Improved Power Attack (A Seraphi Homebrew(TM) line of feats!) PEACH

[NeoSeraphi]

Improved Power Attack (Fighter)
Whether it's with a tiny dagger or a deadly heavy maul, you know how to put the hurt on someone.
Prerequisites: Str 17, Power Attack, BAB +11
Benefits: When you use the Power Attack feat, you add the following bonuses to your weapon damage rolls, where X is the penalty to your attack rolls.

+X: When using a light weapon
+2X: When using a one-handed weapon, or one end of a double weapon.
+4X: When using a two-handed weapon, or a one-handed weapon in both hands.

This bonus supercedes the damage bonus from the Power Attack feat.

Special: A character with the Supreme Power Attack class feature who takes this feat treats the penalty he takes on his attack rolls as if it were double the penalty, but still only up to his Base Attack Bonus.

(For example, a Barbarian 9/Frenzied Berserker 10/Warblade 1 who wanted to use the Power Attack ability while using a greataxe could add +80 to his damage rolls by taking a -10 penalty to his attack rolls (because that penalty is treated as if it were doubled) but he couldn't take a higher penalty, as his Base Attack Bonus is only 20.)

The bonus damage from the Supreme Power Attack class feature and the Improved Power Attack feat do not stack.

A fighter may select Improved Power Attack as a bonus feat.


Supreme Bull Rush (Fighter)
Prerequisites: Str 17, Power Attack, Improved Bull Rush, Improved Power Attack, BAB +11
Benefit: When you strike a foe while using the Improved Power Attack feat with at least a -5 penalty, the force of your blow knocks your opponent back. You may choose to initiate a Bull Rush attempt as a free action without requiring a touch attack or provoking an attack of opportunity.

You receive a bonus on your opposed Strength check equal to the total amount of bonus damage you received from your Improved Power Attack feat. You may not move with your target. If your target is knocked back more than 15 feet, he must make a Reflex save (DC 10+1/2 your Base Attack Bonus+Your Strength Modifier) or fall prone.

Special: A fighter may select Supreme Bull Rush as a bonus feat.



Supreme Sunder (Fighter)
Prerequisites: Str 17, Power Attack, Improved Sunder, Improved Power Attack
Benefit: You can choose to not destroy an item you Sunder, but instead render it completely unusable. If you choose to use this feat, when you Sunder an item and would reduce its hit points to 0, the item is instead changed into an inert item.

If the item is a magic item with a passive ability (such as a ring of freedom of movement) its ability turns off as if it was being continuously suppressed by an anti-magic field.

If it is a magic item with an ability that must be activated, such as a ring of feather fall, any attempts to activate the ability fail.

If the item is a weapon, it becomes unable to deal any damage or be used in any other way it is meant to be used (an inert spiked chain could not be used to Trip a character)

If the item is a piece of armor or a shield, all passive abilities turn off, all active abilities cannot be activated, and it provides no bonus to the character's AC (however, if the creature is still wearing the armor, so its Armor Check penalty still applies)

An item you render inert can be completely repaired with the appropriate Craft check (DC 10+caster level of the creator of the item). You do not need the appropriate item creation feat. If the item is not a magic item, the Craft DC is 12. This check takes 8 hours. You may take 10 on this check, but you may not take 20.

Any spell that would repair an item, such as the make whole spell, restores an inert object to its original state.

More to come...

[Spiryt]

What about Supreme Power Attack adding some multiplicity of your base weapon dice to damage, depending on the weapon class?

A bit more rolling, but as it stands PA becomes even more abusable by additional multipliers like Leap Attack, and weapon indeed doesn't count at all anymore... Save for "choose high critical".

[Yitzi]

Looks good, but there are probably enough straightforward offensive feats already; the real need is for situational and defensive feats.

[Seerow]

Is this damage actually needed? Like ever? Or is this intended to replace leap attack and charge multipliers (in which case it may be more balanced)

[MesiDoomstalker]

(For example, a Barbarian 9/Frenzied Berserker 11/Warblade 1 who wanted to use the Power Attack ability while using a greataxe could add +80 to his damage rolls by taking a -10 penalty to his attack rolls (because that penalty is treated as if it were doubled) but he couldn't take a higher penalty, as his Base Attack Bonus is only 20.)

The example is an epic character since its 21 levels and 10 level PrC with 11 levels. Pointing it out just incase this was a mistake, otherwise ignore me.

[legomaster00156]

+80 damge lol thats so op

In all seriousness, considering the level required to even access the feat, you did a great job of balancing Improved Power Attack. It's something I would seriously allow in a game. Granted, I would need to adjust it to PF rules, but whatever.

