Craven feat, overpowered?

[Arravis]

One of my players is thinking of picking up the Craven feat from the FR book Champions of Ruin. Anyone else think this feat is overpowered? It seems like alot of extra damage per sneak attack. I don't know of any feat that gives you that much extra damage without some other sort of penalty (like Power Attack, etc). The minuses to this feat seem laughable, but maybe it's just me...

Craven:
Prereqs: Not immune to fear, able to sneak attack.
Effects: –2 penalty against fear effects
All sneak attacks do 1 extra point of damage per character level


P.S.: Would the being under the effect of a Hero's Feast spell, which makes you temporarily immune to fear, suppress this feat?

 

[Thanee]

Well, if you don't like it, then just don't allow it. It's hardly a requirement for a rogue to be decent.

P.S.: Would the being under the effect of a Hero's Feast spell, which makes you temporarily immune to fear, suppress this feat?

Yep.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Arravis]

The feat may not be as unreasonable as I expect. I haven't play-tested it to know, etc. I only have my initial reaction, which isn't exactly perfect. That's why I was hoping for some feedback here.

 

[Infiniti2000]

It does seem to be a bit much. The use of 'character level' is a little unusual, too. Note that this is not ECL, so if the PC has a non-standard race, you need to make sure he is using the right value. For example, a gnoll rogue 3 would get +3, not +6.

P.S.: Would the being under the effect of a Hero's Feast spell, which makes you temporarily immune to fear, suppress this feat?

Absolutely. When you lose the prerequisities, you lose access to the feat. A remove fear wouldn't, however, it would just offset the penalty.

 

[Three_Haligonians]

If your looking to make the feat a little easier to swallow you could change the drawback from "-2 penalty against fear effects" to whenever the character is subject to a fear effect, they are considered to be one step down "the fear chain". So that, if a Craven character would be shaken, they are panicked instead etc. Or you could just say its an extra 1 point of damage per rogue level instead of character level.

But yes, I feel the feat is a bit much (even though I love the idea).

J from Three Haligonians

 

[Felon]

Well, if you think the sneak attack damage bonus is too much, then it's too much, and the fear save penalty doesn't mitigate that one iota. They have nothing to do with each other. If a player is deterred from taking the feat by the penalty, then it's a moot point. If the player takes the feat despite the penalty, you can punish him by throwing feart effects at him, but he still gets the sneak attack damage.

My take on it is that the +1d6/level sneak attack damage rogues on each attack get is already insanely powerful. There's no special ability that touches it--fighter weapon spec, paladin smite, ranger favored enemy--hell, a 20th-level two-weapon-fighting rogue makes meteor swarm look like a joke.

Rogues don't need more damage. I wouldn't mind seeing feats that let them apply sneak attack damage in different situations though--like, say, against a prone or entangled opponent.

 

[Coredump]

My take on it is that the +1d6/level sneak attack damage rogues on each attack get is already insanely powerful. There's no special ability that touches it--fighter weapon spec, paladin smite, ranger favored enemy--hell, a 20th-level two-weapon-fighting rogue makes meteor swarm look like a joke.

Rogues don't need more damage. I wouldn't mind seeing feats that let them apply sneak attack damage in different situations though--like, say, against a prone or entangled opponent.

I find that funny. "I think rogues do too much damage, so lets make it easier for them to do damage"... Huh?

The reason the rogue *doesn't* make meteor swarm look like a joke, is because it *doesn't* work against many opponents. Sure they may get a lot of damage....sometimes...others not. If you take away those 'not' times, they get MUCH more powerful.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

This Feat is a prime example for why I don't like Champions of ruin:

- What has being a coward to do with doing more damage?
- 1 point damage per character level is way too much. I would have said OK to +1 per SA die, but not that. Especially since you can now get +20 on your sneak attack even though you only have one level rogue.
- The fear thing is, IMO, no good balance for the damage.
- The book is supposed to be about evil.

So, in a nutshell: I don't like the feat.

 

[Belbarid]

This Feat is a prime example for why I don't like Champions of ruin:

- What has being a coward to do with doing more damage?
- 1 point damage per character level is way too much. I would have said OK to +1 per SA die, but not that. Especially since you can now get +20 on your sneak attack even though you only have one level rogue.
- The fear thing is, IMO, no good balance for the damage.
- The book is supposed to be about evil.

So, in a nutshell: I don't like the feat.

I haven't read Champions of Ruin, but a couple thoughts:

The idea behind the feat seems to be that you're a coward who is used to attacking from the flanks and rear, and are thus better at it, but fold like a card table when confronted head on.

+1 damage/level is WAY too much. +1/SA die, I agree, is much better. I could even be talked into using d8's for Sneak Attack. Possibly even +1/Level in a class with SA as an ability, but likely not.

The fear penalty is a good start. I might also rule that the character is shaken (or something along those lines) when in a fight where he cannot Sneak Attack. I.E., opponant NOT flanked, NOT Flatfooted, , immune to SA, etc.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

The idea behind the feat seems to be that you're a coward who is used to attacking from the flanks and rear, and are thus better at it, but fold like a card table when confronted head on.

That whould have been a good explanation (though I think that's what SA is about in the first place: You're good at attacking from the flanks and rear), but the Feat just says: "you're a coward, you make more damage with SA's"