Results 1 to 10 of 10
-
2009-06-30, 01:25 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2009
What do you think of these feat changes?[D&D 3.5]
Consider the following in a campaign world where arcane magic is risky to use and the players prefer fireball to glitterdust:
If you made TWF a single feat that gave you an extra offhand attack every time your BAB gave you an attack.
If Weapon Focus gave you +1 attack at first level and for every additional 5 BAB you had.
If Weapon Specialization gave you +2 damage at first level and for every additional 5 BAB you had.
If battlefield control feats (trip, disarm, etc) gave you +4 plus an additional +1 for every 5 BAB you had to opposed checks.
If there was a feat to give you +1 to AC for light armor, +2 for medium, and +3 for heavy at first level and that amount again for every 5 BAB you had.
Feats that gave you your shield AC to touch AC and 1/2 your armor AC to touch AC.
A feat that gave you your shield AC to reflex saves.
A stunning fist mechanic for shield bashes, except were stuns/day equal = your fighter levels and 1/2 your other levels.
Rapid shot scales the same way TWF does.
Everyone gets weapon finesse for free.
You can take a feat to allow you to use dex instead of strength for damage and for your ranged weapons.
A feat to let you take -1 with ranged attacks for +1 damage.
A feat to let you add your BAB to damage for splash weapons.
A feat to let you make sneak attacks at 10ft * your BAB.
Please look at these feats in the context of brave knights and men-at-arms going toe-to-toe with dragons and other big nasties!
-
2009-06-30, 02:38 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2009
- Location
- Lustria
- Gender
Re: What do you think of these feat changes?[D&D 3.5]
The base is Core?
The two sentences are slightly different: in the first case, wiz. casting fireball are underpowered, so there's no reason to empower the meleers (even if some feats, in core, needs to be house-ruled).
In the second case, you are going to give an "epic" feeling (I'm not referring to epic levels) to the campaign, with fighters shining like young Sigfried.
In both cases, a agree that some feat can be rewritten. I'll point what (imo) are solutions "overpowered" or unimportant.
One additional attack since the first level? and 4 attack instead of two at 6th level? A little too much.
A feat that, at 10th level, gives me only a +2 on trip/disarm? Not worth the feat, imo.
+6 to AC at 10th level for my tank? this is a little too much
"touch" means physical contact: if i'm touching your armor, I'm touching you.
Keep in mind that there's a feat that gives you a +2 to ref. saves.
A feats that can give you easily a +5 is unbalanced.
A solution could be: apply some bonus to ref. saves, but only the shield basic AC, excluding the buckler. If the shield is magic, apply another +1.
This way, an heavy shield can give you a maximum of +3.
A tower is another matter.
why? how is this justified?
So, our 10th lev. rogue, is going to sneak from 70 feet?Last edited by Killer Angel; 2009-06-30 at 02:39 AM.
Do I contradict myself?
Very well then I contradict myself. I am large, I contain multitudes. (W.Whitman)
Things that increase my self esteem:
-
2009-06-30, 02:55 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Sep 2007
- Location
- West Midlands, UK.
Re: What do you think of these feat changes?[D&D 3.5]
Killer, he meant a +1 bonus to attack rolls rather then +1 attack. The feat changes look good, but the armour bonus one seems too powerful (I'd say having it as +1 AC+1/5 BAB would be better for that). Have you changed any other classses for this game, Myrmex?
"It doesn't matter what you think I'm supposed to be, 'cause I myself know all too well." Line from "King of My World" by Saliva.
Good itP 2009 winner,Cleric itP Winner.
Taking Reiki requests. PM me for details.Spoiler
-
2009-06-30, 03:10 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2009
- Gender
Re: What do you think of these feat changes?[D&D 3.5]
Well, here's a try. I'll put them by themes, so it sounds reasonable.
If you made TWF a single feat that gave you an extra offhand attack every time your BAB gave you an attack.
Rapid shot scales the same way TWF does.
I'd say to equal TWD as well in the same method.
If Weapon Focus gave you +1 attack at first level and for every additional 5 BAB you had.
If Weapon Specialization gave you +2 damage at first level and for every additional 5 BAB you had.
Sounds reasonable for when there's no magic weapons. Stacks rather swift with magic weapons.
If battlefield control feats (trip, disarm, etc) gave you +4 plus an additional +1 for every 5 BAB you had to opposed checks.
