-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
Comments and questions on 3.5 from a Newbie
- Thread starter Edena_of_Neith
- Start date
Combat Expertise is useful, especially when you're low on hp or are fighting things you really don't want to hit you (like various undead). However, the stereotypical big burly fighter might not have the brains necessary to take it - you do need Int 13.Edena_of_Neith said:
Many, possibly most, opponents you'll be fighting in D&D don't use weapons. Also, many of the ones who do are much larger than you are, which means they'll get big bonuses to resist being disarmed.
Also, I think disarming is pretty redundant with trip, really. A disarmed opponent has to use a move action, which might give an AoO, to return to his former fighting capability. However, if they have Quickdraw, they can draw another weapon instead and still full-attack you. If you trip (with Improved) an opponent, you get a free attack - not so with disarm. And trip can be used on pretty much everyone, while disarm is limited to opponents that use weapons.
You only deny them Dex bonuses against your next attack. This one is mostly useful for rogues, who use it to set their opponent up for a sneak attack - rogues tend to do wimpy damage when not getting sneak attack damage, so giving up your full attack routine in exchange for one hit with sneak attack damage isn't a bad option (especially at low levels when you don't get multiple attacks anyway).
Improved Trip is a very, very good feat. In fact, it might be too good with the rule change in 3.5 (in 3.0, standing up from prone didn't provoke an AoO), as it does three things: negate AoO, +4 to attempt, and free attack if it succeeds.
I mostly see this on characters who use reach weapons, and thus tend to focus a lot on AoOs. For a regular sword&board fella, this has limited utility. Especially considering that many fighters tend not to have very high Dex scores in the first place, given that using heavy armor won't let you add most of it to your AC.
This is a "cool" feat, but not very powerful. It does give you a non-disarmable 1d3 weapon, and IMO most serious fighters should know how to handle a brawl, but they just seem to care more about other feats.
In my campaign, I have a monk/fighter who focuses on grappling attacks. Against those opponents it works against (humanoids, mostly), it works VERY well - incapacitate the opponent and then hurt him (it doesn't hurt that he gets monk damage on the grapple either instead of the normal 1d3). Against opponents that have lots of things going for them in a grapple (most Large+ creatures, which there are a lot of), it's not so hot.
Both of these are very situational feats. Wanting to push people around on the battlefield doesn't happen that often. But the warforged fighter in my campaign seems to like his Improved Overrun, so...
The main problem with this, from a metagame perspective, is that if you break the opponent's weapon, you don't get to have it after the fight.
Edena_of_Neith said:
Someone else may mention this in the thread (i'm a few days behind
) but IMO this feat is pointless. Skill Focus: Concentration is much better, since it applies to all attempts to use the concentration skill, and the bonus is almost as good (+3, vs +4). Sure, you're out the +1, and I've seen the +1 make a difference...but CC is about the only example of a pointless feat that I can think of.Of course, for the poor bastard who routinely fails their concentration check, having them both can be nice...but I think it's a suboptimum choice even then.
Edena_of_Neith
First Post
I realize that thousands of threads similar to this one came up when 3.0 first came out.
I'm late to the party, as usual.
Yeah, I'm going to call those 14 Feats the DDG Feats, or Down and Dirty Generalist Feats.
And, I'm guessing that a fighter with the DDG Feats, while not eloquent about things, could take on the specialists and win.
-
GRAPPLING
It is the beginning of Round 3, in the combat between Joe Fighter and Joe Orc.
Joe Fighter has 4 points of lethal damage, and Joe Orc has no damage at all.
It is Joe Fighter's initiative.
Joe Fighter decides he is going to GRAPPLE Joe Orc.
Joe Fighter is holding a One-Handed Weapon. Joe Fighter is also carrying a Heavy Shield. He may Grapple (as can Joe Orc, also carrying a One-Handed Weapon and a Heavy Shield) but it's going to be messy.
Both Joe Fighter and Joe Orc remain at AC 22.
- Joe Fighter begins the Grapple. This provokes an AOO. Joe Orc makes the AOO, rolls a 14 (modified to 16 for + 1 BAB and + 1 Str) and misses. Since Joe Fighter took no damage, he can continue the Grapple.
- Joe Fighter makes a MELEE TOUCH ATTACK against Joe Orc. He receives his + 1 BAB and + 1 Str bonus for this attack. Joe Orc receives no Armor bonus or Shield bonus, but keeps his Dexterity and Dodge bonuses. Joe Orc is + 1 for Dex and + 1 for Dodge, and thus AC 12 against this attack.
Joe Fighter rolls a 10, gains + 1 for BAB and + 1 for Str, making it a 12, and GRABS Joe Orc.
- Joe Fighter and Joe Orc make an OPPOSED GRAPPLE CHECK. Joe Fighter rolls a 15. His BAB + 1 and Str + 1 make that a 17. Joe Orc rolls a 13. BAB + 1 and Str + 1 make that a 13. Joe Fighter wins and HOLDS Joe Orc. (Had they both rolled a 15, their Grapple Check Bonuses would have been the same at + 2 (+ 1 BAB, + 1 Str) so they would have had to roll again to break the tie.)
- Joe Fighter moves into Joe Orc's square. There is nobody else around to make AOO against Joe Fighter, fortunately for Joe Fighter. Joe Orc gets no AOO for this move by Joe Fighter.
The Grapple used the equivalent of one melee action for Joe Fighter.
Joe Fighter COULD NOT make a second grapple attempt with his off-hand now, had he failed to grapple Joe Orc with his primary hand.
Joe Fighter could not, because he did not declare he was using both hands, when he declared the first grapple. Had he declared he was using both hands, he COULD have made 2 grapple attempts (one with each hand, even though his hands are full with long sword and heavy shield) at - 6 and - 10 respectively, to both the Touch Melee Attack to Grab, and the Opposed Grapple Check to Hold.
