Decisive Strike - What ya think?

[Al]

Whatever they corrected the bladed gauntlet to, I would highly suggest that people house rule the threat range to a balance of 18-20, otherwise the bladed gauntlet is no better than a rapier, which is a martial weapon. 17-20 may have been too much, but 19-20 is overcompensation.

As for Decisive Strike, I meant that it is better than Improved Critical "in and of itself". Meaning that a person who takes ONLY Improved Critical will do more damage on average than one who takes ONLY Decisive Strike. Any analysis otherwise is incorrect, because Improved Critical by itself doubles threat range, whereas Decisive Strike only increases multiplier by one under any circumstance.

This is statiscally correct. Taken alone, Decisive Strike does, on average, less marginal damage (i.e. more damage than before) than IC on its own. But this is a pointless analysis.

Consider:
Absurd Weapon Specialisation:
Benefit: A character without Weapon Specialisation gets a +1 to damage. A character with Weapon Specialisation gets a +2000 to damage.

Now, taken on its own, Absurd WS is worse than WS. But taken together, it is clear that Absurd WS is broken. No sensible DM would allow Absurd WS, but using your analysis, (i.e. take each feat on its own), it is perfectly acceptable. Each feat cannot be taken alone, but rather in the context of other feat- and the chances are that those taking Decisive Strike and bound to take Improved Critical as well to make the most of their feats.

 

[Anubis]

This is statiscally correct. Taken alone, Decisive Strike does, on average, less marginal damage (i.e. more damage than before) than IC on its own. But this is a pointless analysis.

Consider:
Absurd Weapon Specialisation:
Benefit: A character without Weapon Specialisation gets a +1 to damage. A character with Weapon Specialisation gets a +2000 to damage.

Now, taken on its own, Absurd WS is worse than WS. But taken together, it is clear that Absurd WS is broken. No sensible DM would allow Absurd WS, but using your analysis, (i.e. take each feat on its own), it is perfectly acceptable. Each feat cannot be taken alone, but rather in the context of other feat- and the chances are that those taking Decisive Strike and bound to take Improved Critical as well to make the most of their feats.

I think your comparison is just silly.

Improved Critical + Decisive Strike would not be anywhere near as big a deal as +2000 damage.

Fact is, it take two feats to get this amazing combo. I can think of other combos that do just as well. There are also class abilities that do MORE. (Evasion would be much more useful, and Mettle even more useful.)

If there are any adjustments needed, it would be to make Decisive Strike apply only to the weapons original range.

 

[Al]

I think your comparison is just silly.

Improved Critical + Decisive Strike would not be anywhere near as big a deal as +2000 damage.

Fact is, it take two feats to get this amazing combo. I can think of other combos that do just as well. There are also class abilities that do MORE. (Evasion would be much more useful, and Mettle even more useful.)

If there are any adjustments needed, it would be to make Decisive Strike apply only to the weapons original range.

No, my comparison is following your logic. If my example is silly, then so is your logic.

Your fundamental premise was: Decisive Strike is balanced because taken singly it is not as powerful as Improved Critical. The logical deduction, therefore, is that the combo is unbalanced. In the same way, my example demonstrates how feats taken singly may not be that powerful, but as a combination can be clearly overpowered. It's an extreme, even absurd, example, but it illustrates the fundamental point. Feats cannot be looked at in and of themselves alone, but in the context of likely combinations. I know that IC + DS can deal nowhere near +2000 damage, but the point was to take an absurd example to lampoon your logic (i.e. if a feat is ok on it's own, it's acceptable.)

Fact is, it takes two feats to get this amazing combo. Big deal. A human fighter can have 19 feats by top-level. Spending two for an amazing combination is not particularly devastating. Besides, this does not make it balanced.

You assert that there are other combinations that do more. Name them- assertions without example will carry no weight here. It is all very well to claim 'other combos do more' but without listing any, I remain skeptical.

Comparing feats with class abilities in a nonsense, and comparing them with Evasion and Mettle is even more ridiculous. For one, Evasion and Mettle do not do damage, so there is no direct comparison. Such comparison is not only spurious, as feats cannot equal class abilities (the extreme is: huh? this feat can't match 9th level wizard spells) but since it offers no direct comparison anyway, leads to a pantomime 'oh no it isn't!' 'oh yes it is!' type argument, where no clear analysis is possible.

