Support the GITP forums on Patreon
Help support GITP's forums (and ongoing server maintenance) via Patreon
Results 1 to 19 of 19
  1. - Top - End - #1
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Deepbluediver's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    The US of A

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

    As part of my project to rebalance the core classes, I've been trying to update the various combat styles and associated feat chains (or make new ones, entirely). Each combat style should have some noticable change or benefit compared to the others even without any feats.
    I was posting one style with each class, but my classes have gotten more complex, so I'm posting several styles here, seperately.

    These feats are intended for use in conjunction with my revised combat manuevers and my core class fixes (which get more feats). Some of them mention new features; I'll try to include short summaries where appropriate.
    Special thanks goes out to Seerow for helping to define several of the styles. If you don't like my feats or class fixes, he has a posting with shorter feat chains better suited to a non-homebrewed game.

    To help people understand and comment, I'll start with an overview of the basic rules of combat, which have recieved a few changes of their own.

    Basic Melee Combat Rules
    Any weapon wielded in one hand adds your full Strength modifier to damage rolls made with that weapon (including off-hand weapons). Any weapon wielded in both hands grants you 1.5 times your Str modifier to damage rolls.

    You can choose to wield a one-handed weapon in both hands and add 1.5 times your Str modifier to damage rolls, you also take a -4 non-proficiency penalty to attack rolls when fighting in this manner.

    Light weapons cannot be wielded with two hands.

    When using a light weapon, you may always choose to apply your Dex modifier to attack rolls in place of your Str modifier.
    Spoiler
    Show
    This is intended to replace the weapon finesse feat.

    A shield's AC bonus also applies to your AC against Touch attacks.

    Reach weapons, such as polearms, cannot attack enemies in squares adjacent to you.


    Basic Combat Styles Summary
    Two-Handed Fighting- focused purely on dealing as much damage as possible with big attacks

    Sword 'n Board- defensive fighting with a shield and one-handed weapon

    Two-Weapon Fighting- a hybrid style which gives more attacks, coupled with a parry bonus to AC

    Single-Weapon Style- Hybrid style based on movement and combat manuevers
    Spoiler
    Show
    I originally wasn't going to include feats for this because I couldn't think of what it's defining characteristic was. Then in another thread someone pointed out how iconic it was, particularly in movies, and while thinking about the Bard I decided this seemed like a good style choice for some of the less combat oriented or swashbuckling style classes.

    Reach Fighting Style- focused on battlefield control

    Ranged Combat- deals significant damage while remaining out of reach of counterattacks.
    Last edited by Deepbluediver; 2013-06-12 at 10:23 AM.
    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!

  2. - Top - End - #2
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Deepbluediver's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    The US of A

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

    Sword 'n Board
    Roar of Challenge
    Prerequisites: Con 11 or BAB +1

    Benefit: The first creature you deal melee damage to each turn must focus any attacks it makes during it's next turn on you (including spells or when directing the actions of summoned creatures, minions, etc). This is considered a mind-affecting ability, and you may supress this effect at will.

    In addition, as once every 1d4 rounds as a swift action you may roar a challenge at nearby enemies. This ability is a cone with range 15 ft.+5 ft./3 HD.
    Any enemy who hears this challenge must suceed on a will save (DC=10+1/2HD+Con) or on their next turn they must focus any attacks they make on you. This is considered a mind-affecting ability.

    Special: A fighter may select this feat as one of his fighter bonus feats.

    Improved Defensive Fighting
    Prerequisites: Con 13 or BAB +3

    Benefit: When fighting defensively, the penalty to attack rolls is decreased to -2. In addition, when fighting defensively you gain an additional +1 bonus to your AC for every four HD.

    Special: A fighter may select this feat as one of his fighter bonus feats.

    Shield Strike
    Prerequisites: Improved Defensive Fighting, Con 13 or BAB +3

    Benefit: When performing a shield bash in combat, you do not lose your shield bonus to AC, and the critical-hit range is increased by 1 (to 19-20/x2).

    In addition, once during your turn when you would perform a shield bash you may instead perform a shield-strike. This is like a shield-bash in all respects except that any enemy dealt damage by your shield strike must succeed on a Fortitude save (DC=10+1/2HD+Con) or be Dazed for 1 round. If they fail by 5 or more, they are Stunned for 1 round, then dazed for 1 round. Enemies that are immune to Stun are still Dazed for 1 round instead.

    Special: A fighter may select this feat as one of his fighter bonus feats.
    Any character who learned the feat Improved Shield Bash at an earlier time may retrain to replace it with this feat instead, as soon as they meet the prerequisites.

    Block and Parry
    Prerequisites: Con 15 or BAB +6

    Benefit: You are trained to divert and push aside potential attacks rather than dodging them, which allows you to add your Strength modifier to your AC in place of Dexterity, if you choose.

    Once per round, if you are fighting with either a shield or offhand weapon and are targeted by a melee attack, you may add 1d20 to your AC against that attack. You must announce you are using this ability before your opponent makes their attack roll.

    You may use this ability an additional time per round for each 5 points your BAB is above 1 (twice at BAB +6, thrice at BAB +11, etc). Each attempt, however, must be against an attack from a different creature.

    Special: A fighter may select this feat as one of his fighter bonus feats.
    Spoiler
    Show
    So basically, you only get to use it once if you are fighting a single dragon, but if you are sourounded by a horde of enemies you get a lot more bonuses.

    This feat has seen numerous revisions and rewrites; this is only the latest version, so let me know if it still needs more tweaking.

    Shield Wall
    Prerequisites: Roar of Challenge, Block and Parry, Con 15 or BAB +6

    Benefit: When you are using a shield in combat, you may use it to protect anyone adjacent to you. This protection is treated like cover, except as follows: adjacent creatures get a shield bonus equal to the AC bonus of your shield. They recieve a bonus to reflex saves depending on what kind of shield you are wielding: Buckler +1, Light Shield +2, Heavy Shield +3, Tower Shield +4.

    Special: A fighter may select this feat as one of his fighter bonus feats.

    Spell Reflect:
    Prerequisites: Improved Defensive Fighting, Shield Strike, Con 17 or BAB +9

    Benfit: Once per round if you are fighting with a shield, you may make an opposed roll to negate the effects of the spell that targets you. Your bonus on the roll is equal to the AC bonus provided by your shield, and you must beat a value equal to 10+the spell's level.

    If you succeed, the spell is simply negated. If you succeed by 5 or more, then the spell is reflected back at it's caster, provided the total distance is not more than the spell's maximum range.

    If you successfully negate an area spell, it is only negated for you, not for any other creatures in the area. You are not able to reflect area spells back at the caster.

    Special: A fighter may select this feat as one of his fighter bonus feats.



    Hopefully this goes a a ways towards making a defensive tanking style build both viable and fun. In addition, I would recomend you utilize my armor improvements as well.
    Last edited by Deepbluediver; 2015-01-12 at 03:16 PM. Reason: altering the save DC
    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!