[NeoSeraphi]

The example is an epic character since its 21 levels and 10 level PrC with 11 levels. Pointing it out just incase this was a mistake, otherwise ignore me.

Whoops! Thank you! Fixed.

Is this damage actually needed? Like ever? Or is this intended to replace leap attack and charge multipliers (in which case it may be more balanced)

It's just an optional alternative. I mean, sure, you could take them together, but that would just result in more damage, which you don't need in an ubercharger build.

Meanwhile, you don't actually have to charge to use Improved Power Attack, so it's actually much more useful to a build that doesn't have pounce. (Like fighters, warblades, etc)

[Cieyrin]

It's just an optional alternative. I mean, sure, you could take them together, but that would just result in more damage, which you don't need in an ubercharger build.

Meanwhile, you don't actually have to charge to use Improved Power Attack, so it's actually much more useful to a build that doesn't have pounce. (Like fighters, warblades, etc)

Warblades can have pounce, since that's a Tiger Claw strike but yeah, uncoupling Power Attack from charges to get bonus damage up there seems like a good move, it's just when you bring it back in that it gets silly in terms of damage and anything you hit turns into Chunky Salsa.

[NeoSeraphi]

Lo! Supreme Sunder! A form of Sunder that people might actually want to use!

[Coidzor]

Benefit: When you strike a foe while using the Improved Power Attack feat with at least a -5 penalty, the force of your blow knocks your opponent back. You automatically initiate a Bull Rush attempt as a free action without requiring a touch attack or provoking an attack of opportunity (This is not optional).

Why do you have that nerf in here by limiting whether they can choose to make more than one attack against the enemy they're hitting if they power attack for more than 4?

[NeoSeraphi]

Why do you have that nerf in here by limiting whether they can choose to make more than one attack against the enemy they're hitting if they power attack for more than 4?

True, I guess I'll take that out.

[Cieyrin]

How do Supremely Sundered objects interact with Make Whole or Fabrication?

[NeoSeraphi]

How do Supremely Sundered objects interact with Make Whole or Fabrication?

Of course all repair spells (except mending, unless the object weighs 1 lb or less) will restore inert objects to their original state.

Fabricate on the other hand, no. It says "take raw materials and make a finished product". The item is in disrepair, it's not raw materials.

[Yitzi]

Of course all repair spells (except mending, unless the object weighs 1 lb or less) will restore inert objects to their original state.

I'd say you might want to make spells be unable to restore magical abilities (which is what I'm doing in my very similar approach to the same issue in my own fix) so that the Craft skill actually has an important use.

You also might want to explicitly state the cost of materials to fix the item. (I'd suggest 1/5 the nonmagical cost, same as repairing a damaged item.)

[NeoSeraphi]

I'd say you might want to make spells be unable to restore magical abilities (which is what I'm doing in my very similar approach to the same issue in my own fix) so that the Craft skill actually has an important use.

Eh, no. I'm not really part of the "spellcasters are too overpowered" following. If magical spells can repair items, they can do the same thing that a Craft skill can do.

You also might want to explicitly state the cost of materials to fix the item. (I'd suggest 1/5 the nonmagical cost, same as repairing a damaged item.)

That kind of defeats the purpose of the feat. The feat is supposed to make Sundering useful. The reason Sundering is bad now is because it interferes with your WBL.

Fixing these items is supposed to be free.

[Yitzi]

Eh, no. I'm not really part of the "spellcasters are too overpowered" following.

This isn't so much a question of "too overpowered" (although I think they're that as well), as one of "make too much else superfluous". Of course, it you disagree about that too, then that explains the disagreement here.

That kind of defeats the purpose of the feat. The feat is supposed to make Sundering useful. The reason Sundering is bad now is because it interferes with your WBL.

By the point that magical items are showing up on a regular basis, one-fifth the cost of a masterwork item is pretty much a rounding error (it's a bit more than a CL1 potion). (Exceptions exist for items made of special materials, of course, but armor can't be sundered, and the only expensive material which weapons or shields are likely to be made of is adamantine, which you're not going to be sundering anyway if you can help it.)

[Cieyrin]

By the point that magical items are showing up on a regular basis, one-fifth the cost of a masterwork item is pretty much a rounding error (it's a bit more than a CL1 potion). (Exceptions exist for items made of special materials, of course, but armor can't be sundered, and the only expensive material which weapons or shields are likely to be made of is adamantine, which you're not going to be sundering anyway if you can help it.)

