1. - Top - End - #13
    Ogre in the Playground
    Deepbluediver's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    The US of A

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Amoren View Post
    Feint) I... Really don't like these rules.
    Between a bit of unclear wording (does it just replace the stat bonus to attack, so you get your base attack bonus + other bonuses + sleight of hand bonus, against your opponents armor + other bonuses + sense motive? Does an opponent that gets dex and constitution to armor class twice or more get their sense motive skill check twice or more to their armor class against this attack?), it also practically ruins the only viable feinting builds that I know of. It also ruins what Feinting is mostly used for now, catching a target off guard so you can make a sneak attack or other situational damage types that are dependent on it (as well as making it easier to hit someone on the follow up attack). Not to mention it doesn't really fit thematically, as it feels more like slipping the attack under their notice than a misdirection... But that's a minor point.

    I might make the recommendation of having Feint start as a move action, or keep it as a replace one of your attacks with a special skill check, using your base attack bonus + sleight of hand check against your opponents opposed role of base attack bonus + sleight of hand check (or some such). If you succeed, it works like the current feint rules, the enemy is treated as if its flat footed for your neck attack against them by the end of your next turn. Improved Feint would then improve upon this in some way (perhaps turning it from a move action to a swift action, or a move action to replacing an attack, or perhaps giving you a single 'free' feint attempt for the round), while Surprising Riposte (feat from Drow of the Underdark) would still work with this model of feinting. Invisible Blade less so, but oh well. Additionally, you could try to revamp the feinting rules to make feinting with a light, nimble weapon easier compared to feinting with a greatsword, but that's up to you.
    The intent was that your attack roll was equal to 1d20+Sleight of Hand bonus, and the AC was base AC+sense motive. In other words, getting rid of contributions from armor, strength, dexterity, and other features entirely.

    The thing that I didn't like about the original feint was that it didn't really seem to accomplish much all on it's own. It gave you a (very temporary) bonus against 1 target on your NEXT turn. This was one of my earlier attempts at revision, and I was trying to simplify everything so that you could roll some dice, resolve the attack, and be done with it.

    If I change it (or make another option) I would want to keep it all part of 1 turn. Almost anything I do will probably make it more complicated, but I'll try and come up with another option to replace the feinting rules.
    How about something like my other manuevers, which have different rules depending on how you want to use a Combat Manuever: you can feint as part of a move action, by reducing your speed by half (so you can move only half as far, then attack with a standard action), or you can feint at the start of a full-round attack, but you lose one attack roll. (i.e. 3 attacks would become a feint +2 attacks, etc).
    Neither Bluff nor Sleight of Hand fully encapsulate the options for misdirection. Bluff+SoH vs. Sense Motive+BAB starts to get close, but that involves a LOT of numbers in really un-standard ways.

    Two-Weapon Fighting) For the most part I like this, although I'm not entirely sold on the parry bonuses. And then having two-weapon defense on top of it. It seems like you're getting a huge benefit for something that's already potentially doubling your damage.
    The problem that TWF has always had with being purely damage-focuses is that it matches up 1-for-1 in regards to damage (as compared to 2-handers), but only when fighting a target without damage reduction. Because it has more, smaller hits, and DR applies seperately to each hit, TWF suffers more than using two-handed weapons in many high end encounters. So I decided that rather than trying to make it match up in terms of damage, there should be a different benefit.
    I did a little but of research (wikipedia) and it seemed like the most common style of two-weapon fighting with medieval European weaponry was to use a shorter off-hand weapon mostly as a defensive tool. And it was easier to strap a dagger to your hip than lug a shield around everywhere you went.
    The original rules regarding off-hand light weapons seemed to confirm that this was the original designer's intent, so it seemed to make sense to me that two-weapon fighting would aid survivability.

    Also, I might recommend shifting the secondary 'boon' from two-weapon fighting and improved two-weapon fighting around. Of course getting both hand attacks on a standard is important, but its probably best to not make dex-based two-weapon fighters wait for three levels until they can start using rapiers or longswords competently, especially if its important to their concept. And it makes sense that learning how to make two accurate strikes in the same amount of time as one would be a trait that took more time to learn than how to accurate swing a sword based off of dexterity.
    TWF was one of the first chains I worked on, I'll go back and take another look at it. And IMO, a Rapier should really be a light weapon; I've got a weapon fix in the works that will probably address that issue.

    Shield) The only real problem I have with this is reflect magic. It just seems... To much to me, and breaks my suspension of disbelief in the game. I could see it being an artifact shield which could reflect magic (*Coughmirrorshieldcough*). But a standard shield that a fighter just picked up..? Sorry, but I don't see it. However, I think the feat can be saved, and turned into something that allows a fighter to protect himself from magic with his shield. Say, that he can make the role to take cover behind his shield right as a magic spell is hurled at him to protect him. So it'd reflect such things as holding it up to stop a magic missile or scorching bolt, or even shield him from the effects of a fireball (mostly), but couldn't be used to slap the fireball back at its target. You could probably lower the feat requirements while doing so, too.
    The inspiration for the feat was WoW, though in D&D terms this ability probably looks more like a ToB Manuever. Part of my goal with ALL the shield-related feats was to make defensive builds be less passive, and since anyone in armor and using a shield already has plenty of physical resilience I wanted to give them something to do against magic. Plus, this means spellcaster have a reason to be afraid of the mundane character buried in so much armor he can barely move.
    I admit that there are probably magical effects that make even less sense than fireball, but in this case I'm going to leave it as is and let gameplay and mechanics dictate the fluff.

    The extended explanation for this feat is: the warrior who is the veteran (and more importantly a survivor) of dozens or hundreds of battles has seen and experienced magic in many forms. Although this warrior has never studied the arcane arts, through experience and countless hours of practice he has learned a few tricks for dealing with magic. The warrior probably doesn't even fully understand what it is he does, he simply reacts to situations as they unfold, trusting in his instincts to know what works and what doesn't, and continue to guide him through the fray.

    If all of that still doesnt satisfy you, then do just what you said; keep the feat as is, but simply have it negate the effects of a spell rather than bounce it back.
    Last edited by Deepbluediver; 2013-05-14 at 02:38 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!