  3. - Top - End - #3
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Deepbluediver's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    The US of A

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

    Two-Handed Fighting
    Improved Two-Handed Fighting
    Prerequisite: Str 13 or BAB +3

    Benefit: When fighting with a weapon held in two hands, the bonus to damage rolls from your strength is doubled (instead of multiplied by 1.5).
    In addition, you do not suffer a penalty to attack rolls when using a 1-handed weapon in both hands.

    Special: A fighter may select this feat as one of his fighter bonus feats.

    Improved Offensive Fighting
    Prerequisite: Str 13 or BAB +3

    Benefit: When fighting aggresively, the penalty to your AC is decreased to -2. In addition, when fighting aggressively your critical threat range increases by an additional 1 for every 6 HD.

    Special: A fighter may select this feat as one of his fighter bonus feats.
    Spoiler
    Show
    Fighting agressively is just what it sounds like; the opposite equivalent of the official defensive fighting option. Check the linked combat manuevers for details.

    Armor Buster
    Prerequisite: Improved two-handed fighting, Str 15 or BAB +6

    Benefit: While you wield a two-handed weapon, the first attack you make each turn against a target with damage reduction ignores that damage reduction. If you attack a target without damage reduction, instead their AC bonus from natural or equipment-based armor is reduced by an amount equal to 1/4 of your BAB against your first attack.

    Special: A fighter may select this feat as one of his fighter bonus feats.
    This feat cannot be used with weapons that have Reach.

    Decisive Strike
    Prerequisite: Improved two-handed fighting, Str 15 or BAB +6

    Benefit: When you are fighting with a two-handed weapon, you gain a bonus to confirm critical hits equal to 1/2 your BAB.

    Special: A fighter may select this feat as one of his fighter bonus feats.
    This feat cannot be used with weapons that have Reach.

    Crippling Strike
    Prerequisite: Improved two-handed fighting, Decisive Strike, Str 17 or BAB +11

    Benefit: When you score a critical hit with a two-handed weapon, you may forgo the extra damage from your weapon to instead deal 1d4 points of ability damage per point of critical multiplier (2d4 points for a regular weapon, 3d4 for a x3 weapon, etc.) to an ability score of your choice except for Constitution. If your target is normally immune to ability damage, you only deal half that damage instead.

    You still deal regular weapon damage on a crit when using this ability.

    Special: A fighter may select this feat as one of his fighter bonus feats.
    This feat cannot be used with weapons that have Reach.
    Spoiler
    Show
    This one is probably a little wordy as well. I'm open to suggestions for improvement.

    I left out Con intentionally to emphasize that this is crippling without killing (or at least not until you have the chance to taunt your foe a bit ). After all, when you foe is paralyzed or comatose, you can always choose to CDG them at your leisure.
    Last edited by Deepbluediver; 2014-08-14 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!

  4. - Top - End - #4
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Deepbluediver's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    The US of A

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

    Reach Combat Style (most of this group was stolen from Seerow's fix and tweaked, except for the last feat; I mostly came up with that on my own)
    In case it isn't clear, a "Reach" weapon is any melee weapon that can attack enemies in non-adjacent squares; mostly this means polearms, though there I'm sure there are a few exotic weapons as well. The normal drawback is that you can't stab someone with a spear when they're right next to you, but the very first feat fixes that.

    Reach Weapon Specialist
    Benefit: When using a weapon with Reach you can attack enemies in adjacent squares.

    Special: A fighter may select this feat as one of his fighter bonus feats.

    Harrier
    Prerequisite: Improved two-handed fighting, Reach Weapon Specialist, BAB +3

    Benefit: When fighting with a weapon that has reach (or if your unarmed strikes have reach for any reason) enemies that you threaten take a penalty to their Attack rolls, Spellcraft rolls, AC, and any skill checks they make. This penalty is based on your BAB.
    BAB Penalty
    0-2
    -1
    3-6
    -2
    7-11
    -3
    12-17
    -4
    18-24
    -5
    25+
    -6

    Special: A fighter may select this feat as one of his fighter bonus feats.

    Lockdown
    Prerequisite: Improved two-handed fighting, Reach Weapon Specialist, BAB +6

    Benefit: When fighting with a Reach weapon, any enemy that you deal damage to with an attack of opportunity must make a Reflex save (DC=10+1/2HD+Str or Dex, whichever is higher) Failing the save means that whatever action the creature was attempting is immediately ended. For example, if the AoO was provoked by movement, then the damaged creaure stops where it is and loses the rest of its move action. If the AoO was provoked by a spell or combat manuever such as a trip attempt, the action automatically fails.

    Special: A fighter may select this feat as one of his fighter bonus feats.
    Any character who learned the feat Stand Still at an earlier time may retrain to replace it with this feat instead, as soon as they meet the prerequisites.

    Forceful Leverage
    Prerequisite: Improved two-handed fighting, Reach Weapon Specialist, BAB +6

    Benefit: Whenever you deal damage to an opponent with a reach weapon as part of a standard or full round action (not an AoO) you can make a Bullrush attempt against that target as a free action.

    This attempt does not provoke Attacks of Opportunity, and you do not need to move with your opponent when you push them. You gain a competency bonus on the Strength check for your Bullrush equal to 1/2 your BAB.

    Special: A fighter may select this feat as one of his fighter bonus feats.



    Again, special thanks to Seerow for being unable to prevent me from looting his feats wholesale.
    So, this chain starts off in the same place as THF, but branches out in a different direction. Whenever I picture it being used, inevitably I see a scene from one of those old asian wuxia films where a martial artist is slapping around his opponents with a bamboo spear. But maybe that's just me.
    Last edited by Deepbluediver; 2015-01-12 at 03:16 PM. Reason: altering the save DC
    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!

  5. - Top - End - #5
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Deepbluediver's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    The US of A

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

    Single-Weapon Style
    This came about because I was trying to figure out what combat preferences a bard might enjoy and none of them really fit except for TWF; and even that was iffy.
    So this style is based heavily on cinema; Hollywood loves heroes who Errol-Flynn their way to victory, because it looks cool even if it's rather impractical as a fighting style compared to some of the other methods. SWS focuses on movement and combat manuevers, mainly.


    Fencing Lessons
    Benefit: When fighting using only a single one-handed or light weapon, you may add both your Strength and Dexterity modifiers to your attack and damage rolls.

    Special: A fighter may select this feat as one of his fighter bonus feats.

    Artful Defense
    Prerequisite: BAB +3, Fencing Lessons

    Benefit: When fighting with only a single one-handed or light weapon, you gain a parry bonus to your AC to avoid Attacks of Opportunity equal to 1/2 your BAB.

    Once per round, when you are dealt melee damage you may take a 5 ft. step as an immediate action.

    Special: A fighter may select this feat as one of his fighter bonus feats.

