Get Back Here, You Son of A-! (3.5 Feat, PEACH)

[NeoSeraphi]

All-Out Attack (Fighter)
Prerequisites: Int 13, Combat Expertise, Improved Trip, BAB +6
Benefit: Your allies within 60' gain the Pounce extraordinary special attack against any creature that is currently prone due to a successful Trip attempt by you. At the end of a charge made against a creature who is currently prone after being Tripped by you, your allies may make a full attack. The +2 bonus to attack rolls from charging applies to each attack roll your ally makes with this Pounce.

As a constant secondary benefit of this feat, you gain the Pounce extraordinary special attack. When you Pounce against a creature that is prone, you deal an extra 1d6 points of damage per point of Strength bonus you have (minimum of +1d6).

[Lord_Gareth]

....Ooooor I can save my feats and learn some White Raven. This is a lot of investment for not a whole lot of reward.

[NeoSeraphi]

....Ooooor I can save my feats and learn some White Raven. This is a lot of investment for not a whole lot of reward.

Yeah, but Tome of Battle isn't always accepted at tables. Plus, White Raven only lets you have your allies charge an enemy, it doesn't give them pounce or anything.

Still, if you're going to criticize me, then I suppose I'll ask, how would you make it better?

[Lord_Gareth]

Honestly? I'd just turn pounce into a feat straight-up instead of limiting it to Lion Totem Barbarians only. Since we're 'brewing here already, we can more-or-less accept that melee characters need pounce the way they need lungs. Why continue to require the dip?

[NeoSeraphi]

Honestly? I'd just turn pounce into a feat straight-up instead of limiting it to Lion Totem Barbarians only. Since we're 'brewing here already, we can more-or-less accept that melee characters need pounce the way they need lungs. Why continue to require the dip?

Fair enough. How does it look now?

[Razgriez]

I like the idea as a feat actually. An interesting choice to consider if you use Trip weapons for your Melee build. Heck, it even offers an interesting option to Monks that take Improved trip.

[dethkruzer]

Nice little Persona reference there, and the feat seems pretty well balanced with the pre-requistes. although I would suggest adding something that somewhat limits how many people can get pounce from the feat, maybe a radius or something.

[NeoSeraphi]

Nice little Persona reference there, and the feat seems pretty well balanced with the pre-requistes. although I would suggest adding something that somewhat limits how many people can get pounce from the feat, maybe a radius or something.

Done, thanks.

[JoshuaZ]

Yeah, but Tome of Battle isn't always accepted at tables. Plus, White Raven only lets you have your allies charge an enemy, it doesn't give them pounce or anything.

Are there tables where ToB isn't allowed but homebrew is? That's surprising. I think the second point about allowing pounc is much more substantive.

[NeoSeraphi]

Are there tables where ToB isn't allowed but homebrew is? That's surprising. I think the second point about allowing pounc is much more substantive.

Yes. I'm part of such a game right now. The easy access for a DM is another factor to consider (Not every DM wants to shell out 40 dollars for a book, meanwhile homebrew is simple and free).

Same arguments against ToB that don't apply to homebrew: People don't want to learn a new system, people think per-encounter abilities are too 4.0, etc. None of that applies to homebrew (at least, not non-ToB homebrew)

[JoshuaZ]

Yes. I'm part of such a game right now. The easy access for a DM is another factor to consider (Not every DM wants to shell out 40 dollars for a book, meanwhile homebrew is simple and free).

Same arguments against ToB that don't apply to homebrew: People don't want to learn a new system, people think per-encounter abilities are too 4.0, etc. None of that applies to homebrew (at least, not non-ToB homebrew)

Huh. The cost thing makes a surprising amount of sense.

[Straybow]

I'm unalterably opposed to feats that grant powers to creatures other than the feat user.

[NeoSeraphi]

I'm unalterably opposed to feats that grant powers to creatures other than the feat user.

Well, I'm sorry to hear that. I happen to enjoy working together with my party instead of just having each of us do our own thing independently of each other.

[JoshuaZ]

I'm unalterably opposed to feats that grant powers to creatures other than the feat user.

Why? Is there a reason that spells can do this but not feats? What about class features? Can bards providing morale boosts occur? If so, why is that different?

[Hiro Protagonest]

When I read the title, I thought this was going to be a defender type feat.

Maybe I should make one to fit my vision.

Get Back Here!
Prerequisites: BAB +1
Benefit: At the start of you turn, you may pick a single enemy within charging distance of you. If the enemy is within your reach, you must attack him, if he is outside your reach, you must charge him, if he is out of your reach but close enough you can't charge him, you must move towards him and attack him. Until the start of your next turn when the feat refreshes, he takes a -2 penalty to attack rolls against your allies, and if he attacks one of your allies or casts a spell while within charging distance, you may charge him, attack him, or move and attack him as an immediate action, with an extra effect of giving him an additional -2 penalty to attack your allies or doubling the DC of the concentration check to cast the spell.
Special: You do not count as your own ally for the purposes of this feat. And as clarity for Curmudgeon, this feat works on female and gender-neutral enemies.

[NeoSeraphi]

When I read the title, I thought this was going to be a defender type feat.

Maybe I should make one to fit my vision.