As for the Improved X feats, I'd go for this:
Bull Rush: deal damage when bull-rushing. Damage equal to unarmed damage per each 5 feet shoved.
Disarm: allows two maneuvers with it. Either do an attack with the disarmed weapon as a free action, or allow disarming of more difficult items with reduced/no penalty.
Feint: make regular Feint a move action, and make this feat turn it into a swift or free action. Also, equal the feat to the other Improved X feats mentioned here (+4 to the Bluff check to feint, +1 with BAB or similar prerequisite)
Grapple: treat self as one size category larger for purposes of grapple. This stacks with any other size increase. Evidently, this begs for a revision of Reaping Mauler, and the prerequisite feat.
Overrun: treat yourself as if you had the Trample feat, except you deal damage equal to your unarmed strike damage. Make extra feats that allow even more damage when mixing Improved Overrun and Trample; say, a feat that allows a mounted individual who succeeds on an overrun attempt with its mount and activates the Trample feat to gain a free attack, treating the opponent as prone.
Sunder: you disable the object instead of breaking it permanently. This is to use Sunder intelligently, and more. Repairing an object requires a Craft check or transmutation spells. You can choose whether to break or disable the object.
Trip: while it may seem odd, allow those who choose the feat to use their Dex modifier instead of their Str modifier if the latter is the highest, or force the individual to use their lower ability score. Or, allow to treat yourself as a size category larger for purposes of tripping. Oh, and...keep the extra attack.
Prerequisites for IBR, IO, and IS are fine. The prereqs for the rest are a bit off. I'd say replace Combat Expertise with Weapon Finesse, but I'll discuss about that later.
If there was a feat to give you +1 to AC for light armor, +2 for medium, and +3 for heavy at first level and that amount again for every 5 BAB you had.
Armor Optimization (heavy) could then become the requisite feat for Armor Specialization (heavy), which then grants you Damage Reduction equal to half the armor bonus (much like the variant from UA)
Feats that gave you your shield AC to touch AC and 1/2 your armor AC to touch AC.
A feat that gave you your shield AC to reflex saves.
As for armor...well, that can be made an enhancement, aren't we? Really, that would defeat the purpose of touch attacks after all.
As for the bonus to Reflex...only with light shields or bucklers. None of that thing for heavy shields. Though, there's a spell (Shield of Warding) that does exactly the same. That would allow for Mithral Heavy Shields to be considered light for purposes of this feat.
A stunning fist mechanic for shield bashes, except were stuns/day equal = your fighter levels and 1/2 your other levels.
Everyone gets weapon finesse for free.
You can take a feat to allow you to use dex instead of strength for damage and for your ranged weapons.
I'd go for replacing the feat with the dex-based damage, but only 1/2 damage. Much like Crossbow Sniper. Then, keep Crossbow Sniper and work a similar feat for non-composite bows. Finally, composite bows use Strength rather than Dexterity to hit. Since you're actually worried to pull the bow with the proper strength.
I'd also advocate replacing the former Combat Expertise-based feats with Weapon Finesse (or the melee version of the half Dex to damage feat). Add the following part: "if character has Ranged Disarm/Feint/Sunder/Trip feats, treat the (ranged version of half-Dex to damage) feat as Weapon Finesse/(equivalent) feat for purposes of qualifying for Improved Disarm/Feint/Sunder/Trip"
A feat to let you take -1 with ranged attacks for +1 damage.
A feat to let you add your BAB to damage for splash weapons.
A feat to let you make sneak attacks at 10ft * your BAB.
With that all analyzed...I'd add more points to it:
--Remember the oft ignored feats? All the specific feats that work like Alertness, but that you'd ignore because they're very static feats? Which make something like Skill Focus a bit more considerable? Well, make those feats increase by level. Skill Focus should basically replace Skill Mastery; i.e., getting the feat allows you to take 10 even under stress or distractions with a single feat. Rogues (and other classes/PrCs) retain the enhanced version of skill mastery.
--Same tiered progression for the Great Fortitude/Lightning Reflexes/Iron Will feats. Actually, make it something like "When you choose this feat, you are considered to have good saving throw progression in the specific saving throw. If you already have a good saving throw progression when choosing this feat, you gain a +1 bonus instead, +1 per each X character levels." Then, limit it to a single class. So, if you get Great Fortitude with Wizard (odd, but reasonable), it only replaces your Fort saving throw progression with the Wizard class, but not with any other class or PrC.