    Lunge
    Prerequisite: BAB +3, Fencing Lessons

    Benefit: When fighting with only a single one-handed or light weapon, whenever you take a 5 ft. step, you may make an attack, or a trip, disarm, sunder, bullrush, or grapple attempt as an immediate action. Your target must be within reach at the conclusion of your 5 ft. step, not at the beggining.

    Special: A fighter may select this feat as one of his fighter bonus feats.

    Master Duelist
    Prerequisite: BAB +7, Fencing Lessions, & Artful Defense or Lunge

    Benefit:This feat has several benefits: first, whenever you would take a 5 ft. step, you may take a 10 ft. step instead.

    Once per round when an opponent targets you with a melee attack but fails to deal you damage, or attempts a trip, disarm, sunder, bullrush or grapple attempt against you and fails, you may immediately make an attack or a trip, disarm, sunder, bullrush, or grapple attempt as an Immediate action against that opponent.

    Finally, whenever you are fighting with either a single one-handed weapon, light weapon, or using no weapon at all, your effective BAB for calculating your Combat Maneuver Proficiency Bonus (CMPB) is treated as if it where 5 points higher.

    Special: A fighter may select this feat as one of his fighter bonus feats.
    Spoiler
    Show
    The CMPB is something from my revised Combat Manuevers, linked in the intro post. If you are using the standard rules, just assume it awards a +3 bonus to any combat maneuver you attempt.
    Last edited by Deepbluediver; 2014-07-24 at 02:48 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!

  6. - Top - End - #6
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Fredaintdead's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    England
    Gender
    Male

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

    Your TWF additions are an improvement, but still bring to bear one of the big consequences of being a dual-wielder, which is feat cost. The standard TWFer is still going to have to burn 3 feat slots, although the extra benefits of having the TWF, ITWF and GTWF feats do help to make up for this, that's still 3 of your base 7 slots you need to burn. Maybe too me this is more of a problem than it is to others, but having to burn half your feats seems like a rather big disadvantage. A single scaling feat seems like it would be much better considering the other downsides of dual wielding (RNG, cost of obtaining and enchanting two weapons instead of one, etc, etc).
    Of course, if you're a class that already gets these feats for free, then you're in the clear really, but not everyone wants to play a Ranger.

    That said, I'm rather fond of your Sword and Board feats, and I'm eager to see what the Two-Handed Weapon and Single Weapon chains look like.
    Avatar by Miss Nobody
    Spoiler
    Show
    Quote Originally Posted by Anuan
    Yes, but that's Fred. He radiates awesomeness.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bhu View Post
    I like Fred. I shall make him an honorary Pimpsquatch.
    Quote Originally Posted by A Rainy Knight View Post
    I love Fred because he returned from the dead in a form that doesn't hunger for the flesh of the living! Also, he's a nice guy.
    Quote Originally Posted by MageOfCakes View Post
    You're chibi and that's awesome. n_n

  7. - Top - End - #7
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Deepbluediver's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    The US of A

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

    THF and Reach are up!

    Quote Originally Posted by Fredaintdead View Post
    Your TWF additions are an improvement, but still bring to bear one of the big consequences of being a dual-wielder, which is feat cost. The standard TWFer is still going to have to burn 3 feat slots, although the extra benefits of having the TWF, ITWF and GTWF feats do help to make up for this, that's still 3 of your base 7 slots you need to burn. Maybe too me this is more of a problem than it is to others, but having to burn half your feats seems like a rather big disadvantage. A single scaling feat seems like it would be much better considering the other downsides of dual wielding (RNG, cost of obtaining and enchanting two weapons instead of one, etc, etc).
    Of course, if you're a class that already gets these feats for free, then you're in the clear really, but not everyone wants to play a Ranger.
    Yes, that is certainly an issue, I grant you that. However, I decided I like the more expanded breakdown, so what I did for my class fixes is just what you suggesed, essentially give them bonus feats for free.

    I termed them "Weapon Style Feats" and every melee class gets enough to master at least 1 style. The Rogue and Ranger get 5 or 6, the bard will likely get 4 or 5, the barbarian will get 10 (so he can take 2 chains). And my fighter gets a bonus feat every single level, so he can spend half of them learning to use weapons and still have plenty left over.
    All without dipping into any character's feats from leveling.

    Each class is limited in what feats it can choose (for example, rogues don't get the THF feats) but whenever you get a WSF you can take any that you qualify for, so if you take several levels of ranger, then want to swap to rogue, you won't waste time regaining the same low level feats all over again.

    That said, I'm rather fond of your Sword and Board feats, and I'm eager to see what the Two-Handed Weapon and Single Weapon chains look like.
    Thanks! Honestly though, the SnB stuff had the most room to play around in, because it had the least support in core. I can't guarantee everything else will be that much fun.
    Last edited by Deepbluediver; 2013-01-15 at 12:18 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!

  8. - Top - End - #8
    Titan in the Playground
     
    AmberVael's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Gender
    Female

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

    I find your prerequisites somewhat... disconcerting. The way you allow either a high ability score or a certain base attack bonus doesn't seem quite right.

    Generally, a BAB prerequisite fixes a feat at a certain level. "You must be this tall to ride," essentially. It allows you to make a more powerful feat that wouldn't entirely be appropriate at low levels, and ensures no one below a certain level can get it, barring absurd shenanigans.

    None of the ability scores you list are anywhere near out of reach for a first level character though.

    Therefore, I find it rather confusing and inexplicable that say, a first level human fighter with 17 strength could pick up Improved Two Handed Fighting, Decisive Strike, and Crippling Strike... but a fighter with 16 strength would have to wait all the way to level 11 to pick up those same feats. What's the purpose of this?


    Now, as for specifics...

    Roar of Challenge- I do not like this feat one bit. The effect you grant is all kinds of difficult.
    First, it's too vague. What is "attack to the best of their ability?" Where do they stop? Do they pull out all stops, up to using precious resources? Are all their actions focused on it, or do they only have to attack you once?
    Also, depending on how you're going to interpret "attack," it can be even more troublesome. Does it have to be an attack action? What about a spell?
    And what if you attack an enemy that doesn't want to attack anyone at all? Can they heal themselves, put up a buff, or run away? Or do they have to attack you, and that's it? You can basically lock someone down with this in crazy ways.
    Plus, why do you have to have a shield to do this?

    I think I see what you're going for here- you don't want people to just be able to ignore the tanky fighter. It's a good idea, but the execution ends up being like Iron Heart Surge. Darn fighters. You try and give them something decent, next thing you know, they're turning off the sun.