Get Back Here!
Prerequisites: BAB +1
Benefit: At the start of you turn, pick a single enemy within charging distance of you. If the enemy is within your reach, you must attack him, if he is outside your reach, you must charge him, if he is out of your reach but close enough you can't charge him, you must move towards him and attack him. Until the start of your next turn when the feat refreshes, he takes a -2 penalty to attack rolls against your allies, and if he attacks one of your allies or casts a spell while within charging distance, you may charge him immediately, giving him an additional -2 penalty to attack your allies or doubling the DC of the concentration check to cast the spell.
Special: You do not count as your own ally for the purposes of this feat. And as clarity for Curmudgeon, this feat works on female and gender-neutral enemies.

Seems like a trap, after all, as written, it's not optional.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Seems like a trap, after all, as written, it's not optional.

Yeah, that was the intent, but I can see where you would rather hold a choke point.

Although I did say that when he attacks an ally you *may* charge him.

Changed the wording to be more clear on some of the other stuff though.

[NeoSeraphi]

Yeah, that was the intent, but I can see where you would rather hold a choke point.

Although I did say that when he attacks an ally you *may* charge him.

Changed the wording to be more clear on some of the other stuff though.

Again, trap. Most characters who enjoy the "tanking" thing play Lawful characters (like knights and paladins), and since you don't give the option to avoid choosing an enemy every round, you will be forced to seek and attack your enemies even if they have surrendered (which can cause paladins to fall).

[Hiro Protagonest]

Again, trap. Most characters who enjoy the "tanking" thing play Lawful characters (like knights and paladins), and since you don't give the option to avoid choosing an enemy every round, you will be forced to seek and attack your enemies even if they have surrendered (which can cause paladins to fall).

Oh I see. Fixed that.

[Straybow]

Well, I'm sorry to hear that. I happen to enjoy working together with my party instead of just having each of us do our own thing independently of each other.

I'm sorry to hear that your party has such difficulty working together they need a special feat to make it happen.

Let me be more clear rather than single-sentence concise: Working together != granted powers for which they may have no prerequisites or qualifications at all. And we aren't talking about an untrained feat or something. An extraordinary ability is "not something that just anyone can do or even learn to do without extensive training."

This feat (not itself an Ex ability) grants this Ex ability temporarily to any Shmo who happens to be an ally at the moment. Not only to allies who have sparred and trained with the feat user over a period of time and so might learn how to take advantage of the feat user's successful trip. Nor all who have some prerequisite feat of their own. All without limits of any kind. The 0-level commoner who drinks with the feat user at the pub when a bar fight breaks out gets this Ex ability.

It doesn't even have the Pounce Ex ability as a prerequisite, so the character who is mystically bestowing Pounce on his allies may not have it him/herself. That's way out of balance.

[TuggyNE]

This feat (not itself an Ex ability) grants this Ex ability temporarily to any Shmo who happens to be an ally at the moment.

Note that feats are considered Ex unless otherwise stated.

It doesn't even have the Pounce Ex ability as a prerequisite, so the character who is mystically bestowing Pounce on his allies may not have it him/herself. That's way out of balance.

Why would it have it as a prerequisite when it grants it to the character* for free? That doesn't make sense.
*The character who selects this feat, that is.

[Cieyrin]

I'm sorry to hear that your party has such difficulty working together they need a special feat to make it happen.

Let me be more clear rather than single-sentence concise: Working together != granted powers for which they may have no prerequisites or qualifications at all. And we aren't talking about an untrained feat or something. An extraordinary ability is "not something that just anyone can do or even learn to do without extensive training."

This feat (not itself an Ex ability) grants this Ex ability temporarily to any Shmo who happens to be an ally at the moment. Not only to allies who have sparred and trained with the feat user over a period of time and so might learn how to take advantage of the feat user's successful trip. Nor all who have some prerequisite feat of their own. All without limits of any kind. The 0-level commoner who drinks with the feat user at the pub when a bar fight breaks out gets this Ex ability.

It doesn't even have the Pounce Ex ability as a prerequisite, so the character who is mystically bestowing Pounce on his allies may not have it him/herself. That's way out of balance.

...you know, I can actually see something to that, though I have a counter-offer on how it can still work but not just grant it to anybody, regardless of their lack of experience: Make it a Teamwork Benefit, which can be found in DMG2, Dungeonscape and Heroes of Battle. They're designed so that the team leader (who would be the guy taking the feat, like here) would have to meet the major requirements but the team members (everybody else who could benefit) have to meet some minimal requirements and then spend time to practice as a team to pull it off. It's a really nice way to get mechanical benefits for having worked together for years, I'm always surprised that I don't see people using them more, other than the books are somewhat less mainstream than Core and Completes. I can write it up as one later, as a separate option to the feat.

[Straybow]

Note that feats are considered Ex unless otherwise stated.

Hmmm, I suppose a feat being useable untrained might then qualify as stated as not Ex, there if not useable untrained it would default to Ex unless specifically stated. OK.

Why would it have it as a prerequisite when it grants it to the character* for free? That doesn't make sense.

Ummm, that's my point when I mention that it doesn't have Pounce as prerequisite (elective feat or class ability). Sorry I didn't lawyerese all the ramifications of my statement.