- Joe Fighter still has a move action left. He drops his long sword (a Free Action) and then he uses his move action to try to draw his short sword with his primary hand. He and Joe Orc make another opposed grapple check. Joe Fighter rolls a 10 (+ 1 BAB and + 1 Str make it a 12) and Joe Orc rolls a 15 (+ 1 BAB and + 1 Str make it a 17).
Joe Orc snarls and keeps Joe Fighter's short sword sheathed, hand clamped on arm.
- Joe Orc does not attempt to break the grapple. Instead, he declares he is going to use both hands to inflict lethal damage on Joe Fighter. He accepts the - 6 / - 10 penalty and the - 4 penalty (lethal damage.)
- Joe Orc drops his shield as a Free Action. But instead of dropping his long sword, he sheaths it. This is foolish, since it triggers an AOO from Joe Fighter. Joe Fighter rolls a 5 for a non-lethal unarmed attack (BAB + 1, Str + 1 make that a 7) and misses. Sheathing the sword takes up Joe Orc's move action for the round.
- Joe Fighter's non-lethal unarmed attack also triggers an AOO, even though it was an AOO itself. But Joe Orc has already used his AOO this round, and does not get another one (he does not have Combat Reflexes. If he did, he could make that AOO with his own unarmed non-lethal attack, and then the exchange would stop. Because even if both of the combatants had Combat Reflexes, they cannot get more than one AOO from any specific triggering action from any one opponent.)
- Now Joe Orc attacks. The opposed grapple checks are rolled. Joe Orc rolls a 19 (BAB and Str make it 21, - 6 makes it 15, - 4 makes it an 11) and a 13 with his off-hand (BAB and Str make it a 15, - 10 make it a 5, and - 4 makes it a 1.)
Joe Fighter rolls a 2 (BAB and Str make it a 4, no penalties since he never declared two-handed fighting) and a 5 (BAB and Str make it a 7.)
Joe Orc was successful with his primary hand (11 versus 4) and rolls 1d3 + 1 for Str. He rolls a 1, plus Str 1, for 2 points of lethal damage against Joe Fighter.
Joe Fighter now has 7 points of lethal damage against him, and he becomes completely infuriated.
It is now Round 4.
Joe Fighter's initiative is up.
Joe Fighter declares he is attempting to Pin Joe Orc. He is not going to use both hands for the attempt, to try and get two attempts. He declares he can beat down this demon-spawn with his good right hand. (He is still holding his shield in his off-hand, by the way. So is Joe Orc. That is why they are both still AC 22. They are AC 20 to everyone else - if anyone else was there - due to lost Dexterity and Dodge bonuses, but are still AC 22 to each other. Not that this is particularly relevant in a Grapple.)
Opposed grapple checks are rolled. Joe Fighter rolls an 11 (BAB and Str make this a 14) and Joe Orc rolls a 6 (BAB and Str make this an 8).
Joe Fighter pins Joe Orc. Joe Orc is now at - 4 to Armor Class for all opponents but Joe Fighter, and his Dexterity is considered 0, meaning all opponents including Joe Fighter get a + 5 to attack him. (Joe Fighter's total bonus is + 5. A nearby companion, were there one, would get a + 9. However, for opposed grapple checks, the + 5 does not apply and is therefore meaningless.)
Furthermore, Joe Orc is now Prone, so he has a - 4 to melee attack rolls. (However, he makes opposed grapple checks normally, including the roll needed to break a pin.)
Both Joe Fighter and Joe Orc have been cussing at each other. Joe Fighter shuts Joe Orc up now (that works automatically, as a Free Action) and goes on cussing himself.
Joe Fighter has used his melee attack for the round in pinning Joe Orc. He has a move action still. He wants to draws his short sword. He knows that this time, it provokes no AOO because Joe Orc is pinned. And Joe Orc cannot stop him: Joe Orc CANNOT DO ANYTHING FOR 1 ROUND, and thus Joe Orc is not allowed to do anything at all on Round 4.
But Joe Fighter can't draw a weapon while pinning someone. Joe Fighter can't even try to pick up his dropped long sword. Joe Fighter can't think of anything useful to do with his move action. Joe Fighter decides there isn't anything better than bashing Joe Orc's head in, and foregos his move action.
Round 5:
Joe Fighter attempts to damage Joe Orc. He declares lethal damage, taking the - 4 penalty for inflicting lethal damage with a non-lethal attack. (As previously stated, he tries to bash his head in!)
Joe Fighter only declares one attack. He does not try to use his off-hand.
Opposed grapple checks are made.
Joe Fighter rolls a 10, which BAB and Str modify to a 12, but the penalty modifies to an 8.
Joe Orc rolls a 7, modified for BAB and Str to a 9.
Joe Orc wins. Joe Fighter should not have let anger get the better of him: had he attacked for non-lethal damage, he would have inflicted it.
Joe Orc now attempts to break the Pin. Joe Orc foolishly insists he will use both hands to do it, taking the - 6 / - 10 penalty, so he can make two attempts.
Opposed grapple checks are made, twice.
Joe Fighter rolls a 13, modified to 15. Joe Orc rolls a 18, modified to 20, modified to a 14.
Then Joe Fighter rolls a 5, modified to a 7. Joe Orc rolls another 18, modified to 20, modified to 10. What'cha know? Joe Orc breaks the pin. He is a lucky orc today.
Joe Orc still has a move action available. He stands up, accepting the AOO this causes.
The angry Joe Fighter declares he is using his AOO to pin Joe Orc again. (Joe Fighter is persistant ...)
Opposed grapple checks again.
Joe Fighter rolls a 15 (modified to 17.) Joe Orc rolls a 10 (modified to 12.) Joe Fighter slams Joe Orc back down onto the floor.
As a result of this, Joe Orc will get NO action of any sort during Round 6 (he was pinned during his action on Round 5.)
