• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!

Feats That Shouldn’t Be Feats

TKDB

First Post
Does anyone see a problem with making it a DC10 + 1/2 level + 1 per 5 points of damage to stun for 1 round?

I agree with Tequila Sunrise that this might be a little bit too powerful. I haven't run the actual numbers, but I suspect that the DC would scale faster with level than your enemies' save bonuses would (since I'm pretty sure damage scales faster than save bonuses).
It should probably have some sort of a restriction or drawback on it. I would at the very least restrict it to use with bludgeoning weapons only. Not only does that make sense, but it would give a good incentive to use bludgeoning weapons (which are generally mechanically inferior to their edged brethren).
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Celebrim

Legend
On the flip side of your argument, you mention Krav Maga, Pankration, and Mau Thai, all of which teach various methods of stunning an opponent through massive blunt force trauma to the head or chest - the very essence of the Stunning Fist feat.

Ahh, here we come to the heart of our disagreement then.

I don't agree that 'massive blunt force trauma' to the head is the very essence of the Stunning Fist feat. It may be the very essense of how you really stun someone, but the Feat itself has a different genesis. There is two separate peices of evidence. The first is internal to the feat itself. The second requires knowing the history of the idea.

To understand the internal evidence, you have to compare the implementation of the feat to a feat inspired by the concept of 'massive blunt force trauma'. What would a 'stunning' feat look like with a Western Martial Arts spin on it. I would suggest something like the following:

Stunning Blow [General, Fighter]
You been trained to focus your blows to keep you foe senseless and reeling.
Prerequisite: Str 13, Power Attack, BAB +1
Benefit: When using a unarmed strike or bludgeoning weapon, if you successfully make a critical hit while using Power Attack, then your target must also make a Fortitude save with DC equal to 5 + damage dealt or be stunned for one round.

Ok, so that's just off the top of my head, but you can see from the implemetation that the underlying idea is, "You make a called shot at a sensitive target, and, if you strike it forcefully enough, then the target may be stunned."

But look at the implementation of 'Stunning Fist'.

Stunning Fist [General]
Prerequisites: Dex 13, Wis 13, Improved Unarmed Strike, base attack bonus +8.
Benefit: You must declare that you are using this feat before you make your attack roll (thus, a failed attack roll ruins the attempt). Stunning Fist forces a foe damaged by your unarmed attack to make a Fortitude saving throw (DC 10 + ½ your character level + your Wis modifier), in addition to dealing damage normally. A defender who fails this saving throw is stunned for 1 round (until just before your next action). You may attempt a stunning attack once per day for every four levels you have attained (but see Special), and no more than once per round. Constructs, oozes, plants, undead, incorporeal creatures, and creatures immune to critical hits cannot be stunned.
Special: A monk may select Stunning Fist as a bonus feat at 1st level, even if she does not meet the prerequisites. A monk who selects this feat may attempt a stunning attack a number of times per day equal to her monk level, plus one more time per day for every four levels she has in classes other than monk.

Note that this is completely different. There is no mention at all of making a more difficult attack - a 'called shot' if you will - as in the alternate implementation. There is no mention at all of the attack needing to be particularly successful. There is no relationship between the ammount of damage done and the stunning effect. Instead, if we look at idea, we see that its something you can only do a limited number of times per day and then its expended like a 'charge'. Even if you fail, the 'charge' is still expended. Moreover, the ability isn't tied to damage, but rather to the character's 'level' or some intrinsic power in their being. And moreover, it can only be done with a bare hand and not say a lump of spiky steel. And further, Monks get a big bonus on the number of 'charges' that they can produce and on their access to the feat. So clearly, there is something inherently monkish about this power that masters of martial arts (eastern martial arts) would have an huge advantage in their understanding.

All of this points to the underlying concept not being massive blunt force trauma, but rather the utilization and transfer of chi.

And we can very much verify this by tracing this the origin of this particular rule back to 1e, and find that intend, the original 'stunning fist' was part of the portfolio of the Monk specificly and that the Monk had a wide range of supernatural abilities all related to chi (as is made explicitly clear by the Oriental Adventures rules).
 

TanisFrey

First Post
weapon focus starts the weapon specialization tree, going through weapon mastery. This was a week attempt to combine 2ed specialization with the BECMI weapon mastery system.

The 2ed system gave you a small flat bonus to hit and to damage and yo got to attack more often. The BECMI system gives you new weapon stats every time you increase you mastery in a weapon.

BECMI had 5 level of mastery with a weapon. How often you got to attempt to improve was based on your class and finding a trainer.

Take the dagger
Skill level Effect
None 1d4 damage; suffers non-proficiently penalty
Basic 1d4 damage
Skilled 1d6 damage
Expert 2d4 damage
Master 3d4 damage to primary target, 2d4+2 damage to secondary
Grand Master 4d4 damage to primary, 3d4+1 damage to secondary

This also affected ranges the dagger could be thrown, as follows.
Basic 10/20/30
Skilled 15/25/35
Expert 20/30/45
Master 25/35/50
Grandmaster 30/50/60

There could be other effects like bonus to hit and your ac or other effects based on the weapon.
 

Loonook

First Post
Honestly I would like to see some of the 'feats' set to be beneficial to individuals who flank or deny AC bonuses. The Sneak Attack concept is, imo, a great implementation of a 'new backstab', and would like to see martial attacks grant a bit of a 'boost' when you have advantages in combat.

Stunning Fist would be an excellent 'add' to a Fighter's arsenal if he could set a full round action, make his attack, and 'stun' a target who they have the drop on... And would prevent the power from being overly used (may also tag a standard 1/day/opponent caveat for the power).

Slainte,

-Loonook.
 

Sekhmet

First Post
Anyone else notice that Celebrim likes to type?

I can see your point. I remember playing a Monk in 1e way back (Made it to Master of the North Wind [level 9, iirc]), and Stunning Fist was great (so were his thief abilities).

However, I felt that with the shift to 3x, when Wizards decided to allow anyone with sufficient stats (BAB 8, Dex/Wis 13, Imp Unarmed) to pick it up, the mystical feeling of it went out the window for me.
The dexterity requirement most assuredly denotes that it is a precise strike to a vital area, and the high BAB (level 8 is superhuman!) makes it seem like it fits well with my idea of how Stunning Fist has evolved. That monks get it so early is what makes it mystical for THEM, but not for the Fighter who wants to knock some heads together with his fists.

Ah well. Disagreeing is fine.
 

Voidrunner's Codex

Remove ads

Top