--Actually, same tiered progression for Improved Initiative and Improved Turning. That would make Improved Turning a bit more useful. Also, I'd add to Improved Turning: "if the result of your turning check is more than twice the HD of the affected undead, it is destroyed rather than turned (or controlled rather than rebuked)".
--While on it, make Dodge also a tiered progression. Also, make Spring Attack independent of Dodge/Mobility. Mobility would require only Dodge, Dex 13, and Tumble (6 or 9 ranks), and it would grant a further Dodge bonus (applicable to everyone) when moving (also, it should stack with Skirmish for hilarious results). Improved Dodge would grant the Dodge feat bonus to AC to extra individuals.
--Replace Combat Expertise with Improved Combat Expertise. Make a new feat branch based off defense. Or, make it part of the Dodge feat branch.
I guess I added more than I should, but it's the thought that counts.Retooler of D&D 3.5 (and 5e/Next) content. See here for more.
Now with a comprehensive guide for 3.5 Paladin players porting to Pathfinder. Also available for 5th Edition
On Lawful Good:
T.G. Oskar profile by Specter.
-
2009-06-30, 03:14 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2009
Re: What do you think of these feat changes?[D&D 3.5]
No; everything but ToB, MiC, PHB2, and Complete Champion.
In the second case, you are going to give an "epic" feeling (I'm not referring to epic levels) to the campaign, with fighters shining like young Sigfried.
In both cases, a agree that some feat can be rewritten. I'll point what (imo) are solutions "overpowered" or unimportant.
One additional attack since the first level? and 4 attack instead of two at 6th level? A little too much.
A feat that, at 10th level, gives me only a +2 on trip/disarm? Not worth the feat, imo.
+6 to AC at 10th level for my tank? this is a little too much
"touch" means physical contact: if i'm touching your armor, I'm touching you.
Keep in mind that there's a feat that gives you a +2 to ref. saves.
A feats that can give you easily a +5 is unbalanced.
A solution could be: apply some bonus to ref. saves, but only the shield basic AC, excluding the buckler. If the shield is magic, apply another +1.
This way, an heavy shield can give you a maximum of +3.
A tower is another matter.
why? how is this justified?
So, our 10th lev. rogue, is going to sneak from 70 feet?
Anyway, I don't really need input anymore, since I won't be using these fixes. I found a set of feats/classes that does exactly what I want:
http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=681572
-
2009-06-30, 03:30 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2009
- Location
- Lustria
- Gender
Re: What do you think of these feat changes?[D&D 3.5]
As Tempest Fennac pointed out, I didn't understood what you were saying. Your new feat was good.
Glad that you've found that.
Anyway (for discussion's sake), I agree about "only the shield", and yes, sniping is awesome, but i would rule that, at the distance 10*bab, you gain only half your sneak damage.
Good luck with your campaign, it sounds fun to play!Last edited by Killer Angel; 2009-06-30 at 03:31 AM.
Do I contradict myself?
Very well then I contradict myself. I am large, I contain multitudes. (W.Whitman)
Things that increase my self esteem:
-
2009-06-30, 03:37 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2009
Re: What do you think of these feat changes?[D&D 3.5]
Oskar:
I'm just going to skip to the points you disagree with.
These all look good. There's a link above that does even better with these types of feats, imo.
There's feats in Races of Stone (Heavy Armor Optimization and Greater HAO) that do roughly what you do. Those also reduce your armor check penalty, as well. I'd recommend to rework that feat for Medium or Heavy; Light shouldn't have that same benefits. Start with +1, then +1 per each five character levels.
Armor Optimization (heavy) could then become the requisite feat for Armor Specialization (heavy), which then grants you Damage Reduction equal to half the armor bonus (much like the variant from UA)
Shield Ward does that mentioned before, and it only requires Shield Specialization. I'd go with making Shield Specialization as per Weapon Focus fix.
As for armor...well, that can be made an enhancement, aren't we? Really, that would defeat the purpose of touch attacks after all.
As for the bonus to Reflex...only with light shields or bucklers. None of that thing for heavy shields. Though, there's a spell (Shield of Warding) that does exactly the same. That would allow for Mithral Heavy Shields to be considered light for purposes of this feat.
