Again, thanks so much for the thoughtful and extended feedback. This is the kind of discussion that everyone who posts to House Rules wishes for and almost never gets.
Quartz said:
And both should be [General, Fighter]
Right on. I was lame for not paying attention to that.
ValhallaGH said:
You missed the point. The point of Razor Fiend (which stacks with TWF if that's your character's style) is to make the dagger an effective weapon selection (including kukris and punching daggers).
I don't think I missed that point, although maybe I didn't express my thoughts about it that well. I
don't want to implement feats that let dagger wielders do as much damage, in standard circumstances like full-attack actions, as sword or axe wielders. I want to preserve the superiority of larger, one-handed weapons as the overall most
conventionally damaging options. After all, the King's Guard should train with swords or axes (or maybe halberds), not daggers. I definitely didn't get that across that well. Instead, I want to make daggers an
effective choice, but still a specialized one. Dagger-wielders are a distinct minority, even in fantasy contexts. They're traditionally aimed at brawlers or roguish types, not straight-up front-line fighters, and that's what I wanted to preserve. A feat that just gives dagger wielders a way to do as much damage, under most circumstances, as swordfighters compromises that distinction.
Again, a tough fighter or barbarian with Vicious Knifefighter or a rogue with Deceptive Strike should still, however, be satisfyingly badass. There's more than one way of being "effective."
(This is part of why I included that long discussion about damage output. The problem with feats that boost your overall damage on something like a full attack is that the more feats they have, the more complicated your choices get. Suppose you're interested in maximizing the damage you do on a full attack; you don't really care which weapons you use. Do you go for Razor Fiend, Two-Weapon Fighting, or Weapon Specialization? If you go for two, which too? There's an objective right answer--you just have to do your math and make (hopefully) plausible assumptions about your Strength and equipment--but is the game really made more interesting by getting players to do that math?)
If you don't have this concern, though, Razor Fiend might work great for you. I wouldn't allow it, though, for these reasons, but I certainly don't think allowing it would break the game (though I do think it's a potentially pretty powerful feat).
Quartz said:
The Deceptive Strike feat is too good - it's an auto-pick for Rogues. Maybe trade 1d6 of SA damage per +2 to hit? Sort of like Power Attack for Rogues in reverse.
Is it an auto-pick for rogues, or just rogues who specialize in daggers? (Remember that specializing in daggers is ordinarily a suboptimal choice, even for rogues.) I've run some numbers and its overall boost to damage is generally way below Two-Weapon Fighting for most rogues, but maybe Two-Weapon Fighting is on the high end of the spectrum.
(I compared two 9th level rogues, each with Weapon Focus, Str 12 and a 75% chance to hit on their best attack, before applying penalties for two-weapon fighting (for one rogue) or bonuses for Deceptive Strike (for the other). The TWF rogue got a pair of +2 shortswords; the Deceptive Strike rogue got a +3 dagger (slightly more expensive than the pair of swords). Assuming no other bonuses, the TWF rogue averages 41.85 points of damage against a flanked or flat-footed opponent; the Deceptive Strike rogue averages 38.75. If the TWF rogue traded Weapon Focus (shortsword) for Improved Two-Weapon Fighting, his expected damage would go up to 46.55, well ahead of the Deceptive Strike rogue. Note too that a Razor Fiend rogue with a +3 dagger can, all other advantages being equal, expect to do 39.1, so if Deceptive Strike is too strong, so's Razor Fiend--while Razor Fiend only applies on full attacks, it also retains some utility on opponents who retain the benefit of their Dexterity.)
Another way to look at it is in terms of Vexing Flanker, a PHII feat that gives an extra +2 attack bonus on flanking (not opponents denied their Dex bonus), but can be used with any weapon you like (it also requires Combat Reflexes). So it's a bit more limited, and arguably tougher to qualify for, but you can use it with a rapier, or a rapier and shortsword. If you've got Telling Blow, the extra threat range on the rapier can be just as valuable as the extra attack bonus. But maybe PHII feats aren't balanced, and this example's not relevant.) And compare it to:
Lesser Deceptive Strike [General, Fighter]
Prerequisite: Dex 13, Weapon Focus (dagger)
Benefit: When making a melee attack with a dagger against a flanked opponent, or one denied his Dexterity bonus to his AC, you gain a +1 bonus to your attack rolls.
Note that this is straightforwardly worse than Weapon Focus (shortsword). It offers the same increase in accuracy, but only in limited circumstances, and at the cost of a bit of damage. Maybe the stacking redeems it, but I'm inclined to say no. Just think of Deceptive Strike as trading weapon damage and a feat for increased accuracy.
(As far as the reverse Power Attack suggestion goes, taking that option can make it hard to see why a rogue just shouldn't use a shortsword or rapier, and save themselves a perfectly good feat.)
starwed said:
Shouldn't deceptive strike require ranks in Bluff? Perhaps make Improved Feint as a prereq as well. If you delay taking the feat, then it becomes less of a "no-brainer."
This is a good idea. Maybe Sleight of Hand is an even better choice, actually, both to distinguish the feat from feinting in combat and playing up the swift, confusing, now-you-see-it-now-you-don't conception of dagger fighting I'm trying to represent. Also, Sleight of Hand is arguably a more limited (though charmingly flavorful) skill, further balancing the feat.