Round 6:
The infuriated Joe Fighter declares he is using both hands to inflict non-lethal damage. This means he is at - 6 and - 10, but gets two attempts to inflict said damage.
Opposed grapple checks again.
Joe Fighter rolls a 7 (modified to 9, penalized to 3) and a 20 (an automatic hit, regardless of bonuses or penalties)
Joe Orc rolls a 12 (modified to 14) but does not roll against the natural 20.
Joe Fighter rolls 1d3 + 1 for Str, rolls a 3, and inflicts 4 points of non-lethal damage on Joe Orc.
Joe Orc would love to do something, but as previously noted he gets no action this round.
Round 7:
Joe Fighter repeats his 2 handed attack, making two attempts to inflict non-lethal damage.
Two more opposed grapple checks.
Joe Fighter rolls a 15 (modified to 17, penalized to 11) and a 17 (modified to 19, penalized to 9).
Joe Orc rolls an 8 (modified to 10) and a 2 (modified to 4.) This is his unlucky round.
Joe Fighter hit both times, and rolls twice. He rolls a 3 and a 1, adds Str + 1 twice, and inflicts another 6 points of non-lethal damage on Joe Orc. Joe Orc now has 10 points of non-lethal damage. 2 more points, and he's unconscious.
Joe Orc again attempts to break the pin, and declares only one attempt.
Opposed grapple checks.
Joe Fighter rolls a 4 (modified to 6.) Joe Orc rolls a 14 (modified to 16.)
Joe Orc breaks the pin. But Joe Orc is still grappled.
Joe Orc again tries to stand up from prone. Again, Joe Fighter tries to re-pin him with his AOO.
The opposed grapple rolls are: Joe Fighter 5 (modified to 7) and Joe Orc 10 (modified to 12.) Joe Orc stands back up successfully.
Round 7
Joe Fighter breaks off the Grapple. This is a Free Action. And then ...
Is the above right?
I'm late to the party, as usual.
Yeah, I'm going to call those 14 Feats the DDG Feats, or Down and Dirty Generalist Feats.
And, I'm guessing that a fighter with the DDG Feats, while not eloquent about things, could take on the specialists and win.
-
GRAPPLING
It is the beginning of Round 3, in the combat between Joe Fighter and Joe Orc.
Joe Fighter has 4 points of lethal damage, and Joe Orc has no damage at all.
It is Joe Fighter's initiative.
Joe Fighter decides he is going to GRAPPLE Joe Orc.
Joe Fighter is holding a One-Handed Weapon. Joe Fighter is also carrying a Heavy Shield. He may Grapple (as can Joe Orc, also carrying a One-Handed Weapon and a Heavy Shield) but it's going to be messy.
Both Joe Fighter and Joe Orc remain at AC 22.
- Joe Fighter begins the Grapple. This provokes an AOO. Joe Orc makes the AOO, rolls a 14 (modified to 16 for + 1 BAB and + 1 Str) and misses. Since Joe Fighter took no damage, he can continue the Grapple.
- Joe Fighter makes a MELEE TOUCH ATTACK against Joe Orc. He receives his + 1 BAB and + 1 Str bonus for this attack. Joe Orc receives no Armor bonus or Shield bonus, but keeps his Dexterity and Dodge bonuses. Joe Orc is + 1 for Dex and + 1 for Dodge, and thus AC 12 against this attack.
Joe Fighter rolls a 10, gains + 1 for BAB and + 1 for Str, making it a 12, and GRABS Joe Orc.
- Joe Fighter and Joe Orc make an OPPOSED GRAPPLE CHECK. Joe Fighter rolls a 15. His BAB + 1 and Str + 1 make that a 17. Joe Orc rolls a 13. BAB + 1 and Str + 1 make that a 13. Joe Fighter wins and HOLDS Joe Orc. (Had they both rolled a 15, their Grapple Check Bonuses would have been the same at + 2 (+ 1 BAB, + 1 Str) so they would have had to roll again to break the tie.)
- Joe Fighter moves into Joe Orc's square. There is nobody else around to make AOO against Joe Fighter, fortunately for Joe Fighter. Joe Orc gets no AOO for this move by Joe Fighter.
The Grapple used the equivalent of one melee action for Joe Fighter.
Joe Fighter COULD NOT make a second grapple attempt with his off-hand now, had he failed to grapple Joe Orc with his primary hand.
Joe Fighter could not, because he did not declare he was using both hands, when he declared the first grapple. Had he declared he was using both hands, he COULD have made 2 grapple attempts (one with each hand, even though his hands are full with long sword and heavy shield) at - 6 and - 10 respectively, to both the Touch Melee Attack to Grab, and the Opposed Grapple Check to Hold.
- Joe Fighter still has a move action left. He drops his long sword (a Free Action) and then he uses his move action to try to draw his short sword with his primary hand. He and Joe Orc make another opposed grapple check. Joe Fighter rolls a 10 (+ 1 BAB and + 1 Str make it a 12) and Joe Orc rolls a 15 (+ 1 BAB and + 1 Str make it a 17).
Joe Orc snarls and keeps Joe Fighter's short sword sheathed, hand clamped on arm.
- Joe Orc does not attempt to break the grapple. Instead, he declares he is going to use both hands to inflict lethal damage on Joe Fighter. He accepts the - 6 / - 10 penalty and the - 4 penalty (lethal damage.)
- Joe Orc drops his shield as a Free Action. But instead of dropping his long sword, he sheaths it. This is foolish, since it triggers an AOO from Joe Fighter. Joe Fighter rolls a 5 for a non-lethal unarmed attack (BAB + 1, Str + 1 make that a 7) and misses. Sheathing the sword takes up Joe Orc's move action for the round.