Uh, no? I support, though, Shield Slam with less prerequisites (Shield Charge as a prerequisite is actually silly) If you do have Stunning Fist, you can use the Shield Slam feat as a prerequisite for a stunning shield bash feat, and consider fighter or paladin levels in a 1-to-1 basis.
As a side note, these abilities are really tied to "martial level" which is tangentially related to BAB. Fighters & Paladins have full martial level, while wizards have none, rangers and barbs have level-4 and rogues have 3/4 level.
Weapon Finesse should actually be a class feature. You know...like Natural Spell. It makes no sense to make it a feat, when it's absolutely necessary.
I'd go for replacing the feat with the dex-based damage, but only 1/2 damage. Much like Crossbow Sniper. Then, keep Crossbow Sniper and work a similar feat for non-composite bows. Finally, composite bows use Strength rather than Dexterity to hit. Since you're actually worried to pull the bow with the proper strength.
Ranged Power Attack? Dunno...in theory, Multishot does roughly the same. Perhaps specifically requiring "proficiency with composite bows", or "this feat works only with composite bows". Regular bows just won't cut it.
Another very no. Splash weapons deal very specific damage, and throwing the weapon with extra strength won't aid with anything. Besides, doesn't that defeat the whole purpose of the Grenadier tactical feat?
That would make Far Shot better. Make Far Shot the prerequisite. An equivalent for Point Blank Shot would exist that allows you to deal an extra die of Sneak Attack damage whenever within 30 feet.
--Remember the oft ignored feats? All the specific feats that work like Alertness, but that you'd ignore because they're very static feats? Which make something like Skill Focus a bit more considerable? Well, make those feats increase by level. Skill Focus should basically replace Skill Mastery; i.e., getting the feat allows you to take 10 even under stress or distractions with a single feat. Rogues (and other classes/PrCs) retain the enhanced version of skill mastery.
--Same tiered progression for the Great Fortitude/Lightning Reflexes/Iron Will feats. Actually, make it something like "When you choose this feat, you are considered to have good saving throw progression in the specific saving throw. If you already have a good saving throw progression when choosing this feat, you gain a +1 bonus instead, +1 per each X character levels." Then, limit it to a single class. So, if you get Great Fortitude with Wizard (odd, but reasonable), it only replaces your Fort saving throw progression with the Wizard class, but not with any other class or PrC.
--Actually, same tiered progression for Improved Initiative and Improved Turning. That would make Improved Turning a bit more useful. Also, I'd add to Improved Turning: "if the result of your turning check is more than twice the HD of the affected undead, it is destroyed rather than turned (or controlled rather than rebuked)".
--While on it, make Dodge also a tiered progression. Also, make Spring Attack independent of Dodge/Mobility. Mobility would require only Dodge, Dex 13, and Tumble (6 or 9 ranks), and it would grant a further Dodge bonus (applicable to everyone) when moving (also, it should stack with Skirmish for hilarious results). Improved Dodge would grant the Dodge feat bonus to AC to extra individuals.
--Replace Combat Expertise with Improved Combat Expertise. Make a new feat branch based off defense. Or, make it part of the Dodge feat branch.
I guess I added more than I should, but it's the thought that counts.
-
2009-06-30, 08:56 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2007
- Location
- Finland
- Gender
Re: What do you think of these feat changes?[D&D 3.5]
This is pretty good- However I strongly suggest that you also allow making an attack with both weapons after movement or at the end of a charge with TWF.
Otherwise, TWF is still royally boned whenever you need to move as you can only attack with one weapon effectively halving your damage output compared to two-handers. Hell, allowing iterative attacks after movement and in charge without a feat wouldn't hurt at all.
As for free Weapon Finesse, yeah, it makes sense; seeing that the weapons it applies for are designed to be wielded that way, a proficient wielder should be automatically able to use Dex with them for attacking. Instead, Weapon Finesse-feat to apply Dex to damage could be good.
And Power Shot is definitely a great feat to add. Weird how it's eluded the game all along.Campaign Journal: Uncovering the Lost World - A Player's Diary in Low-Magic D&D (Latest Update: 8.3.2014)
Being Bane: A Guide to Barbarians Cracking Small Men - Ever Been Angry?! Then this is for you!
SRD Averages - An aggregation of all the key stats of all the monster entries on SRD arranged by CR.