    Shield Strike- So... if I full attack with a shield, I can make multiple attacks every round, all of which have a great chance of dazing my opponent? Enemy fortitude saves are high and all, but with the DC based on my BAB plus my strength, well... that's a better DC than the wizard can put out.
    I'm suddenly picturing a bunch of fighters wielding two shields- one to defend themselves, one to smash people with.
    This is strictly superior to any of the ToB daze/stun type strikes. You can do it multiple times per round. You can do it at will. It has a higher DC. And you can have it starting from level 1.
    My recommendation is, make it at least a once per round deal, drop that DC to 10+1/2 HD+Str, and probably keep it out of reach until characters are a bit higher level.


    Shield Wall- Scaling is cool, giant bonuses are not. The ability to grant a potentially +11 shield bonus to all allies within your reach is a little much, I think- without actually making it notably appealing. I advise trying to think of some other benefits the feat might provide instead of boosting armor class so drastically.


    Two-Handed Fighting- Suppose your fighter has 18 strength. Normally, he'd add +6 to damage. With this feat, he adds +8.
    So, it's +2 damage. It's weapon specialization, except a wee bit better.
    It does have the benefit of scaling with strength, admittedly. If you go beyond 18 strength, into higher realms... lets say we have a Water Orc who has invested a lot of money into his strength and also all his level points. We'll say he gets up to 40 strength by level 20.
    Normally, he'd deal +22 damage from strength. Instead, he deals +30.
    So, it could add about +8 damage.
    It's a pretty dry feat, and outside of some absurd strength bonuses, I'm not even sure it's very worthwhile.


    Armor Buster- While I'm all for negating damage reduction, there are a lot of creatures without it, and the way you addressed making it useful against them is... well, I'd probably be taking this feat to fight against them. Adding 50% to my BAB is a hefty bonus.
    Also, why no reach weapons? I honestly don't get that reasoning.
    Also, the "including from natural armor" is redundant, unless you meant it ignores armor bonus, not just AC in general.


    Crippling Strike- So if you achieve a critical hit with a keen kaorti resin falchion, you can deal 8d4 ability damage to basically any stat? No save, immunities don't apply. Even if you drop kaorti resin and just look a decent two weapon fighting critical focused build, this gets powerful really fast. The moment you get a critical hit, you've basically dropped that enemy. Everyone has a low stat. And it usually isn't too hard to guess it. Even if you don't guess it, hitting their main stat for double digit ability score damage probably will cripple them enough to end things right there.
    For many fighters, this won't be reliable enough to be interesting. For critical focused builds though, I think it's too much. Consider disassociating this from critical hits. Make it a special kind of attack or something- something easier to control.
    Also, again- why no reach weapons?


    Harrier- That's a lot of unavoidable penalty to a lot of things. You basically prevent anyone from fighting while they're within in your area, and they can't do a thing about it. And also- all skill checks? Really? Seems a little bit too inclusive.


    Lockdown- Holy crap! Again with the really high DC (DCs are based around 10+1/2HD+Stat or thereabouts- basing it on BAB basically puts it equal to level for a lot of builds, which boosts it significantly). Also, the effect here is pretty crazy too. In some cases, it'll just be okay. Wizard casts a spell, you smack them, oh well, they spent their standard anyway, not much difference.
    But say a melee combatant enters your reach (that'll happen a lot), and you smack them, they fail. Whoops! No turn for them.
    Using AoOs to stop movement is good. Disrupting spells or certain actions, okay. But having a high chance to completely turn off someone's turn? With all the ways there are to get AoOs out there... probably best stay away from that. Ratchet down that effect a bit more.



    Stepping back and taking an overall look at things, I like what you're going for in a lot of these places, but I think you're consistently overshooting here, at least with all the non-entry feats. Of the entry feats, I like Reach Weapon Specialist most. It doesn't do much, but it adds a useful, non-numeric feature. That's the kind of thing you should go with for entry feats, I think.

    I think you should also go back through with an eye for small details, to consider what really fits in and is needed. Do the prerequisites work like they're supposed to? Do the weapon requirements really make sense?

    Lastly, really try and look to where these things can be broken. Making a scaling bonus is one thing- but does it eventually scale too far? Does a constant or unavoidable effect add up to too much when used in a reasonable scenario or build?

    Anyway, hope this was helpful, though I'm afraid it's a bit heavy on the criticism. I do think you could use a lot of polish and rework here, but I admire what you're trying to do, and I think a lot of your basic ideas are good, even the execution can go a bit too far.

  9. - Top - End - #9
    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]

    Quote Originally Posted by AmberVael View Post
    I find your prerequisites somewhat... disconcerting. The way you allow either a high ability score or a certain base attack bonus doesn't seem quite right.
    Spoiler
    Show

    Generally, a BAB prerequisite fixes a feat at a certain level. "You must be this tall to ride," essentially. It allows you to make a more powerful feat that wouldn't entirely be appropriate at low levels, and ensures no one below a certain level can get it, barring absurd shenanigans.

    None of the ability scores you list are anywhere near out of reach for a first level character though.

    Therefore, I find it rather confusing and inexplicable that say, a first level human fighter with 17 strength could pick up Improved Two Handed Fighting, Decisive Strike, and Crippling Strike... but a fighter with 16 strength would have to wait all the way to level 11 to pick up those same feats. What's the purpose of this?
    I was experimenting with ways to allow melee classes to have a wider variety of choices for fighting styles. Under the RAW, the feat-chains that had an ability score requirements tended to preclude a character from taking anything BUT those feats. You might be a near-epic fighter or barbarian, but unless you chose to stack Dexterity it was completely impossible for you to learn two-weapon fighting.

    The idea with this was that a player could focus on one feat chain at a time, starting with the feats that had the an ability score that matched whatever the character's focus was. Once they where a few levels in, they could start picking up other feats outsider thier one specialty as well.
    Fluffwise, it's easy for some one who is naturally tough or strong or dextrous to learn some styles, but once you are the veteran warrior, with dozens or hundreds of battles under your belt, that experience ALSO allows you to learn different forms of combat.

    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.

    I recognize that with feat-mongering you can get deep into some of the feat chains (especially since they are really less like chains and more like trees) but the point of making the feats scale is that even then you don't get a ton of benefits. If there was a feat that said "get +5 damage on attacks", I'd change it to read "get 1 damage per 2 HD on attacks". That way anyone who shenanigan'ed themselves into it early on wouldn't be OP, and it would retain some signifigance later.

    Going by the example you listed, a level one player wouldn't get anything from Decisive Strike (because 1/2 of BAB +1 rounds down to 0) and most weapons at low levels don't give more than x3 OR 19-20 for criticals. While I'm certain that some one might come up with a workaround, but they would be pigeonholing themselves right at the start. Plus, I've always played the game such that the DM needs to give initial approvement for character ideas, so there should be at least some warning of what the player is trying to do.

    Edit: Also, in your example the fighter with 16 strength could still pick up the first 2 feats; he just couldn't get Crippling Strike right away.

