Offensive Metered Foot

[RUMBLETiGER]

Also, I should point out that any attack you make on additional target qualifies as a miss against the original target.
In example, Sekhmet attacks Dandu (because he's naked and out of spells for the day) five times in one round (Greater Flurry, bro).
Sekhmet then, on the second round, attacks StreamOfTheSky and hits with his five attacks as well (lucky rolls). thereby missing Dandu completely.

Dandu runs to his gear, so Sekhmet decides to intercept (because he knows Dandu has some strange trick up his sleeve and he has a higher move speed) and attack him again - without his bonuses (because he failed to hit Dandu with an attack in the previous round).

I second this interpretation. If I swing my fist to hit target #1, the chosen target for this feat, and then I swing my first to hit, oh, wait, I didn't hit target #1, I hit target #2. My second hit missed target #1. Just because it connected with somebody else doesn't mean I actually hit my chosen target. Bonus lost.

 

[Sekhmet]

I second this interpretation. If I swing my fist to hit target #1, the chosen target for this feat, and then I swing my first to hit, oh, wait, I didn't hit target #1, I hit target #2. My second hit missed target #1. Just because it connected with somebody else doesn't mean I actually hit my chosen target. Bonus lost.

I liked the argument better when I was hitting Dandu.

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

Also, I should point out that any attack you make on additional target qualifies as a miss against the original target.

Umm...no. Not attacking a target =/= missing that target.

Would you strip the monk's bonus if he went full defense for a round? If he used his Wholeness of Body to Heal for a round? If he took a swipe at someone else running by (AoO)?

I can picture it now, BBEG fighting the monk, having mooks periodically run by the monk to take an AoO to knock his feats bonuses back to 0. Even better! Try to use maneuvers on the monk without the feats that let you avoid AoOs! If the monk tries to attack and prevent the mook from massively annoying him with a trip, grapple, etc... he has to sacrifice his feat bonus! Muwahahahaha! It's certaily less outlandish than the scenarios other people were putting forward.

 

[Sekhmet]

Umm...no. Not attacking a target =/= missing that target.

Would you strip the monk's bonus if he went full defense for a round? If he used his Wholeness of Body to Heal for a round? If he took a swipe at someone else running by (AoO)?

I can picture it now, BBEG fighting the monk, having mooks periodically run by the monk to take an AoO to knock his feats bonuses back to 0. Even better! Try to use maneuvers on the monk without the feats that let you avoid AoOs! If the monk tries to attack and prevent the mook from massively annoying him with a trip, grapple, etc... he has to sacrifice his feat bonus! Muwahahahaha! It's certaily less outlandish than the scenarios other people were putting forward.

Neither the Wholeness of Body nor Full Defense is an attack.
Attacking target #2 is an attack.
The attack missed target #1.

 

[Stalker0]

Also, I should point out that any attack you make on additional target qualifies as a miss against the original target.

I can't see a rules quote that would agree with this, and that leads to a much wider interpretation then what you are intending.

There are abilities and spells that work when a target "is missed". If those activate simply when I choose to attack another creature, I think they become more powerful then they should.

 

[Sekhmet]

I can't see a rules quote that would agree with this, and that leads to a much wider interpretation then what you are intending.

There are abilities and spells that work when a target "is missed". If those activate simply when I choose to attack another creature, I think they become more powerful then they should.

None come to mind, but I don't venture out of Wizard's books often.

Would it be as powerful as allowing this to have +5 bonuses to hit and damage indefinitely against an indefinite number of recurring foes?

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

No one has advocated for an eternal bonus. And you sound as if 90% of the foes in your games are recurring, the level of hyperbole is ridiculous.

But a bonus that lasts for the encounter, or until you actually miss is not very troublesome.

And you can already cheese OMF even using your interpretation. Say I take OMF and Stormguard Warrior. I spend a round flurrying for touch attacks using that tactic of the feat (+5 damage next round on the target for each touch attack that hits) to build up my OMF bonuses.

As far as power...a Cleric (you know, those little weaklings) can take the Holy Warrior feat and get +1 to +9 to hit, depending on his level, 24/7, all day every day, against every foe on this plane and all others. So no, OMF, even under the most beneficial possible reading, doesn't even begin to sound overpowered.

 

[iamtheend]

I think the argument of missing someone when not intending to hit them should be reconsidered. If I get into a fight in a bar I wouldn't find it too logical that everyone not involved could say I missed them each time I threw a punch.

 

[kitcik]

I can see how you would add some greated (sic) cheese to this feat, but isn't Law Devotion a simply superior feat for a monk?

 

[iamtheend]

I can see how you would add some greated (sic) cheese to this feat, but isn't Law Devotion a simply superior feat for a monk?

I don't like only having 6 rounds. I am playing a TWF/Flurry of Blows Monk who also has a reach weapon. Being able to build up with AoO's and lessen the penalties of my later attacks for an entire encounter with many different enemies seems better to me.

Then again maybe I'm missing something.