-
2009-07-01, 04:33 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2009
- Gender
Re: What do you think of these feat changes?[D&D 3.5]
I was being conservative with this. The intention is making the feats really feel like an improved ability, instead of making the special maneuvers viable.
What I looked at the link was rather similar, but the edge mechanic confused me (aside from a slight black box right where the special moves are, which blocks mostly Disarm and Grapple. Basically, these ideas would improve or replace the edge mechanic, if I see it correctly.
In either way, I'd make Improved Grapple a bit more meaty than it is. Heck, I'd go all out and make a feat (with certain restrictions) that bypasses the Grease and Freedom of Movement spells (and would allow an attack of opportunity before the character teleports) That would make Grapple builds devastating.
Hmm, I really wanted to encourage heavy armor wearing. However, the equipment in the link provided has a BAB/2 + dex bonus = max dex bonus, which makes the chunky stuff still attractive.
What I'd do is to increase the threshold of AC granted by armor. Normally, the peak bonus to AC granted by armor would be a +10, or +9 if you go strictly core (Full Plate with 12+ Dex, without mithral). I'd lift Full Plate to 10, perhaps even 12, and make the ultra-armors (Mountain Plate, for example) reach a top of 15. That would make heavy armor really wanted.
HAO/Greater HAO are actually great, since not only does it grant you a +1 to armor-based AC, but also a -1 to the armor check penalty. Greater HAO increases that to +2, for both. I'd keep it as HAO/Greater HAO, and make it accessible mostly to Medium Armor as well since Medium Armor doesn't get much more love than breastplate. If at all.
I do like the idea of added DR. What do you think of some sources of DR stacking? By the time your equipment is giving you DR, and your class gives you DR, you're facing some really brutal treatment, anyway.
Still, I'd go against DR stacking. Getting DR 50/chaotic and lawful and good and evil and magic and adamantine and byeshk? Eww. Now that's being unfair.
My group lacks PHB2.
No; it would defeat caster-types crippling anything in plate with a single swift action. Touch attacks would still brutalize big monsters. Isn't that enhancement in MiC or (riverine material) Stormrack? Don't have either of those books. Besides, I want to get away from magic item dependency on fighters. I want to be able to give them interesting magic items while their class features still allow them to work.
Still, I see how Natural Armor still gets punished. That will only make people change their Amulets of Natural Armor for Rings of Protection. And the DM looking for outsiders with deflection bonus to Charisma, then adding the feats for armor and shield.
Why can't you hide your face behind a heavy shield? Seems easier than with a buckler.
Why not? There's no reason that martial types shouldn't get access to a save-or-lose. I think it has shield focus or something as a prereq. Long feat chains that come online to make a character concept playable at level 8 are stupid. If I want to make a paladin that TWFs with a shield and longsword, smashing skulls open, then it should be relatively easy to build, and about as powerful as other classes.
As a side note, these abilities are really tied to "martial level" which is tangentially related to BAB. Fighters & Paladins have full martial level, while wizards have none, rangers and barbs have level-4 and rogues have 3/4 level.
Hence, the reason why to quit that silly requirement of Shield Charge. Heck, I'd make the feat only requiring a minimum BAB score or something only; Wizards get Daze at a very low level, and by the time you get the feats required, the Wizzie already has an even better save or suck.
The stunning shield bash feat should have as a requirement Stunning Fist, and Shield Slam. It makes sense (it's an expenditure of ki, or a really, really good blow, or the force of your faith compelling you). At least, make the feat a tad harder to get; a feat that grants stun, with the same chances as a Monk (even though the Monk's ability to do it kinda sucks), with less pre-reqs than Stunning Fist, and probably a better chance, might seem overpowered until you get the hordes of creatures that are immune to stunning.
If anything, I'd allow the "save" part of the save or lose feat to make the opponent dazed instead. That would be a freaky trick.
Ehh, I'd just let comp bows get strength to damage, as well. Archery needs to be more deadly. And with the buffs to AC, anything that should be well protected to getting shot to death will be.
Think of it as aiming for more vital/important pieces. I'm calling it "deadly aim". You aren't shooting harder; you're aiming smaller.
To make it a proper Power Attack, it has to be an attack where you replace accuracy for sheer power, not accuracy for striking a vital.
