Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tessarael" data-source="post: 1518684" data-attributes="member: 12909">Seonaid, there is an Arcana Unearthed feat that gives +10' to your ground speed (Fleet of Foot). I believe one or two other splat books or d20 products have done this too - I haven't heard anyone yelling it is broken. The Run feat was in the 3E PHB, but unless I missed something, in 3E you did get your DEX bonus when running ... I think they decided to make the Run feat better by making everyone who didn't have it worse, blech.[I don't think stackable +10' movement bonus for the cost of a feat will be a big issue - it is far weaker than many combat feats. There is also an Epic feat that gives +30' movement.]Various people asked about the Two-Weapon Fighting variant. Let me give an example, then explain reasoning a little more ...Fighter with BAB +6/+1, has say 3 main combat options:1. Longsword and Heavy Shield, two attacks at +6/+1, average damage 4.5 + modifiers with Longsword; +2 AC from the Heavy Shield.2. Using a Greatsword two-handed, two attacks at +6/+1, average damage 7 + modifiers. No AC bonus.3. Using say Longsword and Dagger, he can choose to use Longsword as primary weapon (damage 4.5 on average) or Dagger as primary weapon (damage 2.5 on average), and then gets a bonus +2 damage for using two weapons. So normally he'd choose Longsword as primary and do 6.5 average damage + modifiers, with two attacks at +6/+1. Then there's a feat or two if you want to increase your AC. The end result is very similar to option 2.Many people like the fact that you get more Sneak Attack damage with more attacks from using two weapons. However, D&D uses an abstract combat system - already, we don't model every feint, attack, riposte, deflection, etc. i.e. The number of attacks per round where you get a chance to do damage is fewer attacks that you might attempt (or probe your opponent's defenses) in a real melee. For most characters that don't have Sneak Attack or other big damage bonuses on each weapon, using a two-handed weapon is always better than using two weapons. For Rogues who gets lots of Sneak Attack damage, wielding two weapons is often better. This seems strange - why is a Rogue better with two weapons than a Fighter with high DEX? So we fix that, by getting rid of the extra attacks from using two weapons, and give a damage bonus instead to make it still a good offensive option.The other thing we fixed was the long chain of feats needed to make two-weapon fighting effective. That's one of the reasons why two-handed weapons are generally better - you don't have to spend 4 feats to get all your attacks!Combat Expertise vs. Fighting Defensively ...Yes. You can already fight defensively, and it gives some defense bonus, but not as good as Combat Expertise. One of the problems with Combat Expertise is that offense is often better than defense, so there's less point in get a small defense bonus (extra +1 AC if you have 5 ranks in Tumble and get +3 AC from -4 to hit when fighting defensively). Instead, I would make a feat that gives +1 AC (perhaps with Dodge as a prerequisite, or make Dodge this feat). That feat is more useful than Combat Expertise (it works all the time), but still less useful than Weapon Focus (offense is better than defense). Mobility vs. Tumble ...Unless you have to move more than half your move distance, tumbling is always the best option. If you fail your Tumble check, you can still use Mobility if you have it, and Tumble can guarantee that you'll always evade one opponent (DC 15 - dead easy to get at high levels - my 19th level Rogue makes DC 28 tumble checks automatically thanks to Skill Mastery). Removing Tumble from combat, I wouldn't object to making Mobility +6 AC or +8 AC vs. those attacks of opportunity ... whatever works and seems balanced basically.Gneech, how often do fighters in your group reposition themselves on the battlefield? Unless you have high AC, it is essential. I do think people underrate tumbling (it takes a bit to build to DC 15, and in armor you're taking a hefty penalty to Tumble - as Spatula pointed out). Once you can make DC 15 (hey you can do this 25% of the time at a skill score of 0!), it is worthwhile, but people forget to role for it if it's not on their list where they allocated skill points.As phOrk said, Tumble (or Mobility) is essential for Rogues to avoid getting hit too often in combat. I think Combat Reflexes can help fill that hole. (Or alternatively, let Tumble fill that hole and get rid of Combat Reflexes - why do we have two mechanics for the same thing??)Cleave ... Spatula, I agree. Cleave is better than Great Cleave. Great Cleave is a somewhat weak feat, the only time I would have used it is versus hordes of Cranium Rats (i.e. versus mooks). So because I think Great Cleave is fairly weak, I would combine the two.Rapid Shot and Manyshot ... Sean Reynolds had a nice rant on these feats on his boards recently. Manyshot can allow you to do about as much damage on a standard action as you would do on a full round action with a bow - now that's a serious game mechanic problem. Rapid Shot is less of an issue, but Improved Rapid Shot from Complete Warrior gets rid of the -2 penalty, you would always get the extra attack. I don't want someone being able to get an extra full BAB attack per round. Especially when it will stack with Haste. Now if it didn't stack with Haste, and was some sort of supernatural ability with limited duration, then I'd say ok, you're mimicking the haste spell and acting as if you had a Speed weapon for a bit, no problems.In general, the 3E PHB feats are not over-powered. (Some are very weak though, e.g. 3E Endurance - which is a good reason to cull some feats) The problem comes when you add additional splat book feats that break mechanics (e.g. Improved Grapple, Improved Rapid Shot, Manyshot). In particular, feats in combination with other things can become too good: Haste + Improved Rapid Shot; Keen Rapier + Improved Critical + Weaponmaster; etc.</blockquote>

Verification