Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="GoodKingJayIII" data-source="post: 2291178" data-attributes="member: 13804">The Con damage is abstract.&nbsp; Comparing it to actual bone-breakings in real life is probably not realistic.&nbsp; I think in that way the flavor fits the 3.x setting.However, it is a pretty nasty feat.&nbsp; Even Ferrix's version is very good.&nbsp; Were I a rogue player I'd be itching for this feat.&nbsp; Con damage is simply brutal in DnD, no bones about it.&nbsp; To add to Ferrix's version, I'd add that this attack deals no hit point damage.&nbsp; As has been said many times, this feat simply gets better against higher-level foes, so I think hp damage on top of Con damage is a bit much.&nbsp; I might also require the Fort save, as above (though if no hp damage is being dealt, I'm less inclined to this solution).&nbsp; Consider something like this as well:Shattering StrikeYour sneak attacks target vital bone or supporting structures, crippling your opponentsPrerequisites: +1d6 Sneak Attack, base attack bonus +4, Str 13Benefit: If you hit with a sneak attack, you may choose to forgo +1d6 of sneak attack to cripple your opponents.&nbsp; If the attack hits, the opponent takes a -2 penalty to AC and a -4 penalty to all physical skills.&nbsp; Treat these penalties as ability damage for the purposes of natural healing, however they can also be healed by any magical healing, such as a cure spell (1 penalty removed per point of healing, removing the skill penalty first, then the penalty to Armor Class).Notes: Because it is a sneak attack, your target must be susceptible to sneak attack damage, thus undead, constructs, and other creatures immune to critical hits and sneak attacks are not affected by a shattering strike.It's a bit more complicated than the above versions, but I also think it sticks to the flavor of the feat, is much less powerful than dealing Con damage, and is still useful.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="GoodKingJayIII, post: 2291178, member: 13804"] The Con damage is abstract. Comparing it to actual bone-breakings in real life is probably not realistic. I think in that way the flavor fits the 3.x setting. However, it is a pretty nasty feat. Even Ferrix's version is very good. Were I a rogue player I'd be itching for this feat. Con damage is simply brutal in DnD, no bones about it. To add to Ferrix's version, I'd add that this attack deals [B]no hit point damage[/B]. As has been said many times, this feat simply gets better against higher-level foes, so I think hp damage on top of Con damage is a bit much. I might also require the Fort save, as above (though if no hp damage is being dealt, I'm less inclined to this solution). Consider something like this as well: [B]Shattering Strike[/B] Your sneak attacks target vital bone or supporting structures, crippling your opponents [B]Prerequisites:[/B] +1d6 Sneak Attack, base attack bonus +4, Str 13 [B]Benefit:[/B] If you hit with a sneak attack, you may choose to forgo +1d6 of sneak attack to cripple your opponents. If the attack hits, the opponent takes a -2 penalty to AC and a -4 penalty to all physical skills. Treat these penalties as ability damage for the purposes of natural healing, however they can also be healed by any magical healing, such as a [I]cure[/I] spell (1 penalty removed per point of healing, removing the skill penalty first, then the penalty to Armor Class). [B]Notes:[/B] Because it is a sneak attack, your target must be susceptible to sneak attack damage, thus undead, constructs, and other creatures immune to critical hits and sneak attacks are not affected by a shattering strike. It's a bit more complicated than the above versions, but I also think it sticks to the flavor of the feat, is much less powerful than dealing Con damage, and is still useful. [/QUOTE]

Verification