Archery can be pretty buff. The fact that you're striking from a distance, that you can strike at flying opponents, and the fact that you can change your arrow to suit your needs instead of changing your whole weapon makes it a reasonable choice. Archery, with it's good Dex property, becomes suitable for extra attacks and increased dice of damage or imposing special attacks.
Now, if you make composite longbows requiring Strength instead of Dexterity to strike (the composition of the bow, pun not intended, compensates in speed for the needed aiming, so you don't need to compensate for movement or whatnot), I'd go for making a Power Shot feat. It simply doesn't fare well for Dex-based guys, who would rather prefer more attacks and more hits.
It's not extra strength; it's using additional weapons knowledge to throw the grenade in a manner to cause maximum mayhem- get in eyes, splash on soft places, wait until they're all clumped together just right, etc. I want alchemy to be a way to create viable items in this world, outside of magic. One way to encourage that is to make it more useful in combat (over level 5).
Grenadier does that already, but it's the Weapon Focus kind of feat. If you want to give it the tiered treatment, you may go for it. Mad Alchemist is also nice, because it expands the choices that the character can make with alchemical items. It just needs a bit of expansion, I think. The Distracting Blast tactical maneuver granted by the Mad Alchemist feat could get some work, though (get a really high Craft [alchemy] check, and the wizzie loses it's next spell. Better than counterspelling)
Interesting. I think I'll just make skill mastery a routine bonus for high level classes.
I'm not a big fan of feat chains. I don't like highly specialized characters that can cut a dragon to bits with one type of sword found in an obscure book, but can't tie their shoes.
Originally Posted by Eldariel
But I agree. Two Weapon Pounce should have been a real pounce, not a really complex move where you can only strike twice with one maneuver, and no benefits of charge either. But after normal movement? That would cause people to forget about the darned full attack routine at all; and Power Attack twohanders would cry wolf.
I also thought that Improved TWF should serve to null the granted penalties, and Greater TWF to allow a new set of attacks (imagine: three attacks per iterative attack on a full attack routine?)Retooler of D&D 3.5 (and 5e/Next) content. See here for more.
Now with a comprehensive guide for 3.5 Paladin players porting to Pathfinder. Also available for 5th Edition
On Lawful Good:
T.G. Oskar profile by Specter.
-
2009-07-01, 04:43 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2007
- Location
- Finland
- Gender
Re: What do you think of these feat changes?[D&D 3.5]
This is mostly a balance matter. A two-hander attacking as a standard action does ~twice more damage than a two-weapon fighter doing the same, because two-hander's 1 attack = two-weapon fighter's 2 attacks. A two-weapon fighter has already spent a feat to even fight with two weapons; I really don't see it rational to force them to waste yet another feat just to match two-handers without feats when you have to move while fighting.
Also, if I were rebuilding the Two-Weapon Fighting chain, I'd make it Two-Weapon Fighting > Two-Weapon Defense (buffed version, combining all 3 of them into 1 chain, or doing something else entirely) > Two-Weapon Rend [PHBII]. Alternatively, Double Hit [Miniatures Handbook] could be a good secondary feat (allows you make an attack of opportunity with both).
If everyone got all iteratives after movement, it'd mostly be melee types thanking Gods (be it one-hander, two-hander or two-weapon fighter) that they can finally move as much as casters in combat while doing their thing. Casters cast a spell as a standard action and then move. Fighters either full attack, or hit you once and move. Guess which the Fighters usually pick; and casters don't even have to pick outside few specific spells.
Well, these seem sensible, but remember that there's a limit to how many dice a person wants to reasonably throw per fight. That Greater TWF runs a real risk of crossing that line; throwing 12 dice per full attack just threatens to grind the combat to a screeching halt.
That said, I'm not sure if we need Improved and Greater TWF-feats at all. The system works pretty well as it stands now if you combine the dozen feats a TWFer needs for basic competency into 1 feat. But at least the suggested ITWF is a good idea.Last edited by Eldariel; 2009-07-01 at 04:43 AM.
Campaign Journal: Uncovering the Lost World - A Player's Diary in Low-Magic D&D (Latest Update: 8.3.2014)
Being Bane: A Guide to Barbarians Cracking Small Men - Ever Been Angry?! Then this is for you!
SRD Averages - An aggregation of all the key stats of all the monster entries on SRD arranged by CR.