Decisive Strike - What ya think?

[hong]

No offense, but you guys are geeks! I mean, you all have been arguing over the same points for a month and a half now! For god's sakes, get (more) of a life! I am an avid DnD player, but reading over yall's bickering makes me ashamed to call myself that! Please just go back to killing dragons (or PCs, for you DMs out there), and leave this (in my opinion) useless feat to the dogs!

Ah, to warm myself by the flames of coruscating newbies, such is indulgence indeed.

 

[Al]

No offense, but you guys are geeks! I mean, you all have been arguing over the same points for a month and a half now! For god's sakes, get (more) of a life! I am an avid DnD player, but reading over yall's bickering makes me ashamed to call myself that! Please just go back to killing dragons (or PCs, for you DMs out there), and leave this (in my opinion) useless feat to the dogs!

Ah, yes hong, how amusing it is to hear the flames of newbies. And especially funny to be called a geek by someone who has a nickname 'pyrobob', lists his residence as the Elemental Plane of Fire and has his signature as Lord of all he burns, no?

But back to your main substantive, which was well-thought-out and considerable.

Regarding spells and feats, I would still say that it is unfair to compare the two. As you rightly point out, without his feats, the fighter is nothing but a warrior with extra hit points. But what of the wizard without his spells? Suddenly he becomes a commoner with a pet and a penchant for speaking in strange languages. Spells make the wizard much more than feats make the fighter- this is clear simply by seeing what remains when they are removed.

Furthermore, my point is that one must compare like-with-like. Granted, feats and spells are designed for the same purpose (essentially damage maximisation in these examples) but the mechanic is radically different. I would hope that if I were to introduce a once per day feat that allowed the fighter to cast Time Stop, it would be rapidly dismissed as the work of a lunatic: yet you seem to imply that there ought to be some sort of parity.

Lightning Reflexes against Improved Evasion, I concede, is probably a bad example. Yet if we take normal Evasion, this is a 1st level monk ability. I have little doubt that in terms of damage avoidance, Evasion wins over Lightning Reflexes- the only time when Lightning Reflexes is preferable is for Reflex negates spell or Reflex half spells where one needs to save on exactly a 20.

With regard to PrCs, this was merely an extension. Comparing feats with spells is to compare feats with a class ability, and since (in theory) prestige classes are on parity with normal classes, extending the comparison to prestige class abilities is perfectly rational.

Your final point is an interesting one. I cannot contend with the fundamental premise, that wizards will get the glory for downing the big bosses, but all I can say in reply is that were it not for the fighters, the wizards would have blown out their resources on the mooks and not be able to compete against the bosses. Besides, fighters have never been the most glamorous or glorious class- glory-hunters would be best suited as wizards or sorcerors.

 

[hong]

Regarding spells and feats, I would still say that it is unfair to compare the two. As you rightly point out, without his feats, the fighter is nothing but a warrior with extra hit points. But what of the wizard without his spells? Suddenly he becomes a commoner with a pet and a penchant for speaking in strange languages. Spells make the wizard much more than feats make the fighter- this is clear simply by seeing what remains when they are removed.

So?

Furthermore, my point is that one must compare like-with-like. Granted, feats and spells are designed for the same purpose (essentially damage maximisation in these examples) but the mechanic is radically different. I would hope that if I were to introduce a once per day feat that allowed the fighter to cast Time Stop, it would be rapidly dismissed as the work of a lunatic: yet you seem to imply that there ought to be some sort of parity.

Well, let's consider what the reasons might be for not allowing fighters time stop 1/day. For starters, the rationale for time stop is that it's a utility spell to do with directly manipulating the laws of physics. Fighters don't have it in their mission statement to manipulate the laws of physics, like wizards do; or if they do, they certainly can't do it _blatantly_. Strike one. Second, the uses of time stop go beyond just kicking butt on the battlefield, although it can certainly be used for that. Again, the fighter mission statement is pretty focused on kicking butt on the battlefield, so strike two. Thus while there may be reasons not to allow fighters time stop 1/day, they have nothing to do with the topic under discussion: namely, comparative ability to kick butt.

