Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 5395927" data-attributes="member: 4937">I see this as trying to extend the sweet spot of the mechanic.  My guess is that if you do the now somewhat more complicated math, you'll find that the change doesn't have a significant impact over most of the level ranges and that its impact isn't as great as you think it is.  But its not that big of a deal, and if you want to add an extra roll to the mechanic I'm not that concerned.  I just wanted to point out that in many cases setting DC randomly and then rolling to beat it randomly resulted in no net changes.   You can see this pretty easily in the case of rolling a D20 with no modifiers to beat another D20 roll with no modifiers.  Add modifiers of various sorts complicates it somewhat, but only over a narrow range. Yes, but a +2 bonus only matters if your fumble check misses the target DC by 2 or less.  The number of times you make the fumble check isn't the number of times that the feat matters; it's the number of times the feat changes the outcome of the fumble check.   And that's slightly less than 1 once in every 200 attacks.  One of the reason I don't like the static bonus to your fumble check is that it is truly a static bonus which gets progressively less valuable over time because the target DC is effectively static (it never gets higher than 22).   If your BAB is 20 or so, the feat is not only worthless, it doesn't in fact protect you from fumbles.   Well, first of all because it fits with the Feats name and idea - "You rarely make mistakes".  A wise fighter is one that doesn't take unnecessary risks and avoids situations where he may be disadvantaged.  It fits with the idea of someone who uses good judgement.Second of all, because it avoids double rewarding someone for having a high dexterity.  A high dexterity fighter already adds his dex bonus on the fumble check, so we can think of a high dexterity fighter as one who is skilled at recovering from his mistakes and using his dexterity and reflexes to get himself out of trouble.  Whereas, the wise one is better at not getting into trouble at all.Thirdly, because dexterity is already a 'god skill' in that it can do pretty much everything for you - make you better at hitting a target, make you harder to hit, make you faster, etc.   Wisdom on the other hand doesn't get enough love under the core rules.   So doing things that give Wisdom, Charisma, Intelligence some more love reward people for creating characters with non-sterotypical stat arrays - ei something other than a fighter that dumps all of his mental skills for high strength, dexterity, and constitution.   I don't think any possible version of the feats is worth a two feat tree.  Even if you make the first one worth taking, the second 'improved' version would probably never be worth taking even if it said 'You never fumble'.   Feats are a rare enough resource that either this is going to constitute a feat tax - yet another feat you have to take to be a skilled fighter - or else its going to be worth perhaps investing a feat into to mitigate against yet another problem that melee combatants are saddled with.   The full scope of my opinion of fumbles is sorta outside the purpose of this thread, but I consider the feat I offered the minimally useful version of the feat.  Any static bonus eventually becomes useless, which means in the long run the 'entry' feat to the feat tree is always useless.   Which means no one will take the feat unless they plan on taking both feats in the tree, but almost no one will be able to spare two whole feats in their build just to avoid fumbles unless avoiding fumbles is so important that the very existance of fumbles argues against useing martial attacks instead of spell attacks.   As things stand from what I understand of your rules, the fumble check becomes increasingly irrelevant at just about the time that non-spellcasters are beginning to lose their shine relative to spellcasters.  So hitherto it hasn't mattered much.   In no way should it ever be made to matter enough that you're tempted to spend two feats on it.  That just screams 'Combat Casting for the win' unless you've tweaked your game to the point that you can't do combat casting (and that as an at minimum).</blockquote>

Verification