- Joe Fighter's non-lethal unarmed attack also triggers an AOO, even though it was an AOO itself. But Joe Orc has already used his AOO this round, and does not get another one (he does not have Combat Reflexes. If he did, he could make that AOO with his own unarmed non-lethal attack, and then the exchange would stop. Because even if both of the combatants had Combat Reflexes, they cannot get more than one AOO from any specific triggering action from any one opponent.)
- Now Joe Orc attacks. The opposed grapple checks are rolled. Joe Orc rolls a 19 (BAB and Str make it 21, - 6 makes it 15, - 4 makes it an 11) and a 13 with his off-hand (BAB and Str make it a 15, - 10 make it a 5, and - 4 makes it a 1.)
Joe Fighter rolls a 2 (BAB and Str make it a 4, no penalties since he never declared two-handed fighting) and a 5 (BAB and Str make it a 7.)
Joe Orc was successful with his primary hand (11 versus 4) and rolls 1d3 + 1 for Str. He rolls a 1, plus Str 1, for 2 points of lethal damage against Joe Fighter.
Joe Fighter now has 7 points of lethal damage against him, and he becomes completely infuriated.
It is now Round 4.
Joe Fighter's initiative is up.
Joe Fighter declares he is attempting to Pin Joe Orc. He is not going to use both hands for the attempt, to try and get two attempts. He declares he can beat down this demon-spawn with his good right hand. (He is still holding his shield in his off-hand, by the way. So is Joe Orc. That is why they are both still AC 22. They are AC 20 to everyone else - if anyone else was there - due to lost Dexterity and Dodge bonuses, but are still AC 22 to each other. Not that this is particularly relevant in a Grapple.)
Opposed grapple checks are rolled. Joe Fighter rolls an 11 (BAB and Str make this a 14) and Joe Orc rolls a 6 (BAB and Str make this an 8).
Joe Fighter pins Joe Orc. Joe Orc is now at - 4 to Armor Class for all opponents but Joe Fighter, and his Dexterity is considered 0, meaning all opponents including Joe Fighter get a + 5 to attack him. (Joe Fighter's total bonus is + 5. A nearby companion, were there one, would get a + 9. However, for opposed grapple checks, the + 5 does not apply and is therefore meaningless.)
Furthermore, Joe Orc is now Prone, so he has a - 4 to melee attack rolls. (However, he makes opposed grapple checks normally, including the roll needed to break a pin.)
Both Joe Fighter and Joe Orc have been cussing at each other. Joe Fighter shuts Joe Orc up now (that works automatically, as a Free Action) and goes on cussing himself.
Joe Fighter has used his melee attack for the round in pinning Joe Orc. He has a move action still. He wants to draws his short sword. He knows that this time, it provokes no AOO because Joe Orc is pinned. And Joe Orc cannot stop him: Joe Orc CANNOT DO ANYTHING FOR 1 ROUND, and thus Joe Orc is not allowed to do anything at all on Round 4.
But Joe Fighter can't draw a weapon while pinning someone. Joe Fighter can't even try to pick up his dropped long sword. Joe Fighter can't think of anything useful to do with his move action. Joe Fighter decides there isn't anything better than bashing Joe Orc's head in, and foregos his move action.
Round 5:
Joe Fighter attempts to damage Joe Orc. He declares lethal damage, taking the - 4 penalty for inflicting lethal damage with a non-lethal attack. (As previously stated, he tries to bash his head in!)
Joe Fighter only declares one attack. He does not try to use his off-hand.
Opposed grapple checks are made.
Joe Fighter rolls a 10, which BAB and Str modify to a 12, but the penalty modifies to an 8.
Joe Orc rolls a 7, modified for BAB and Str to a 9.
Joe Orc wins. Joe Fighter should not have let anger get the better of him: had he attacked for non-lethal damage, he would have inflicted it.
Joe Orc now attempts to break the Pin. Joe Orc foolishly insists he will use both hands to do it, taking the - 6 / - 10 penalty, so he can make two attempts.
Opposed grapple checks are made, twice.
Joe Fighter rolls a 13, modified to 15. Joe Orc rolls a 18, modified to 20, modified to a 14.
Then Joe Fighter rolls a 5, modified to a 7. Joe Orc rolls another 18, modified to 20, modified to 10. What'cha know? Joe Orc breaks the pin. He is a lucky orc today.
Joe Orc still has a move action available. He stands up, accepting the AOO this causes.
The angry Joe Fighter declares he is using his AOO to pin Joe Orc again. (Joe Fighter is persistant ...)
Opposed grapple checks again.
Joe Fighter rolls a 15 (modified to 17.) Joe Orc rolls a 10 (modified to 12.) Joe Fighter slams Joe Orc back down onto the floor.
As a result of this, Joe Orc will get NO action of any sort during Round 6 (he was pinned during his action on Round 5.)
Round 6:
The infuriated Joe Fighter declares he is using both hands to inflict non-lethal damage. This means he is at - 6 and - 10, but gets two attempts to inflict said damage.
Opposed grapple checks again.
Joe Fighter rolls a 7 (modified to 9, penalized to 3) and a 20 (an automatic hit, regardless of bonuses or penalties)
Joe Orc rolls a 12 (modified to 14) but does not roll against the natural 20.
Joe Fighter rolls 1d3 + 1 for Str, rolls a 3, and inflicts 4 points of non-lethal damage on Joe Orc.
Joe Orc would love to do something, but as previously noted he gets no action this round.
Round 7:
Joe Fighter repeats his 2 handed attack, making two attempts to inflict non-lethal damage.
Two more opposed grapple checks.
Joe Fighter rolls a 15 (modified to 17, penalized to 11) and a 17 (modified to 19, penalized to 9).
Joe Orc rolls an 8 (modified to 10) and a 2 (modified to 4.) This is his unlucky round.
Joe Fighter hit both times, and rolls twice. He rolls a 3 and a 1, adds Str + 1 twice, and inflicts another 6 points of non-lethal damage on Joe Orc. Joe Orc now has 10 points of non-lethal damage. 2 more points, and he's unconscious.