Me, my Adamantine Fullblade and Sense Weakness respectfully disagree that I can't snap adamantine like twigs. Adamantine just checks to see if hardness is less than 20 before breaking it. Sense Weakness knocks off 5 Hardness or DR. Adamantine has DR 20 normally, -5 from Sense Weakness means its less than 20. One Power Attack later...

[RaggedAngel]

I just think it's a little odd that Improved Power Attack has Str 18 as a requirement, and is itself a requirement for two feats that have Str 16 as a requirement.

If anything, it should be the other way around.

[NeoSeraphi]

I just think it's a little odd that Improved Power Attack has Str 18 as a requirement, and is itself a requirement for two feats that have Str 16 as a requirement.

If anything, it should be the other way around.

Woops! That was a typo, sorry. Improved Power Attack was supposed to have Str 16 too.

[Coidzor]

I'd say you might want to make spells be unable to restore magical abilities (which is what I'm doing in my very similar approach to the same issue in my own fix) so that the Craft skill actually has an important use.

Normally, if an item is destroyed it doesn't get the magical abilities back without having to spend gold and XP to re-enchant it, even if the physical object is repaired, last I checked, for 3.5 anyway. The Craft skill has hardly any interaction with magic items in general, mostly only having anything to do with constructs, usually.


So I see no reason for this nerf you're proposing, where instead of trading losing the item entirely or outright killing them and getting the item without any barriers to use with having to spend a utility spell you're making it a trade between losing the item entirely, just outright killing the enemy(more straightforward, rewarded by the system in general, and delivers a superior loot product), and having to wait until the adventure's over to get the downtime to while away on getting the accumulated loot usable again.

If the campaign/DM is such that one would get any downtime after the current adventure's over

[Yitzi]

Me, my Adamantine Fullblade and Sense Weakness respectfully disagree that I can't snap adamantine like twigs. Adamantine just checks to see if hardness is less than 20 before breaking it. Sense Weakness knocks off 5 Hardness or DR. Adamantine has DR 20 normally, -5 from Sense Weakness means its less than 20. One Power Attack later...

If you're using that sort of optimization, you probably don't need the help.

Normally, if an item is destroyed it doesn't get the magical abilities back without having to spend gold and XP to re-enchant it, even if the physical object is repaired, last I checked, for 3.5 anyway.

And that's why Sunder needs to be made usable without destroying too much of the loot value.

The Craft skill has hardly any interaction with magic items in general, mostly only having anything to do with constructs, usually.

Not true. If someone uses Sunder against your magical sword, and doesn't destroy it totally, the Craft skill is what you use (if you're not using a spell) to repair it so the next guy doesn't finish it off and leave you down by a few thousand gp.

So I see no reason for this nerf you're proposing, where instead of trading losing the item entirely or outright killing them and getting the item without any barriers to use with having to spend a utility spell you're making it a trade between losing the item entirely, just outright killing the enemy(more straightforward, rewarded by the system in general, and delivers a superior loot product), and having to wait until the adventure's over to get the downtime to while away on getting the accumulated loot usable again.

One day downtime isn't that bad. I could even see a feat that allows a "field repair" that takes only one hour but places a -1 to attack rolls with the weapon until it's repaired properly.

Or even allow the Make Whole spell to have an additional purpose in decreasing the time of repair to one minute.

[Seerow]

One day downtime isn't that bad. I could even see a feat that allows a "field repair" that takes only one hour but places a -1 to attack rolls with the weapon until it's repaired properly.

No. Bad. Feat tax is bad.


Either make it something that can be done for free (with the penalty suggested), or something that can be done as a skill trick (costs 2 skill points) without incurring a penalty.


Making someone spend a feat for something exceedingly rare to come up, takes a good amount of time even after spending the feat, and giving them a penalty for doing it is just creating a trap option.

[absolmorph]

I have only a single minor nitpick with these, and that's really more of a note. Feats typically have an ability score prerequisite that's odd (i.e. Power Attack requires 13 Strength, Combat Expertise requires 13 Intelligence).
Other than that, these are quite good. I definitely like Supreme Sunder; I might actually use sunder if it's available.

[NeoSeraphi]

I have only a single minor nitpick with these, and that's really more of a note. Feats typically have an ability score prerequisite that's odd (i.e. Power Attack requires 13 Strength, Combat Expertise requires 13 Intelligence).
Other than that, these are quite good. I definitely like Supreme Sunder; I might actually use sunder if it's available.

Edit: Meh, no point in letting my personal preference go above this. Sure, I'll change them to 17.

[Yitzi]

No. Bad. Feat tax is bad.