Furthermore, your position seems to be that you _can't_ compare feats and spells ever, even if the scope of the comparison was limited solely to kicking butt. This would be fine if it were 1E or 2E, but not anymore. Why do you think there are even damage caps on spells? Why is meteor swarm a 9th level spell, not 6th or even 3rd?

Even if you can't compare feats with spells willy-nilly, comparing them as has been done so far in this thread is certainly reasonable. In fact, it's more than reasonable, it's a necessity if you want the classes to balance out against each other.

 

[Valicor]

No offense, but you guys are geeks! I mean, you all have been arguing over the same points for a month and a half now! For god's sakes, get (more) of a life! I am an avid DnD player, but reading over yall's bickering makes me ashamed to call myself that! Please just go back to killing dragons (or PCs, for you DMs out there), and leave this (in my opinion) useless feat to the dogs!

I think that's alittle harsh statement, If you are not intrested in the discussion then ignore it. Though some of us may not be posting on it still. There are those who still find it Hong and Al's thoughts on the topic intresting. Also I don't think the thought and effort me and others put into this feat is WORTHLESS or for DOG's

I have to say though I agree with Hong, feats can be compared to class abilities, or spell's. it is how the balance engine works in 3e. I look at the comparrison simply as this;

"As a fighter master's the arts of weapon combat, do to does the magic master the arcane arts"

I feel that the feat is relitvaley fair because, I for one to not beleieve in limitation. If a mage can master the art of castign all the way to 20th level. Why can a fighter not master a weapon beyond 8th level with Improved critical. (arguabaly 1th level with power critical)

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

In general, I tend to agree with Al re: comparing feats and spells. They function according to different mechanics. A 12th level fighter can use this feat all day. A 12th level wizard can cast chain lightning only two to four times per day (depending upon int and specialization).

It is probably fair to compare the capabilities of classes at similar levels but one has to keep the limitations of spells/day in mind when doing this. That is what the initial comparison (a hasted twelth level wizard could cast two maximized fireballs and a quickened magic missile in one round so a fighter should be able to deal out similar damage) left out. (For what it's worth, a mass hasted 12th level fighter and warhorse with spirited charge, power critical: heavy lance, power attack, and a bull's strength, could already easily deal out over 130 points of damage in one round just as well as the wizard--a paladin could manage even more).

In the case of this feat, I think it would be a reasonable feat if it were limited to the weapon's natural threat range (not including keen, improved critical, or any other critical improving abilities) or usable a limited number of times per day (like the weapon master ability). Without such limitations, it would unduly advantage weapons with wide threat ranges (like falchions and rapiers). With such limitations, I think it would be a great feat that would expand the (currently very limited) options of high-level fighters.

 

[Valicor]

In general, I tend to agree with Al re: comparing feats and spells. They function according to different mechanics. A 12th level fighter can use this feat all day. A 12th level wizard can cast chain lightning only two to four times per day (depending upon int and specialization).

limitation is a good counter argument, but don't forget thougb a wizard is limmited to the amount per day. The fighters feats can belimmited to the siuation, the feat is selected for.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

Feats, spells and class abilities are all situation limited to some extent--that plays into their balance.

For instance, circumstance limitations are what balance cleave (which grants an extra attack at full attack bonus with the potential for 1.5x str damage from a two handed weapon) with two weapon fighting/ambidexterity which grants an extra attack all the time with a light weapon at -2 to hit and and 1/2 strength bonus. Similarly the even more common circumstances required for weapon focus (any time you wield a particular weapon) help to balance it against other feats like power attack, etc.

Similarly, circumstances balance call lightning (must be outdoors, long casting time, must have the right weather) with lightning bolt.

The amount of balancing that can be done with limitations is limited. (It wouldn't make meteor swarm a balanced first level spell if it could only be cast on the first Tuesday of every month against a mixed group of PC races--every adventure the PCs played on the first Tuesday of every month would become a TPK). However, if done properly, limitations can be a reasonable way to balance feats and/or spells.

limitation is a good counter argument, but don't forget thougb a wizard is limmited to the amount per day. The fighters feats can belimmited to the siuation, the feat is selected for.