    Roar of Challenge- I do not like this feat one bit. The effect you grant is all kinds of difficult.
    The phrase "attack to the best of their ability" is not my original idea; it shows up in the Summon Monster line of spells, and probably a few other places. Also, some conditions like frightened and panicked include a phrase "flee to the best of their ability". It is not intended to drag the game to a halt while players spend 20 minutes debating if a full-round melee attack would be "better" than a lightning bolt spell.

    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 on. So if the enemy would normally employ spells, magic items, or other tactics, he still uses them. He can summon up hordes of dire badgers, but then he needs to send them all to attack the tank. Most players won't demand that your BBEG disengage from battle and run off to activate the self-destruct feature on his own base, just because that has the best chance of killing the tank. (or something like that)
    At it's heart, it really is a judgement call, and you need to rely on the gentleman's unwritten agreement to play it fair. If you are still upset by the wording, I could change it too something like "must focus all their attacks on the tank".

    The requirement for a shield was because this was supposed to be the "Sword 'n Board" setup, and I was wary of players using unintended weapon and feat combinations. But the reason I post is for feedback, so if people think that this isn't necessary, I'll consider removing the weapon-specific requirements.


    Shield Strike- So... if I full attack with a shield, I can make multiple attacks every round, all of which have a great chance of dazing my opponent? Enemy fortitude saves are high and all, but with the DC based on my BAB plus my strength, well... that's a better DC than the wizard can put out.
    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?

    What about instead I make it 5+BAB+Str? Also, I'd really rather stick with BAB than HD, because BAB is supposed to represent combat proficiency. With HD, a wizard could cast Bull's Strength on himself and be almost as good at this as the fighter.

    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.
    The "two shields" argument is...and odd one, certainly. It's one of those things where game-mechanics and reality don't get along so well. I'd rather alter the rules for shields so that there is some penalty for trying to use two of them at once (since, realisticly, they would probably get in each other's way somewhat).


    Shield Wall- Scaling is cool, giant bonuses are not.
    Ok, that's a fair point. How to fix it though....
    *think think think* ...need...inspiration....
    Oh! What about something like granting cover? now where did THAT idea come from? :P
    And since I like things that scale, I can tweak it a bit...

    How's about this... Shield Wall grants cover, with the AC bonus equal to the AC bonus of the defender's shield. The bonus to reflex saves depends on what kind of shield it is: Buckler or Light Shield +1, Heavy Shield +2, Tower Shield +4.

    Perhaps let players who are directly behind the shielding character gain total cover. Would that work better?


    Two-Handed Fighting- It's a pretty dry feat, and outside of some absurd strength bonuses, I'm not even sure it's very worthwhile.
    The lead in feats for every feat-tree are supposed to be a little weaker and a little less interesting; that was intentional. It's supposed to be evaluated along with the fact that it's a requirement for everything else.
    Plus it makes the math easier

    I kind of want to keep the THF feats maybe half a step simpler than the other stuff, because while damage has it's limits, it is very effective and very fun. I think it's appealing for new D&D players if they can be given a set of instructions that are basically "You have big muscles, hit stuff with your axe".


    Armor Buster- While I'm all for negating damage reduction, there are a lot of creatures without it, and the way you addressed making it useful against them is... well, I'd probably be taking this feat to fight against them. Adding 50% to my BAB is a hefty bonus.
    I think I did mean to limit it to the armor bonus, instead just AC in general; I'll fix that.
    I'll also try to think of a way to reduce the effect that doesn't require breaking out the calculus books...
    What about something like: "If this value exceeds the amount of DR your target has, then you may ignore AC (including from natural armor) equal to 1/2 the remaining difference."
    That way it's 1/2 of 1/2, or 1 in 4 (a 25% increase instead of 50%).

    Also, I listed this as only functioning when you charge; is that overly limiting? Would it be too powerful if it simply functioned all the time?

    The "no reach weapons" clause is because pretty much all reach weapons are ALSO two-handed weapons by default, and I didn't want players stacking 2HF on top of the Reach feats.


    Crippling Strike- So if you achieve a critical hit with a keen kaorti resin falchion, you can deal 8d4 ability damage to basically any stat?
    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.

    It was actually intended as a way to stop an enemy WITHOUT killing them, because once they are paralyzed you can always spend another action to CDG them anyhow if you want, but ocasionally players want to capture some one alive.

    I like having it apply to crits in some manner; I want to reward players for cohesive builds, compared to just slapping things together willy-nilly. If the ability damage is overly abusable, I can either reduce it to something like 1d2 or 1d3 instead of 1d4, or I can link it to BAB or level. How does 1+ 1d3 per 4 HD look?

    Alternatively, I could reduce the value of the damage and have it apply to every stat. So for example, instead of 5d4 to Str or Int, it might be 5 ability damage to Str, Dex, Int, Wis, AND Cha.

    Please let me know what seems favorable.


    Harrier- That's a lot of unavoidable penalty to a lot of things.
    Yes, yes it is, but it's only a penalty. It makes things harder but it doesn't really "stop" very much.

    How would you rate the following changes: reduce the progression of the penalty to -1 each step up instead of -2, and limit the number of targets you can affect to a maximum of 1+1/2 HD.


    Lockdown- Using AoOs to stop movement is good. Disrupting spells or certain actions, okay. But having a high chance to completely turn off someone's turn? With all the ways there are to get AoOs out there... probably best stay away from that. Ratchet down that effect a bit more.
    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.

    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.

    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?
    And would you want me to limit it to once per character per round, so that you couldn't, for instance, interupt a spell AND stop the caster from fleeing.

    I can understand your concern, but I WANTED these feats to be significant and powerful. A lot of the ones in the published sources, particularly core, are kinda "meh".


    Stepping back and taking an overall look at things, I like what you're going for in a lot of these places, but I think you're consistently overshooting here, at least with all the non-entry feats.
    That's a valid criticism; I don't want my melee characters to be game breaking any more than I want my casters as such. I'll go through and make a few of the changes we discussed; if you want to give further feedback I'd be happy to have it, but don't feel the need to go into such exhaustive detail.
    Last edited by Deepbluediver; 2013-02-01 at 02:10 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!

  10. - Top - End - #10
    Titan in the Playground
     
    AmberVael's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Gender
    Female

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

    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.

  11. - 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!

  12. - Top - End - #12
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Kobold

    Join Date
    Aug 2010

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

    Hey, found this through the Homebrew PEACH Exchange Thread, and thought I'd try to give it a look. I might have missed a bit as I read over it, but I'll reply with what caught my eye most of all.

    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.

    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. 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.

    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.

  13. - Top - End - #13
    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]

    Quote Originally Posted by Amoren View Post
    Feint) I... Really don't like these rules.
    Spoiler
    Show
    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.
    Spoiler
    Show
    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!

  14. - Top - End - #14
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    PairO'Dice Lost's Avatar

    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Malsheem, Nessus
    Gender
    Male

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

    One overall suggestion for these feats before I get to the individual responses: You might want to make everything that scales by HD scale by BAB instead, to make good BAB more meaningful as you said before.