Why is that any more a feat tax than Supreme Sunder is? If anything, it's less, as Supreme Sunder is needed for Sunder to really be useful, while this is not unless you're playing an extremely fast-paced game.

Either make it something that can be done for free (with the penalty suggested), or something that can be done as a skill trick (costs 2 skill points) without incurring a penalty.

That could work too. (In my fix, I plan to make it part of the same feat that lets you repair things in 1 day; a straightforward reading of the craft skill would imply, simply by not saying any different, that repairing takes as much time as creating the item in the first place. It isn't really a feat tax, as even without it you can, once the adventure is over, find a craftsman who does have the feat to repair your item for a moderate fee (usually one quarter of the nonmagical cost of the item)).

Making someone spend a feat for something exceedingly rare to come up, takes a good amount of time even after spending the feat, and giving them a penalty for doing it is just creating a trap option.

I suppose it sort of is, but only because most of the time you can do without the item until the adventure ends and you can spend a day (which will be less than the time between adventures anyway except in the most fast-paced campaigns) repairing the item. As I said, I could see creating the feat, you don't have to. But either it's necessary (and thus not a trap option) or not necessary (and thus there's no problem with not making it); you can't have it both ways.

[Seerow]

Why is that any more a feat tax than Supreme Sunder is? If anything, it's less, as Supreme Sunder is needed for Sunder to really be useful, while this is not unless you're playing an extremely fast-paced game.

Well yes, Supreme Sunder is an extra tax to make a bad option usable. The feat you proposed is a extra tax to counter a rare tactic. Where Supreme Sunder is proactive, so as soon as you take it you can start sundering **** willy nilly without worrying about it, your feat has a very strong chance of never actually being used in a campaign. Any feat that can say that should go straight back to the drawing board.



That said I do agree Supreme Sunder should just be gone and Sunder just lets you choose to not permanently break the item (I think this is actually how PF handles it, could be misremembering). Sunder should also be able to break armor, imo.

That could work too. (In my fix, I plan to make it part of the same feat that lets you repair things in 1 day; a straightforward reading of the craft skill would imply, simply by not saying any different, that repairing takes as much time as creating the item in the first place. It isn't really a feat tax, as even without it you can, once the adventure is over, find a craftsman who does have the feat to repair your item for a moderate fee (usually one quarter of the nonmagical cost of the item)).

And why not just allow this to be a default use of the craft skill? What about it indicates it needs to be a feat? What sort of overpoweredness would come from anyone who literally lit skill points on fire to take craft skills to be able to repair their weapon without extra investment?

I suppose it sort of is, but only because most of the time you can do without the item until the adventure ends and you can spend a day (which will be less than the time between adventures anyway except in the most fast-paced campaigns) repairing the item. As I said, I could see creating the feat, you don't have to. But either it's necessary (and thus not a trap option) or not necessary (and thus there's no problem with not making it); you can't have it both ways.

Actually I can. If repairing items mid adventure is necessary, this is something the craft skill should be able to handle. After all, craft skills are currently downtime only, giving them something situational that you can do mid adventure is actually a really cool thing to do. .

Figure you make it a base repair time of 60 minutes, and that time gets cut in half for every 5 points over the default check (probably 10-15), so someone who's really epic at crafting might be able to fix their broken weapon in just a minute or two. A more typical guy is still taking 30-60 minutes.

Then you make a skill trick that lets you repair the weapon without it incurring that penalty is also really cool, since that's just a couple more skill points, and something people may consider if their **** is getting broken regularly.


But as a feat? You get literally 7 of those. Spending a feat on something that may never come up is a waste of a feat. Even if it does come up, it is still a trap option as you wrote it because even if it does come up, you're still taking a penalty to hit until you get some real downtime. At that point you may as well just pick up somebody else's weapon rather than trying to use your broken one, and save yourself the feat.

[Cieyrin]

Well yes, Supreme Sunder is an extra tax to make a bad option usable. The feat you proposed is a extra tax to counter a rare tactic. Where Supreme Sunder is proactive, so as soon as you take it you can start sundering **** willy nilly without worrying about it, your feat has a very strong chance of never actually being used in a campaign. Any feat that can say that should go straight back to the drawing board.

That said I do agree Supreme Sunder should just be gone and Sunder just lets you choose to not permanently break the item (I think this is actually how PF handles it, could be misremembering). Sunder should also be able to break armor, imo.

PF does it as a debuff with the Broken condition, which isn't quite as crippling as what we have here but is the same idea. You can also sunder armor, with weapons specifically designed for doing just that (Lucern Hammers!)