If there are any adjustments, restricting it to the original threat range would be acceptable. As it stands, it is broken.

 

[Jeremy]

A 12th level fighter has generally run out of feats to increase his damage by that point.

A 12th level wizard has had them since 7th level and at 12th is only just beginning.

12th level characters are not 1st level characters, they are in a different world, damage increases have to be brought into proper focus.

For example, a 12th level evoker casts two maximized fireballs while hasted. He also can throw out a quickened magic missile in the same round with two feats. Technically empower does more damage on average than maximize, so this isn't even an optimized example, but 120 fire damage over 1256 sq feet plus around 17 more points of damage no save to a singed looking survivor is not something first level characters are capable of.

Say you are able to get only 6 people in that 1256 sq ft area. And say 2 of them are either lucky or have good reflex saves or both. Thats (120*4) + (60*2) + 17 points of damage in a round. Or 617 points of damage.

Let's say this 12th level fighter has improved critical and decisive strike, he's got +12/+7/+2 base attack, one extra attack from haste, +5 strength, a +3 weapon, and weapon focus and specialization as is required. And he's using a greatsword because it's a very good weapon.

So, +12+5+3= +20/+20/+15/+10 for 2d6+10 damage with a 17-20 crit range and x3 damage. 4 rolls isn't a very good chance to get 17 or better, but let's assume he is lucky as well and not only gets a 17, but gets it on his third attack so he's still got +15 to confirm it.

Against an AC 25 character he should probably power attack around 5 because his fourth attack is not likely to hit, and 5 power attack triples to 15 damage if he does land a crit. Actually, 15 is less than 2d6+10, so he should probably not power attack at all. Ok, so he doesn't power attack.

He rolls 7, 12, 18, 15 for 4 hits and one threat. He confirms the critical against a non-critical immune character (there's another balancing factor to the feat, the sheer number of creatures it's going to be useless against----especially at high levels where moderate fortification should be prevalent to stop improved crit falchions and 8d6 sneak attacks) and does (2d6+10*3) + (2d6+10*3) for on average 51+51 or 102 points of damage. 102 points of damage may drop his opponent, but then again it may not at this level. And 102 isn't even as much damage as the wizard did to 1 target, much less his total damage for the round.

That's hardly overpowering. Can it be broken? Yes. What can't? Is it broken to begin with? No. It's a balanced feat that allows fighters to maintain utility at high levels as opposed to degenerating to flesh walls for the real heroes the wizards.

The fighter's feats matter less and have to be judged on a weighted scale because typically his damage can only effect one target at a time.

It's just like the weighted scale for judging what level a spell should be. A 5th level spell has a 20 dice damage cap for single target spells, but only a 15 dice damage cap for area of effect spells because over an area, the wizard can do much more damage.

In any case, yes it's powerful, but with a minimum requirement of 12th level, 3 feats for prereq's, rule parallels to existing feats such as power critical and improved critical, it is well designed. And when taken in the context of a 12th level game, is just a drop in the bucket and a good but not always advisable (or even practical) choice.

For instance, your average paladin or ranger or barbarian might take weapon focus or improved critical but will they have the feats for both? With mounted combat/ride-by/spirited charge and or exotic weapons, or power attack/extra turning/divine might, or power attack/cleave/great cleave, and especially if the character isn't human, decisive strike becomes a nice trick, but too expensive for a 3 feat (3, 6, 9) character..

It's not a fighter only feat (that would make it even harder to acquire) but it is very close with 3 feats for requirements.

There are any number of reasons here why it is a balanced feat. If there is that much to say, surely the feat is in line with what it should be. Even if my reasoning is off in 2 or even 3 places, there's still 5 other reasons the feat is balanced.

Shift your mindset to high level gaming (which BAB 12+ dictates it must be) and everything comes into focus.