    Now, to the individual feats:

    Roar of Challenge
    [...]
    In addition, as a free action once per turn you may roar a challenge at nearby enemies. The range of this ability is 25 ft.+5 ft./2 levels, and you can affect a maximum number of enemies equal to 1+1/2 HD. Any enemy who hears this challenge must suceed on a will save (DC=BAB+Str) or on their next turn they must focus any attacks they make on you.
    To simplify this a bit, I'd suggest just making this a cone that affects all enemies in the area, to be more in line with other shout/fear/etc. effects, and scale the area instead of the number of targets (something like 10 feet + 5 feet per 2 points of BAB). That's more for ease of resolution than balance, though, so it's up to you.

    Shield Strike
    [...]
    In addition, any enemy dealt damage by your shield strike must succeed on a Fortitude save (DC=BAB+Str) or be dazed for 1 round. If they fail by 5 or more, they are intead Stunned for 1 round.
    Daze is generally a more valuable condition than stun since it's much harder to resist or become immune to it, so it should probably stun on a failed save or daze if it's failed by 5 or more.

    Block and Parry
    [...]
    Yeah, this is a little more complex than I'd like, but its the best thing I've been able to come up with for an active defense.
    Here's a possible idea: While someone with Block and Parry is wielding a shield, they may use their Str instead of Dex for AC if it's higher, and when targeted by a melee attack they may expend one attack of opportunity to add half their BAB to their AC against that attack.

    Str instead of Dex represents actively pushing attacks away more than dodging, spending AoOs uses an existing resource and integrates better with other feats, and just adding to AC keeps the advantage of AC as a static defense instead of adding more rolls. As it is, BAB+shield bonus is highly unlikely to beat the attack rolls of near-level opposition since you're missing out on weapon enhancements, Str, buffs, and other bonuses, and just rolling opposed attack rolls at will is too time-consuming and swingy, so increasing your existing AC is probably a better route.

    Spell Reflect:
    [...]
    If you suceed, the spell is simply negated. If you suceed by 5 or more, then the spell is reflected back at it's casters, with a maximum range equal to it's original range.
    Just as a minor nitpick, you should probably clarify that the total range (distance from caster to fighter * 2) is limited by the spell's range.

    You can attempt to negate the affect of AOE spells, though if you suceed the spell still triggers on the surroudning area, except for the space you occupy.
    A better phrasing for this would be "If you successfully negate an area spell, it is only negated for you, not for any other creatures in the area. You are not able to reflect area spells back at the caster."

    Armor Buster
    [...]
    Benefit: When you make a charge attack with a two-handed weapon, you can ignore damage reduction on your target in an amount up to 1/2 your BAB. If this value exceeds the amount of DR your target has, then you may ignore any AC bonus from armor (including from natural armor) equal to 1/2 the remaining difference. (or 1 point of AC per 4 points of BAB)
    Two things here. First off, fiddling with halves and quarters of things for DR and natural armor isn't all that complicated, but it's more complicated than it needs to be. Ignoring all DR isn't terribly powerful (you can get it with a cheap weapon quality or low-level maneuvers), so you could just make this let them ignore all DR and it would be fine.

    Second, two-handed fighting is already pigeonholed into a reckless charger style with the existence of Shock Trooper, so I dislike new feats for 2HF that only function on a charge. In fact, I might make Armor Buster not work on a charge, since that's helpful both thematically (you need to wind up and aim for a weak spot, not swing recklessly) and mechanically (gives chargers something to do when they can't charge), but that's just me.

    Putting those together, I'd change the benefit to the following: "While you wield a two-handed weapon, the first attack you make each turn against a target with damage reduction ignores that damage reduction; if you attack a target without damage reduction, you instead ignore an amount of armor and natural armor bonuses to their AC up to 1/4 your BAB." Nice, clean, and effective.

    Crippling Strike
    [...]
    Benefit: Targets dealt damage by your melee attacks lose immunity to ability damage for 1 round.
    [...]
    This one is probably a little wordy as well. I'm open to suggestions for improvement.
    I dislike the idea of disabling immunity to ability damage for a round. Your own attack ignoring immunity, sure, that means you're Just That AwesomeTM, but disabling it this way would seem to encourage the fighter hitting an ability-damage-immune creature so that his caster buddy can shivering touch or ego whip it, and while encouraging teamwork is nice I think that's too abusable.

    Here's what I'd do instead: "When you score a critical hit with a two-handed weapon, you may forgo the extra damage from your weapon to instead deal 2 points of ability damage per point of critical multiplier to an ability score of your choice (6 points for a x3 weapon and so forth), aside from Constitution. If your target is normally immune to ability damage, you only deal half that damage."

    Reach Weapon Specialist
    [...]
    I'd like to add something else in conjunction with this feat, but I haven't come up with anything that isn't OP at a low level yet. Let me know if you have ideas.
    I don't think you need anything else; this basically turns every reach weapon into a spiked chain, and that should be good enough.

    Harrier
    [...]
    You can affect a maximum number of enemies this way each round equal to 1+1/2 your HD.
    You can probably remove that limit; the penalty is easier to track if it just affects everyone within your reach, and in a given battle you'll either be facing a handful of enemies (in which case you wouldn't get the full benefit anyway) or a ton of enemies (in which case you should be able to shine by harrying two dozen mooks).

    Lockdown
    This feat is essentially Stand Still++, and Stand Still can be taken at level 1, so I'd change the prerequisite to "BAB +6 OR BAB +3 and Stand Still" so it doesn't make someone who picked up Stand Still at 1st level feel like they wasted a slot.

    Forceful Leverage
    To make this scale and synergize better, I'd just have it let you make a free bull rush attempt against a target you damage without provoking an AoO or requiring you to move with the target, reducing the extra +BAB bonus to +BAB/2. You'll be less guaranteed to move the opponent 5 feet, but if you build for it you can get a pretty high check.
    Better to DM in Baator than play in Celestia
    You can just call me Dice; that's how I roll.


    Spoiler: Sig of Holding
    Show

    Quote Originally Posted by abadguy View Post
    Darn you PoDL for making me care about a bunch of NPC Commoners!
    Quote Originally Posted by Chambers View Post
    I'm pretty sure turning Waterdeep into a sheet of glass wasn't the best win condition for that fight. We lived though!
    Quote Originally Posted by MaxiDuRaritry View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by PairO'DiceLost View Post
    <Snip>
    Where are my Like, Love, and Want to Have Your Manchildren (Totally Homo) buttons for this post?
    Won a cookie for this, won everything for this

  15. - Top - End - #15
    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]

    Quote Originally Posted by PairO'Dice Lost View Post
    One overall suggestion for these feats before I get to the individual responses: You might want to make everything that scales by HD scale by BAB instead, to make good BAB more meaningful as you said before.
    A lot of things scale off of BAB. If it still says HD, I propably left it there intentionally so a medium BAB is just as powerful as a full BAB class. I don't mind there being some fighting styles or feats where the two are more even.