Actually I can. If repairing items mid adventure is necessary, this is something the craft skill should be able to handle. After all, craft skills are currently downtime only, giving them something situational that you can do mid adventure is actually a really cool thing to do. .

Figure you make it a base repair time of 60 minutes, and that time gets cut in half for every 5 points over the default check (probably 10-15), so someone who's really epic at crafting might be able to fix their broken weapon in just a minute or two. A more typical guy is still taking 30-60 minutes.

Then you make a skill trick that lets you repair the weapon without it incurring that penalty is also really cool, since that's just a couple more skill points, and something people may consider if their **** is getting broken regularly.

But as a feat? You get literally 7 of those. Spending a feat on something that may never come up is a waste of a feat. Even if it does come up, it is still a trap option as you wrote it because even if it does come up, you're still taking a penalty to hit until you get some real downtime. At that point you may as well just pick up somebody else's weapon rather than trying to use your broken one, and save yourself the feat.

If I was going to spend a feat on it, it'd have to be something similar to FFT's Chemist's Maintenance ability or at the very least be the antithesis of of Sense Weakness, where you provide your items with extra Hardness, as you shift your equipment to the part of the weapon or armor where it's thickest or a place able to best take a blow. That still seems weak, though, so perhaps that could be part of a Tactical feat about applying your superior knowledge of crafting arms and armor to naturally enhancing your equipment.

[Yitzi]

Well yes, Supreme Sunder is an extra tax to make a bad option usable. The feat you proposed is a extra tax to counter a rare tactic.

What rare tactic is it countering? Its purpose is to make sundering more useful, by allowing you to fix the item quickly.

Any feat that can say that should go straight back to the drawing board.

Not true, but only because it could be an NPC feat. But the main point is that you will have reason to use it if sundering and you want the item now. (If not, then don't take it. Or if that's not likely to be a concern, don't provide the feat; either way, making sundered items need Craft to make them usable again instead of just a spell isn't a problem.)

That said I do agree Supreme Sunder should just be gone and Sunder just lets you choose to not permanently break the item (I think this is actually how PF handles it, could be misremembering).

It is, but it would make sundering too powerful.

Sunder should also be able to break armor, imo.

That is both unrealistic and unbalancing.

And why not just allow this to be a default use of the craft skill? What about it indicates it needs to be a feat? What sort of overpoweredness would come from anyone who literally lit skill points on fire to take craft skills to be able to repair their weapon without extra investment?

Actually, now that I think of it, it does make more sense as a default use.

Figure you make it a base repair time of 60 minutes, and that time gets cut in half for every 5 points over the default check (probably 10-15), so someone who's really epic at crafting might be able to fix their broken weapon in just a minute or two. A more typical guy is still taking 30-60 minutes.

That's a bit extreme. I prefer "one day to fix it properly, one hour for a temporary fix (-1 to attack rolls, -2 to DC).

Then you make a skill trick

I don't want to use skill tricks. They're unfair to people who don't own Complete Scoundrel (barring in-person groups where the book can be shared, of course.)

But as a feat? You get literally 7 of those.

Well, unless you're a class that focuses on feats (in which case you get quite a bit more). But still, point taken.

[absolmorph]

Yitzi, with Supreme Sunder separate from Improved Sunder, it's a method of fighting that either provokes an AoO from the target or takes up 2 feat slots, and destroys part of the loot. That's one of the most sub-optimal combat methods I've heard of.
With Supreme Sunder rolled into Improved Sunder, it still takes up 2 feat slots but instead of destroying the loot it requires either spells or time spent repairing the item before it's functional again. That's one very good melee feat and one okay melee feat spent to give you a chance of making your enemies' items stop helping them, instead of one very good melee feat, one good melee feat and two okay melee feats spent to make your combat style almost self-reliant.
The soonest you can get that second off the ground is level 12, as a fighter.
The first is possible as a level 1 human or level 1 fighter.

How is that "too powerful"? It requires a dedicated ability expenditure (spell slots preparing Repair X or Make Whole, or taking them as spells known), an expenditure of money for a wand or eternal wand, or time spent repairing your loot. The only difference is that it's not illogically restricted to skills, like you would prefer (yes, spellcasters easily overshadow melee, but what logic can explain why spells can't restore magical abilities to inert items?).

How is allowing Sunder to damage armor unrealistic and unbalanced? You can break an adamatine weapon or shield, but their padded cloth armor is for some reason indestructible so long as they wear it?

[Spiryt]

You can break an adamatine weapon or shield, but their padded cloth armor is for some reason indestructible so long as they wear it?

Well, actually sundering padded armor in the way that makes it 'sundered' as a whole is kind of interesting problem.