Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="akbearfoot" data-source="post: 5002686" data-attributes="member: 33560">I don't agree with the notion that giving melee characters Full attacks nearly 100% of the time is remotely balanced.&nbsp;&nbsp; I don't really think it should be an epic feat...but IMO it's worth at least 5x what a ring of evasion is worth in terms of power. For that matter,&nbsp; the 'only the first iterative has a chance' concept.&nbsp; Since 3e has been around that has rarely ever been my experience.&nbsp; Melee oriented characters just never seem to have trouble hitting if they have halfway decent buffs.&nbsp; Granted, it is still weak compared to a no spells barred game where there is no common sense restrictions on spells from the SpC/splatbooks.&nbsp; But I would like to think most games have some measure of balance applied to them.&nbsp; Lion totem barbarian is probably the single most abusive thing in the book it was printed in.&nbsp; If not the worst thing,&nbsp; then it is certainly in the top few.The ranger spell is limited by both the rangers very small allotment of spells each day, and the fact that it also consumes his swift action every time he uses it,&nbsp; thus limiting item activations,&nbsp; other spells, etc...I'll make an assumption that the character who the OP is considering the ability for has taken the 2-W fighting tree...actually I think they have to have them in order to have 2-W rend.&nbsp; And they are at least to the point where they are at 3 attacks a round.&nbsp; So thats 6 with a 2-w user.&nbsp; That means that you're giving them an ability that will frequently give +5 attacks, all at a +2 bonus to hit.&nbsp; That isn't even considering feat synergies like 2-w rend.If you think pouncing is weak,&nbsp; then go look at some of the pounce builds over in the character OP boards at wizards.My opinion is to not just hand-wave some pouncelike ability in for free/cheap.&nbsp; At the very least it should cost more more than 1 feat,&nbsp; or somewhere in the neighborhood of 75-100k gold.&nbsp; Which would represent a very large portion of a 12-13th level characterd wealth.&nbsp; And would still be WAY worth it.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="akbearfoot, post: 5002686, member: 33560"] I don't agree with the notion that giving melee characters Full attacks nearly 100% of the time is remotely balanced. I don't really think it should be an epic feat...but IMO it's worth at least 5x what a ring of evasion is worth in terms of power. For that matter, the 'only the first iterative has a chance' concept. Since 3e has been around that has rarely ever been my experience. Melee oriented characters just never seem to have trouble hitting if they have halfway decent buffs. Granted, it is still weak compared to a no spells barred game where there is no common sense restrictions on spells from the SpC/splatbooks. But I would like to think most games have some measure of balance applied to them. Lion totem barbarian is probably the single most abusive thing in the book it was printed in. If not the worst thing, then it is certainly in the top few. The ranger spell is limited by both the rangers very small allotment of spells each day, and the fact that it also consumes his swift action every time he uses it, thus limiting item activations, other spells, etc... I'll make an assumption that the character who the OP is considering the ability for has taken the 2-W fighting tree...actually I think they have to have them in order to have 2-W rend. And they are at least to the point where they are at 3 attacks a round. So thats 6 with a 2-w user. That means that you're giving them an ability that will frequently give +5 attacks, all at a +2 bonus to hit. That isn't even considering feat synergies like 2-w rend. If you think pouncing is weak, then go look at some of the pounce builds over in the character OP boards at wizards. My opinion is to not just hand-wave some pouncelike ability in for free/cheap. At the very least it should cost more more than 1 feat, or somewhere in the neighborhood of 75-100k gold. Which would represent a very large portion of a 12-13th level characterd wealth. And would still be WAY worth it. [/QUOTE]

Verification