    Edit: I think I've changed everything to BAB now.

    To simplify this a bit, I'd suggest just making this a cone that affects all enemies in the area, to be more in line with other shout/fear/etc. effects, and scale the area instead of the number of targets (something like 10 feet + 5 feet per 2 points of BAB). That's more for ease of resolution than balance, though, so it's up to you.
    Makes sense. I decided to start with 15+5/3 levels though, cause I'm not certain what a 10 ft. cone at first level would look like. If you think it should be adjusted up or down let me know.

    Daze is generally a more valuable condition than stun since it's much harder to resist or become immune to it, so it should probably stun on a failed save or daze if it's failed by 5 or more.
    But Stun is the worse condition to be in; it's everything Daze is, plus and AC penalty and you drop your weapons. I don't mind changing either Daze and/or Stun to something else, but the worse effect should be on the worse fail IMO.


    Just as a minor nitpick, you should probably clarify that the total range (distance from caster to fighter * 2) is limited by the spell's range.
    Y'know, it's funny that you bring that up...
    because I hadn't really decided which way I wanted to have it go. The way it's written now, it was INTENDED for the spells ranges to basically reset once it gets bounced back. If you think that really won't work, let me know.

    A better phrasing for this would be "If you successfully negate an area spell, it is only negated for you, not for any other creatures in the area. You are not able to reflect area spells back at the caster."
    Yeah, that sounds better. I'll make the change.

    *snip*

    Putting those together, I'd change the benefit to the following: "While you wield a two-handed weapon, the first attack you make each turn against a target with damage reduction ignores that damage reduction; if you attack a target without damage reduction, you instead ignore an amount of armor and natural armor bonuses to their AC up to 1/4 your BAB." Nice, clean, and effective.
    Ok, I don't see anything wrong with that, except why only on the first attack each turn? That actually seems to promote charging rather than letting them stand toe-to-toe and just make a normal full attack.

    I dislike the idea of disabling immunity to ability damage for a round. Your own attack ignoring immunity, sure, that means you're Just That AwesomeTM, but disabling it this way would seem to encourage the fighter hitting an ability-damage-immune creature so that his caster buddy can shivering touch or ego whip it, and while encouraging teamwork is nice I think that's too abusable.
    Yeah, I see that. With a regular group its a decent tactic. With a high-op group it's a killer strategy.
    So I'm torn, but I guess I'll do it your way.

    Here's what I'd do instead: "When you score a critical hit with a two-handed weapon, you may forgo the extra damage from your weapon to instead deal 2 points of ability damage per point of critical multiplier to an ability score of your choice (6 points for a x3 weapon and so forth), aside from Constitution. If your target is normally immune to ability damage, you only deal half that damage."
    That works, but since I like rolling dice, how about 1d3 or 1d4 instead of a flat 2 points?

    I don't think you need anything else; this basically turns every reach weapon into a spiked chain, and that should be good enough.
    I thought the feat wouldn't be exciting enough, but you're at least the second person to say they like it as is, so that shows how much I know, apparently.

    You can probably remove that limit; the penalty is easier to track if it just affects everyone within your reach, and in a given battle you'll either be facing a handful of enemies (in which case you wouldn't get the full benefit anyway) or a ton of enemies (in which case you should be able to shine by harrying two dozen mooks).
    A previous reviewer commented that the feat was to powerful, so I halved the penalty and capped the number of targets. Since I was altering Roar of Challenge at the same time, I used the same cap.
    If I overcompensated, then I'll take it out.

    This feat is essentially Stand Still++, and Stand Still can be taken at level 1, so I'd change the prerequisite to "BAB +6 OR BAB +3 and Stand Still" so it doesn't make someone who picked up Stand Still at 1st level feel like they wasted a slot.
    I did not know about the feat Stand Still; so I went and looked it up.
    I prefer my feat (obviously) because it's effective against a greater variety of encounters.
    I would suggest simply not taking "Stand Still" at first level, but I'll see if I can't come up with an alternate option as well.

    To make this scale and synergize better, I'd just have it let you make a free bull rush attempt against a target you damage without provoking an AoO or requiring you to move with the target, reducing the extra +BAB bonus to +BAB/2. You'll be less guaranteed to move the opponent 5 feet, but if you build for it you can get a pretty high check.
    I have no objection to making changes, but how exactly is this an improvement? Bullrush is pretty much just a strength check anway; the only difference seems to be that it has a modifier based on size (which I can add to mine, if you think its a good idea).
    The only possible benefit I see is allowing the Imp. Bullrush feat to also add to your check, though with a boost equal to BAB that hardly seems necessary.
    Last edited by Deepbluediver; 2013-02-25 at 02:51 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!

  16. - Top - End - #16
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    PairO'Dice Lost's Avatar

    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Malsheem, Nessus
    Gender
    Male

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Deepbluediver View Post
    But Stun is the worse condition to be in; it's everything Daze is, plus and AC penalty and you drop your weapons. I don't mind changing either Daze and/or Stun to something else, but the effect should be on the worse fail IMO.
    Daze is much harder for a defender to resist and much harder for an attacker to acquire, so an at-will daze effect is much more valuable than an at-will stun effect even if stun is the worse condition, if that makes sense.

    Y'know, it's funny that you bring that up...
    because I hadn't really decided which way I wanted to have it go. The way it's written now, it was INTENDED for the spells ranges to basically reset once it gets bounced back. If you think that really won't work, let me know.
    Resetting the spell's range doesn't make much sense, as that would mean you're somehow magically boosting the spell's range to reach back to the caster when normally a spell just shorts out when it hits maximum range.

    Ok, I don't see anything wrong with that, except why only on the first attack each turn? That actually seems to promote charging rather than letting them stand toe-to-toe and just make a normal full attack.
    I was saying that I'd disallow charge-related stuff in my own material, not that you should disallow it here; the important thing is that it's not restricted to only charging. Ignoring all DR is too good for a constant benefit, so making it once per round lets you do it with a charge, a standard attack, a maneuver, or whatever else in addition to a full attack.

    That works, but since I like rolling dice, how about 1d3 or 1d4 instead of a flat 2 points?
    Go ahead; I was aiming for speed, but fun takes precedence.

    I thought the feat wouldn't be exciting enough, but you're at least the second person to say they like it as is, so that shows how much I know, apparently.
    "Exciting" and "worthwhile" aren't the same thing; the spiked chain is cliche and boring for trip/lockdown builds, but it's undeniably effective. You can add a side benefit to the feat for fun, but it won't be why people take it.

    I would suggest simply not taking "Stand Still" at first level, but I'll see if I can't come up with an alternate option as well.
    The problem here is that your feat is strictly superior, but if someone wants to lock people down for the first 5 levels they need Stand Still, so they'd have to choose between waiting to do your job or having a wasted feat.