Joe Orc again attempts to break the pin, and declares only one attempt.
Opposed grapple checks.
Joe Fighter rolls a 4 (modified to 6.) Joe Orc rolls a 14 (modified to 16.)
Joe Orc breaks the pin. But Joe Orc is still grappled.
Joe Orc again tries to stand up from prone. Again, Joe Fighter tries to re-pin him with his AOO.
The opposed grapple rolls are: Joe Fighter 5 (modified to 7) and Joe Orc 10 (modified to 12.) Joe Orc stands back up successfully.
Round 7
Joe Fighter breaks off the Grapple. This is a Free Action. And then ...
Is the above right?
Last edited:
Edena_of_Neith
First Post
What do the rest of you think of my Dirty 14 Feats?
Do you think they would create a good Generic Down and Dirty Fighter? Could this fighter take on the Specialists of the world (such as Drizzt Do'Urden, Arilyn Moonblade, Sturm Brightblade, Alhana Starbreeze, or Telden Moore?)
Is there a better (or much better) Generic combination?
Is there a way, using the gestalt rules or other non-core official (WOTC published) rules, to increase the number of Feats a character can obtain, so a speedier access to such capabilities exist? (Yes, I realize that is min/maxing.)
Is there another feat intensive class I've missed? Are there any prestige classes that are feat intensive? (I haven't gotten to prestige classes yet.)
The reason I ask the above is simple: I am wondering if it is possible to recreate some of the characters of books and films I have read and watched, without ratcheting the character level above 10th or even 15th level? I am wondering if such characters are possible down in, at least, the 5th through 10th level category?
Arilyn Moonblade (Moonflower, but she disowned that name) is an example. Must I ratchet her to 15th level to duplicate what I read in the books, because taking all the feats I read of her using requires it by the rules? Or can I duplicate her at 7th level, or 8th level? (... even if I have to use the gestalt rules to do so, assuming the gestalt rules can help with feats: perhaps there IS a fighter/fighter concept somehow?)
Most of the fun, back in 1st and 2nd edition, was below 10th level, in the games I played. I don't know about 3rd edition, but based on what I'm reading it seems at least a third of the fun is below 10th level here, too.
-
I spent over an hour writing that grapple post above, and I doubt I got it all right. Gods, but the way you'all breeze unthinkingly through stuff I have to slowly muddle through. I envy you. Really! (Just wait until I get it down, and we can talk shop, though ... )
Do you think they would create a good Generic Down and Dirty Fighter? Could this fighter take on the Specialists of the world (such as Drizzt Do'Urden, Arilyn Moonblade, Sturm Brightblade, Alhana Starbreeze, or Telden Moore?)
Is there a better (or much better) Generic combination?
Is there a way, using the gestalt rules or other non-core official (WOTC published) rules, to increase the number of Feats a character can obtain, so a speedier access to such capabilities exist? (Yes, I realize that is min/maxing.)
Is there another feat intensive class I've missed? Are there any prestige classes that are feat intensive? (I haven't gotten to prestige classes yet.)
The reason I ask the above is simple: I am wondering if it is possible to recreate some of the characters of books and films I have read and watched, without ratcheting the character level above 10th or even 15th level? I am wondering if such characters are possible down in, at least, the 5th through 10th level category?
Arilyn Moonblade (Moonflower, but she disowned that name) is an example. Must I ratchet her to 15th level to duplicate what I read in the books, because taking all the feats I read of her using requires it by the rules? Or can I duplicate her at 7th level, or 8th level? (... even if I have to use the gestalt rules to do so, assuming the gestalt rules can help with feats: perhaps there IS a fighter/fighter concept somehow?)
Most of the fun, back in 1st and 2nd edition, was below 10th level, in the games I played. I don't know about 3rd edition, but based on what I'm reading it seems at least a third of the fun is below 10th level here, too.
-
I spent over an hour writing that grapple post above, and I doubt I got it all right. Gods, but the way you'all breeze unthinkingly through stuff I have to slowly muddle through. I envy you. Really! (Just wait until I get it down, and we can talk shop, though ...
)Edena_of_Neith said:
I think you are looking at them the wrong way. It sounds like you are looking at them as enablers - something needed to even try some of those maneuvers. They are not (or at least not all are). Many (Improved Trip, Improved Disarm, Improved Bull Rush) reduce the penalties for specific attacks. Those attacks are often "niche" maneuvers.
Most people get more punch from Power Attack + Cleave + Great Cleave + Weapon Focus + Weapon Specialization + Greater Weapon Focus + Greater Weapon Specialization; if nothing else, the greater attack bonuses serve to make the penalties for the more esoteric attacks less painful, and the benefits are available to all attacks.
Really, for more specialized roles, a whole new class built around that concept makes more sense (see the Swashbuckler in Complete Warrior for a lightly-armored "stunt" combatant), or a Prestige class that specializes the character in one of those roles.
MonsterMash
First Post
I actually like the Blindfight feat for fighters as it helps against concealed or invisible opponents, especially for humans or other races without low-light or darkvision.
Edena_of_Neith said:
As others have pointed out, your list has a lot of really niche-y choices in it. Yeah, it makes your character better at each of those odd combat maneuvers...but a lot of them just aren't going to come up that often. (And, to qualify for quite a few of them, you need an Int of 13+...which means, if you're using a point-buy, you're shortchanging another ability score that the fighter could use.)
When I was converting Olivia (my fighter that we talked about earlier) to 3E, I gave her a feat build that led to Whirlwind Attack...because I'd read several blurbs in the PR on 3E that this was one kick-butt feat. You know what? I've only ever used it once. It's just very rare that I find myself completely surrounded by bad guys (and, even then, at the high level she's at, it'd take more than one blow to kill them). I view a lot of the "special combat maneuvers" feats the same way -- they can be good in certain circumstances, but they probably aren't going to be your PC's bread-and-butter. With feat slots being fairly precious (even for fighters), I just don't see them being generally worth it.