 

[Valicor]

I think Jeremy really hit the nail to the board with his example, and here I thought this thread was dead. good example and number's Jer

 

[Earthstone]

Hear Hear

 

[Al]

Jeremy: Whilst your point on damage capabilities is a good one, it is also both logically irrational and unfair. This is because you are not comparing like with like. For the fighter, you are taking his feats; for the wizard, you are taking his spells. The former is a feat, the latter is a class ability.
The logical extreme is that top-level fighter feats should be able to cast Time Stops, Miracles, Wails of the Banshees and Meteor Storms. This is clearly incorrect. Spells and feats cannot be compared. It is thus an unfair comparison.
Furthermore, since they are totally separate entities, it is logically irrational to compare them. Any new feat must be judged for balance in context with other feats- not juxtaposed with skills, spells or abilities. Lightning Reflexes, when one compares it with Improved Evasion, is clearly inferior. Yet compared with other feats, it is balanced. Similarly, no-one would deny that Dodge pales in comparison with the monk's wisdom bonus to AC and his AC bonus. If one extends it to prestige classes, the disparity becomes even more stark. Can anyone assert that Stay Standing (or whatever it's called) compares with Deathless Frenzy? Clearly, this is illogical. Conversely, spells cannot be compared to feats. A 6th level spell judged against Improved Critical would look pathetic- Keen Edge is 3rd level.
Finally, the key difference between magic and combat is that whilst the evoker can dish out 120 damage in a 20' radius + 17 damage no save to a survivor, he's blown out most of his daily resources. The fighter, by contrast, can keep going and going ad infinitum. This effect is compounded by the fact that people act cautiously for fear of the unknown. The evoker is not going to discharge all his top-level slots in one encounter unless he's sure that this is the final encounter, or at the very least the most challenging one they will face today. The fighter can merrily hack away with no troublesome thoughts of what the next encounter may hold.
Thus, on these three criteria, whilst your point is well put, it lacks any substantiation.

 

[hong]

Jeremy: Whilst your point on damage capabilities is a good one, it is also both logically irrational and unfair. This is because you are not comparing like with like. For the fighter, you are taking his feats; for the wizard, you are taking his spells. The former is a feat, the latter is a class ability.

It's perfectly reasonable to compare feats and spells in this specific instance. Fighters are the feat guys; nearly all their specials come about by selecting feats. Without them, they're just warriors with a few extra hit points. Fighters also use those feats to kick booty, and in the example given, a specialist boom-spell wizard would use their spells to kick booty. I see no reason why effectiveness at kicking booty is such an irrational metric to use.

The logical extreme is that top-level fighter feats should be able to cast Time Stops, Miracles, Wails of the Banshees and Meteor Storms. This is clearly incorrect. Spells and feats cannot be compared. It is thus an unfair comparison.

Indeed, fighters got teh shaft. Pointing out the over-the-topness of 9th level spells is hardly an argument that the other classes shouldn't also be over-the-top at 17th character level. If you consider over-the-top spells to be such a bad thing, the obvious course of action is to ban them.

Furthermore, since they are totally separate entities, it is logically irrational to compare them. Any new feat must be judged for balance in context with other feats- not juxtaposed with skills, spells or abilities. Lightning Reflexes, when one compares it with Improved Evasion, is clearly inferior. Yet compared with other feats, it is balanced.

Lightning Reflexes has no prereqs and can be taken at 1st level, while improved evasion is generally a 10th-12th level ability for those classes that get it. Your comparison is irrelevant.

Similarly, no-one would deny that Dodge pales in comparison with the monk's wisdom bonus to AC and his AC bonus. If one extends it to prestige classes, the disparity becomes even more stark. Can anyone assert that Stay Standing (or whatever it's called) compares with Deathless Frenzy? Clearly, this is illogical.

Since nobody was talking about PrCs in the first place, this is a strawman.

Finally, the key difference between magic and combat is that whilst the evoker can dish out 120 damage in a 20' radius + 17 damage no save to a survivor, he's blown out most of his daily resources. The fighter, by contrast, can keep going and going ad infinitum.

This is perhaps the one valid point you've made. Wizards have historically been the most "one-shot" of the classes, which has had the unfortunate side-effect of them tending to hog the glory. (Why? Because no-one remembers the fights with the mooks, while everyone remembers the fight with the foozle. The wizard thus stays in the background in the nothing fights, and then kicks booty in the grand finale. An exaggeration, but you get the point.) By the same token, perhaps it isn't such a bad thing for fighters (and the other classes) to get their abilities beefed up for the grand finale, even if it means they can also use these abilities in the nothing fights.

 

[SupaFreak]

umm...Unless im missing something.....Weapon Master PrC anyone? Unless you want to use this without taking the class, which i think is overpowered for regular fighter.

 

[pyrobob]

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!