    I have no objection to making changes, but how exactly is this an improvement? Bullrush is pretty much just a strength check anway; the only difference seems to be that it has a modifier based on size (which I can add to mine, if you think its a good idea).
    The only possible benefit I see is allowing the Imp. Bullrush feat to also add to your check, though with a boost equal to BAB that hardly seems necessary.
    It also synergizes will all the other things that key off bull rush--Dungeon Crasher, Shock Trooper, and Combat Brute being the biggest ones. It's not the size of the bonus that matters, it's that synergy.
    Better to DM in Baator than play in Celestia
    You can just call me Dice; that's how I roll.


    Spoiler: Sig of Holding
    Show

    Quote Originally Posted by abadguy View Post
    Darn you PoDL for making me care about a bunch of NPC Commoners!
    Quote Originally Posted by Chambers View Post
    I'm pretty sure turning Waterdeep into a sheet of glass wasn't the best win condition for that fight. We lived though!
    Quote Originally Posted by MaxiDuRaritry View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by PairO'DiceLost View Post
    <Snip>
    Where are my Like, Love, and Want to Have Your Manchildren (Totally Homo) buttons for this post?
    Won a cookie for this, won everything for this

  17. - Top - End - #17
    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]

    Quote Originally Posted by PairO'Dice Lost View Post
    Daze is much harder for a defender to resist and much harder for an attacker to acquire, so an at-will daze effect is much more valuable than an at-will stun effect even if stun is the worse condition, if that makes sense.
    It makes sense mechanically, though the fluff feels weird. It seems like it should be progressive, lots of dazing immunity, some stunning immunity, etc etc etc, as the conditions get worse.
    But I didn't write the Monster Manuals.

    How about if I add a line saying that "any creature immune to stun is still dazed"?

    "Exciting" and "worthwhile" aren't the same thing; the spiked chain is cliche and boring for trip/lockdown builds, but it's undeniably effective. You can add a side benefit to the feat for fun, but it won't be why people take it.
    I'll keep that in mind while I continue to brainstorm for a "fun" addition.

    The problem here is that your feat is strictly superior, but if someone wants to lock people down for the first 5 levels they need Stand Still, so they'd have to choose between waiting to do your job or having a wasted feat.
    I've added a note under the "special" section that anyone with Stand Still can trade it for this feat when they hit a high enough level.

    Edit: I've done the same thing for Shield Strike/Improve Shield Bash.

    It also synergizes will all the other things that key off bull rush--Dungeon Crasher, Shock Trooper, and Combat Brute being the biggest ones. It's not the size of the bonus that matters, it's that synergy.
    Ok, I can see that. If I let it trigger off of every attack though, you don't think that will make it too powerful? Should I limit it to just regular attacks and not AoO?



    Update: I forgot to respond to this comment initially.
    Here's a possible idea: While someone with Block and Parry is wielding a shield, they may use their Str instead of Dex for AC if it's higher, and when targeted by a melee attack they may expend one attack of opportunity to add half their BAB to their AC against that attack.

    Str instead of Dex represents actively pushing attacks away more than dodging, spending AoOs uses an existing resource and integrates better with other feats, and just adding to AC keeps the advantage of AC as a static defense instead of adding more rolls. As it is, BAB+shield bonus is highly unlikely to beat the attack rolls of near-level opposition since you're missing out on weapon enhancements, Str, buffs, and other bonuses, and just rolling opposed attack rolls at will is too time-consuming and swingy, so increasing your existing AC is probably a better route.
    I like your justification for adding Str to AC, but for the rest I was trying to do something that would let tanking-style players feel as if they where being more active in their own defense, instead of just boosting passive stats.

    Your idea does seem like it would be effective though, so let me think about it a little more.
    Last edited by Deepbluediver; 2013-02-01 at 02:29 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!

  18. - Top - End - #18
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    PairO'Dice Lost's Avatar

    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Malsheem, Nessus
    Gender
    Male

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Deepbluediver View Post
    It makes sense mechanically, though the fluff feels weird. It seems like it should be progressive, lots of dazing immunity, some stunning immunity, etc etc etc, as the conditions get worse.
    But I didn't write the Monster Manuals.

    How about if I add a line saying that "any creature immune to stun is still dazed"?
    That would work.

    Ok, I can see that. If I let it trigger off of every attack though, you don't think that will make it too powerful? Should I limit it to just regular attacks and not AoO?
    Only regular attacks would be good.

    I like your justification for adding Str to AC, but for the rest I was trying to do something that would let tanking-style players feel as if they where being more active in their own defense, instead of just boosting passive stats.

    Your idea does seem like it would be effective though, so let me think about it a little more.
    Perhaps if they imposed a penalty to the opponent's attacks instead of increasing their own AC? The main concern is to not bog down combat by adding an extra roll to every attack against the tank.
    Better to DM in Baator than play in Celestia
    You can just call me Dice; that's how I roll.


    Spoiler: Sig of Holding
    Show

    Quote Originally Posted by abadguy View Post
    Darn you PoDL for making me care about a bunch of NPC Commoners!
    Quote Originally Posted by Chambers View Post
    I'm pretty sure turning Waterdeep into a sheet of glass wasn't the best win condition for that fight. We lived though!
    Quote Originally Posted by MaxiDuRaritry View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by PairO'DiceLost View Post
    <Snip>
    Where are my Like, Love, and Want to Have Your Manchildren (Totally Homo) buttons for this post?
    Won a cookie for this, won everything for this

  19. - Top - End - #19
    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]

    Wow, it's only been a little over a month since I last updated; glad to know my speed maintaints it usual languid pace.

    Anywho, Single-handed weapon style is FINALLY up. Its purposefully short because I wanted it to be appealing to classes without a ton of extra feats (mainly bard and it's ilk). Since the style doesn't really have the inherent defense or damage of the other options, I tried to compensate somewhat by giving it some good alternatives, but I worry I might have overshot on that last feat.

    So let me know how you think it stacks up both as a whole and as compared to the rest of the styles.

    Quote Originally Posted by PairO'Dice Lost View Post
    Perhaps if they imposed a penalty to the opponent's attacks instead of increasing their own AC? The main concern is to not bog down combat by adding an extra roll to every attack against the tank.
    Ok, I've rewritten the effect (for like, the 4th Tiamat-damned time now) to hopefully incorpate my love of dice-rolling in a way that does not bog down combat. Any feedback would be appreciated.


    Quote Originally Posted by Amoren View Post
    (Two-Weapon Fighting)
    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.
    I took another look, and for now I'm leaving the feats as is. I think since the prerequisite is Dex OR BAB, they could always get that at first level if they built for it, but I've lowered the Prereq for the very first feat in the chain anyway.
    Last edited by Deepbluediver; 2014-07-24 at 03:49 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!

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •