rule of thumb could be: the better your BAB progression the lower a tier you end up in.

    In this case, I view it as giving the full-BAB classes something valuable. Yes, this means that it is a 5 point difference at level 20, but also recognize that the majority of many games take place at less than max level. Meaning the difference in success rate varies somewhere between 5% and 20%. For classes that are supposed to be more competent and powerful in combat, this does not seem unreasonable.
    Also, in the 6 combat styles, so far I count a grand total of 3 feats with saves: Roar of Challenge, Shield Strike, and Lockdown. It's not exactly like I'm making save DC's the be all and end all of combat.

    Medium BAB progression classes have a couple options:
    1) they can pick a combat style that is not reliant on saves
    2) they can focus on stacking the relevant stat higher to compensate
    1) they can multiclass for a few levels in a full BAB class to boost their BAB

    Overall, the balance does not seem gamebreaking to me. If you think I am wrong or this will cause problems, please explain.
    Last edited by Deepbluediver; 2013-01-15 at 11:02 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Rater202 View Post
    It's not called common because the sense is common, it's called common because it's about common things.
    Homebrew Extended Signature!