Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Fighting Offensively (Recklessly)
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Technik4" data-source="post: 1021151" data-attributes="member: 7211"><p>*Blush* No prob Seasong, what can I say, I like a lot of your ideas. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> I do generally try and get on the house rule forum the most, helping (or at least giving my opinion) anyone posting things.</p><p></p><p>As for this combat option, it was meant to be a parallel between power attack -> ______ with expertise -> fighting defensively being the inspiration.</p><p></p><p>I of course can see where an AC penalty makes more sense. I also think I should restrict it to melee weapons. Unfortunately I don't have Unapproachable East (only FR book for 3e I dont have actually) so I didn't realize there was a feat similar to it (besides power attack of course).</p><p></p><p>As far as it always being useful against an AC 20, thats true to an extent. First of all, how do you *know* youre only going to hit on a 20, secondly even if you have seen through play that youre gonna need a 20, a "reckless" attack could lead you to be disarmed, sundered against, or tripped more easily, whereas an AC penalty would only make you easier to hit/grapple. Personally I think both are representative of a "reckless" action, but the most utility comes with using this in conjunction with a charge (the charge allows you to trade -2 attack for -2 AC, an interesting residue of this design).</p><p></p><p>Vs AC 20</p><p></p><p>Reckless Offensive: -4 Attack, +2 Damage</p><p>Reckless Offensive + Charge: -2 Attack, -2 AC, +3 Damage</p><p>(And having Improved Overun gives you an additional point of damage if you charge).</p><p></p><p></p><p>Both are useful. I think I need something else when using Reckless Offensive and not charging to deter using it whenever "you aren't going to hit anyway", which isn't the intention of the action (although as an aside, using Expertise + Fighting Defensively + Tumble Ranks is useful if you know you can get your AC high enough that the enemy will only be able to hit you on a 20, does this comparison change things?).</p><p></p><p>Thanks for the comments so far, and if someone wouldn't mind reprinting the feat from UE, I'd like to compare it.</p><p></p><p>Technik</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Technik4, post: 1021151, member: 7211"] *Blush* No prob Seasong, what can I say, I like a lot of your ideas. :) I do generally try and get on the house rule forum the most, helping (or at least giving my opinion) anyone posting things. As for this combat option, it was meant to be a parallel between power attack -> ______ with expertise -> fighting defensively being the inspiration. I of course can see where an AC penalty makes more sense. I also think I should restrict it to melee weapons. Unfortunately I don't have Unapproachable East (only FR book for 3e I dont have actually) so I didn't realize there was a feat similar to it (besides power attack of course). As far as it always being useful against an AC 20, thats true to an extent. First of all, how do you *know* youre only going to hit on a 20, secondly even if you have seen through play that youre gonna need a 20, a "reckless" attack could lead you to be disarmed, sundered against, or tripped more easily, whereas an AC penalty would only make you easier to hit/grapple. Personally I think both are representative of a "reckless" action, but the most utility comes with using this in conjunction with a charge (the charge allows you to trade -2 attack for -2 AC, an interesting residue of this design). Vs AC 20 Reckless Offensive: -4 Attack, +2 Damage Reckless Offensive + Charge: -2 Attack, -2 AC, +3 Damage (And having Improved Overun gives you an additional point of damage if you charge). Both are useful. I think I need something else when using Reckless Offensive and not charging to deter using it whenever "you aren't going to hit anyway", which isn't the intention of the action (although as an aside, using Expertise + Fighting Defensively + Tumble Ranks is useful if you know you can get your AC high enough that the enemy will only be able to hit you on a 20, does this comparison change things?). Thanks for the comments so far, and if someone wouldn't mind reprinting the feat from UE, I'd like to compare it. Technik [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Fighting Offensively (Recklessly)
Top