And, as others have already said, rather than trying to be good at all of those oddball maneuvers, it might make more sense to take one or two (esp. since many of them simply make you better at a maneuver you can use without the feat), and focus your other feats on your primary weapons.
Edena_of_Neith said:
Not as far as I'm aware. As it is, fighters get a metric buttload of feats, far more than any other class. The pace at which one receives feats (or other class abilities) is a balancing factor.
Edena_of_Neith said:
Here's another 1E / 2E mindset you may need to learn how to set aside. Part of the reason that 1E / 2E were more fun below 10th level was that the game mechanics really broke down at about that point, and had a hard time handling high-level characters. In theory, 3E / 3.5 is able to handle higher-level PCs (the designers will say it should be just fine all the way to 20th level, though others might debate that point).
I certainly feel that the sweet spot is still in the 5th - 12th level range...but you need to realize that "iconic" NPCs (from novels, etc.) may, under 3E, be higher level than they were in earlier editions.
Last edited:
Edena_of_Neith
First Post
I would like to make a hypothesis on D&D 3.5. Call it a guess.
Once I've made it, could the experienced players here tell me what they think?
If you are one of the people who designed 3rd Edition, could you tell me if I guessed right?
My guess is about a specific prohibition set forth by WOTC. Now, I have only read a tiny fraction of what WOTC has published. I haven't even peaked into most of their books. I haven't read the 3.5 Dragon and Dungeon and Polyhedron Magazines published by WOTC and the other publishing companies. I haven't read the products created by the Designers of 3rd Edition who no longer are at WOTC, but who have created their own products for D&D 3.5, such as the popular Arcana Unearthed by Monte Cook. I haven't read but a bare fraction of the d20 products, whether created by the Designers of 3rd Edition or not created by them.
But I am willing to bet they all have one thing in common, and it is the prohibition I am going to discuss.
There are 1,500 feats published by WOTC. There are thousands more published by others.
There are at least hundreds of skills. Maybe thousands.
There are at least hundreds of prestige classes.
There are thousands of spells.
And there are rules that allow you to min/max skills until you have massive bonuses with them.
There are rules that allow you to take multiple prestige classes, to multi-class yourself wild (with the obvious drawback of split experience.)
There are rules that allow you to throw multiple spells at once.
Heck, there isn't practically anything you can't do in 3rd Edition.
But ...
There are no rules that allow you to bulk up on large numbers of extra feats. And there never will be.
-
I just read chapter one of the 3.5 DMG. And in that chapter, they discussed concepts I've read about previously for decades.
But in the 3.5 DMG, they were very eloquent about the points they wished to make, and among these points is the necessity of balance.
They weren't talking about some mystical balance in the stars. They weren't talking about the balance between good and evil. They weren't talking about anything complicated or difficult at all.
Their definition of balance is a single sentence:
ALL THE PLAYERS ARE ENTITLED TO AN EQUAL SHARE OF THE FUN.
That's a balance I can believe in. That's a balance I appreciate. That's a balance I want in my games.
Yet, we know the characters are not balanced. Tordek cannot cast spells. Mialee cannot proficiently wield an axe. Jozan cannot sneak attack. Lidda cannot turn undead.
This inbalance is something we all know well. And we know it's a Balance of Imbalances, where the characters must depend on each other, because no one character can do it all.
That's right: the characters must depend on each other, because no one character can do it all. A balance of imbalances.
And thus, you might say, everyone has a chance at an equal share of the action, and thus an equal share of the fun.
But ...
In 3rd Edition, any race can be any class can be any multiclass can be any prestige class can do whatever they please!!!
In 1st edition, the balance of imbalance was maintained by requiring that each character take one class and one class only, or multiclass with restrictions that made it not worth the candle (that is, you had to be non-human, and take severe level limit penalties: ORIGINALLY an elf could rise to be a mere 5th level fighter (or if very exceptional, up to 7th level), or a 9th level mage (if very exceptional, up to 11th level), and could not be a druid, paladin, ranger, illusionist, monk, or bard at all. And NO exceptions.)
In 2nd edition, the balance of imbalance was maintained in a similar fashion, except level limits were raised and more multiclass options allowed (this pleased a lot of players, but it did not necessarily improve the balance of imbalances, as some players will point out.)
So whither 3rd Edition?
In 3rd Edition, any race can be any class can be any multiclass can be any prestige class can do whatever they please!!!
So where is the balance of imbalance?
What forces the characters to rely on each other?
What allows each character a fair share of the action, and thus the player has a fair share of the fun?
Feats.
Feats are the classes of 3rd edition.
The classes of 3rd edition are the honorary titles. The feats are the real classes.
The fighter takes feats. Feats define what he can do. Feats define the kind of fighter he is.
The wizard takes feats. Feats define what she can do. Feats define the kind of wizard she is. (Her ability to cast spells is a kind of feat. What particular spells she selects for the day, could be described as daily feats for the wizard that incur additional restrictions such as memorization and sleep.)
All the other classes have special abilities that are, IMO, variants of feats. Some directly relate to feats (such as a ranger's ability to take certain feats without qualifying for them first.) Others are not described as feats, but they might as well be feats.
Feats are it. Feats are where it's at. And you only get 1 starting Feat (and one more if you're human) plus one at 3rd level, one at 6th level, one at 9th level, and so on. If you're a fighter, fighter feats. If you're a wizard, metamagic feats.
And that's it. No more. Zip. Zilch. Zero. Not even the powerful gestalt rules variant allows you a single extra feat.
No 9th level spell or less in the game allows permanent extra feats ... and no 9th level spell or less in the game ever will.
Because feats are what creates the balance of imbalance in 3rd Edition.
Feats, and the inability to take more than a few feats, are what allow each character his chance at action, and the player's fair chance at fun.
If a rule came into being that allowed a character a large number of extra feats, that character would become the I Can Do Everything Character. No need for anyone else, no interdependence between characters, and thus no chance for each character to shine in turn ... and no fun for the other players.
Thus, my question in my previous post cannot be answered, and will never be answered, for the answer is No, There is No Way to Augment the Number of Feats in Any Significant Way.
Even the epic rules do not violate the prohibition.
Yes, epic spells can allow a character to permanently gain new feats, and thus gain a large number of permanent, additional feats. But these are normal feats gained, not epic feats. Even as normal spells will not grant normal feats, epic spells will not grant epic feats.
In an epic campaign, normal feats are not meaningful like they were when the campaign was at low level, assuming they are meaningful at all. Epic feats are what is meaningful, and these cannot be gained by the characters through any known means, be they epic spells or anything else. Even artifacts are of no avail, for they are standard magical items in an epic campaign and do not have rules-altering power that is meaningful in an epic campaign (those few artifacts that are exceptions, which are so powerful that they can alter the rules in spirit, are invariably fatal or permanently debilitating to characters who dare to wield them.)
Thus there is nothing, period, within any of the rules, that allows for large numbers of extra feats. You may be able to select from hundreds of prestige classes, from thousands of feats, min/max with hundreds of skills, and learn hundreds of spells ...
But you will never be granted a large number of excess feats by anything other than a DM who wishes this fundamental concept of 3rd edition to be changed.
Probably, such a change will occur only if you are playing one on one, because then your character (who can now Do It All) cannot hog the game. There are no other players to hog the game from.
Perhaps the DM allows a few (but not a large number of) extra feats, to each and every character, for the purpose of compressing the level structure of the game. That is, he wishes to make a 10th level character into a 5th level character, and a 20th level character into a 10th level character. Thus he can keep the playing level low in certain ways, while allowing higher powered characters.
Whether this variant has ever been tried by anyone, I don't know. Whether it has worked, I don't know either.
Or the DM can decide to allow large numbers of feats to all the players, in any order and in any way that pleases them.
Certainly, this could make the players happy in the short term.
But this is courting unmitigated disaster in the mid and long term, if my guess is correct.
Feats are the core of the game. Change the feat rules, and you change everything.
All this is a guess on my part. Just a guess.
I'm a Newbie, and do not know how the game works. I've said this repeatedly, and say it again: I don't know what I'm talking about. It's not beneath my dignity to say that: it pays to be humble.
If any of you (and nearly all of you are more experienced with 3rd Edition than me, right now) wish to chime in on this, I would take delight in your comments.
If I am lucky enough that one of the 3rd Edition Game Designers reads this post, I would be grateful if they would comment on my guess.
Yours Sincerely
Edena_of_Neith
-
(chuckles)
(And that means that No, the Fighter Does Not Get The 14 Down and Dirty Feats at 1st level, or 5th level, or 10th level, but at 14th or 15th level, as the rules - and the prohibition against accelerated feat acquisition - require.)
Once I've made it, could the experienced players here tell me what they think?
If you are one of the people who designed 3rd Edition, could you tell me if I guessed right?
My guess is about a specific prohibition set forth by WOTC. Now, I have only read a tiny fraction of what WOTC has published. I haven't even peaked into most of their books. I haven't read the 3.5 Dragon and Dungeon and Polyhedron Magazines published by WOTC and the other publishing companies. I haven't read the products created by the Designers of 3rd Edition who no longer are at WOTC, but who have created their own products for D&D 3.5, such as the popular Arcana Unearthed by Monte Cook. I haven't read but a bare fraction of the d20 products, whether created by the Designers of 3rd Edition or not created by them.
But I am willing to bet they all have one thing in common, and it is the prohibition I am going to discuss.
There are 1,500 feats published by WOTC. There are thousands more published by others.
There are at least hundreds of skills. Maybe thousands.
There are at least hundreds of prestige classes.
There are thousands of spells.
And there are rules that allow you to min/max skills until you have massive bonuses with them.
There are rules that allow you to take multiple prestige classes, to multi-class yourself wild (with the obvious drawback of split experience.)
There are rules that allow you to throw multiple spells at once.
Heck, there isn't practically anything you can't do in 3rd Edition.
But ...
There are no rules that allow you to bulk up on large numbers of extra feats. And there never will be.
-
I just read chapter one of the 3.5 DMG. And in that chapter, they discussed concepts I've read about previously for decades.
But in the 3.5 DMG, they were very eloquent about the points they wished to make, and among these points is the necessity of balance.
They weren't talking about some mystical balance in the stars. They weren't talking about the balance between good and evil. They weren't talking about anything complicated or difficult at all.
Their definition of balance is a single sentence:
ALL THE PLAYERS ARE ENTITLED TO AN EQUAL SHARE OF THE FUN.
That's a balance I can believe in. That's a balance I appreciate. That's a balance I want in my games.
Yet, we know the characters are not balanced. Tordek cannot cast spells. Mialee cannot proficiently wield an axe. Jozan cannot sneak attack. Lidda cannot turn undead.
This inbalance is something we all know well. And we know it's a Balance of Imbalances, where the characters must depend on each other, because no one character can do it all.
That's right: the characters must depend on each other, because no one character can do it all. A balance of imbalances.
And thus, you might say, everyone has a chance at an equal share of the action, and thus an equal share of the fun.
But ...
In 3rd Edition, any race can be any class can be any multiclass can be any prestige class can do whatever they please!!!
In 1st edition, the balance of imbalance was maintained by requiring that each character take one class and one class only, or multiclass with restrictions that made it not worth the candle (that is, you had to be non-human, and take severe level limit penalties: ORIGINALLY an elf could rise to be a mere 5th level fighter (or if very exceptional, up to 7th level), or a 9th level mage (if very exceptional, up to 11th level), and could not be a druid, paladin, ranger, illusionist, monk, or bard at all. And NO exceptions.)
In 2nd edition, the balance of imbalance was maintained in a similar fashion, except level limits were raised and more multiclass options allowed (this pleased a lot of players, but it did not necessarily improve the balance of imbalances, as some players will point out.)
So whither 3rd Edition?
In 3rd Edition, any race can be any class can be any multiclass can be any prestige class can do whatever they please!!!
So where is the balance of imbalance?
What forces the characters to rely on each other?
What allows each character a fair share of the action, and thus the player has a fair share of the fun?
Feats.
Feats are the classes of 3rd edition.
The classes of 3rd edition are the honorary titles. The feats are the real classes.
The fighter takes feats. Feats define what he can do. Feats define the kind of fighter he is.
The wizard takes feats. Feats define what she can do. Feats define the kind of wizard she is. (Her ability to cast spells is a kind of feat. What particular spells she selects for the day, could be described as daily feats for the wizard that incur additional restrictions such as memorization and sleep.)
All the other classes have special abilities that are, IMO, variants of feats. Some directly relate to feats (such as a ranger's ability to take certain feats without qualifying for them first.) Others are not described as feats, but they might as well be feats.
Feats are it. Feats are where it's at. And you only get 1 starting Feat (and one more if you're human) plus one at 3rd level, one at 6th level, one at 9th level, and so on. If you're a fighter, fighter feats. If you're a wizard, metamagic feats.
And that's it. No more. Zip. Zilch. Zero. Not even the powerful gestalt rules variant allows you a single extra feat.
No 9th level spell or less in the game allows permanent extra feats ... and no 9th level spell or less in the game ever will.
Because feats are what creates the balance of imbalance in 3rd Edition.
Feats, and the inability to take more than a few feats, are what allow each character his chance at action, and the player's fair chance at fun.
If a rule came into being that allowed a character a large number of extra feats, that character would become the I Can Do Everything Character. No need for anyone else, no interdependence between characters, and thus no chance for each character to shine in turn ... and no fun for the other players.
Thus, my question in my previous post cannot be answered, and will never be answered, for the answer is No, There is No Way to Augment the Number of Feats in Any Significant Way.
Even the epic rules do not violate the prohibition.
Yes, epic spells can allow a character to permanently gain new feats, and thus gain a large number of permanent, additional feats. But these are normal feats gained, not epic feats. Even as normal spells will not grant normal feats, epic spells will not grant epic feats.
In an epic campaign, normal feats are not meaningful like they were when the campaign was at low level, assuming they are meaningful at all. Epic feats are what is meaningful, and these cannot be gained by the characters through any known means, be they epic spells or anything else. Even artifacts are of no avail, for they are standard magical items in an epic campaign and do not have rules-altering power that is meaningful in an epic campaign (those few artifacts that are exceptions, which are so powerful that they can alter the rules in spirit, are invariably fatal or permanently debilitating to characters who dare to wield them.)
Thus there is nothing, period, within any of the rules, that allows for large numbers of extra feats. You may be able to select from hundreds of prestige classes, from thousands of feats, min/max with hundreds of skills, and learn hundreds of spells ...
But you will never be granted a large number of excess feats by anything other than a DM who wishes this fundamental concept of 3rd edition to be changed.
Probably, such a change will occur only if you are playing one on one, because then your character (who can now Do It All) cannot hog the game. There are no other players to hog the game from.
Perhaps the DM allows a few (but not a large number of) extra feats, to each and every character, for the purpose of compressing the level structure of the game. That is, he wishes to make a 10th level character into a 5th level character, and a 20th level character into a 10th level character. Thus he can keep the playing level low in certain ways, while allowing higher powered characters.
Whether this variant has ever been tried by anyone, I don't know. Whether it has worked, I don't know either.
Or the DM can decide to allow large numbers of feats to all the players, in any order and in any way that pleases them.
Certainly, this could make the players happy in the short term.
But this is courting unmitigated disaster in the mid and long term, if my guess is correct.
Feats are the core of the game. Change the feat rules, and you change everything.
All this is a guess on my part. Just a guess.
I'm a Newbie, and do not know how the game works. I've said this repeatedly, and say it again: I don't know what I'm talking about. It's not beneath my dignity to say that: it pays to be humble.
If any of you (and nearly all of you are more experienced with 3rd Edition than me, right now) wish to chime in on this, I would take delight in your comments.
If I am lucky enough that one of the 3rd Edition Game Designers reads this post, I would be grateful if they would comment on my guess.
Yours Sincerely
Edena_of_Neith
-
(chuckles)
(And that means that No, the Fighter Does Not Get The 14 Down and Dirty Feats at 1st level, or 5th level, or 10th level, but at 14th or 15th level, as the rules - and the prohibition against accelerated feat acquisition - require.)
Last edited:
Edena_of_Neith said:
Indeed, this seems to be a fundamental precept in the design of 3E. Whether they really hit it or not is a different debate.
Edena_of_Neith said:
True, to a certain extent...but if you multiclass in a bunch of different classes, while you'll have a wide range of abilities, you won't be as good in any one of them as a single-classed character of your level would be. (Either that, or you just very inelegantly created a bard.
)Edena_of_Neith said:
I'm not sure I entirely agree with this...or, maybe, it's that you've discovered part of a wider aspect of 3E design. Feats (as well as skills, class abilities, attack bonuses, spells, etc.) are fairly carefully metered out in 3E. Just as there's no way to get extra feats, there's no way to overcome the (level+3) cap on skill ranks, there's no way to get 5th level spells before you're 9th level, there's no way to get a BAB that's higher than your character level, etc.
One 6th level PC should be, roughly, about as powerful as another 6th level PC (or, at least, have had the opportunity to be as powerful). While some PCs will outshine others in certain situations, each PC should be able to have some things that they excel at.
Similar Threads
