How do you deal with characters when they whine in confusion?

[Benben]

Then I will house rule it. There is no logical reason why a fighter couldn't take his last attack from a full round attack and use it as a ready action. Especially since there is a good chance he will lose the attack if his foe merely takes a 5' step.

House rules are fine, but when you set it in stone you should remember that ready actions also include partial charges. Although it seems like you've already taken that into account.

What I want to know is why a 5th level fighter is get tin 2 melee attacks a round. Is he dual wielding?

 

[JacktheRabbit]

I'm curious, DocM, do you think your players will enjoy this suprise? It sounds very confrontational, in a 'I'll show them' sort of way. Unlike your DR changes, this is just plain violating a rule to gain an effect...which is your choice, but I wouldn't consider your players to be whining when you do it, and when you obviously expect them to be upset. I know I would be. If you, as DM, are going to just change the rules arbitrarily without any warning to your players, why bother even using rules at all?

If I do this then the houserule will be well known months before it comes into play. The party is now 3rd level and they will not be encountering foes that can do this for at least a couple months till they level up into the 6th or 7th level range.

 

[WizarDru]

Yep, I have nothing better to do than troll with my time.

If I do this then the houserule will be well known months before it comes into play. The party is now 3rd level and they will not be encountering foes that can do this for at least a couple months till they level up into the 6th or 7th level range.

I retracted the statement as you were reading it (see above). More details at the outset would have made this more clear.

Obviously, we have differing definitions of 'soon'. Especially in light of your previous 'DR' thread. I still am curious, do your players enjoy these sort of things? It sounds like this will potentially be the third time you spring something on them, anticipating they won't enjoy it. Is this just one player, or the group?

 

[Pielorinho]

How did this happen? The rogue had the Unerring Strike feat from the Kalamar Players Guide. It is the reverse of Power attack and lets you reduce your damage by up to your BAB amount and add it to your chance to hit. Per the feat your weapon damage couldnt be reduced below 1 point. Since the weapon itself is a minor bit compared to the sneak attack damage it was a logical choice for a rogue.

I agree that you shouldn't have to explain things in the middle of a fight, but a couple of points:
1) Although "unerring strike" is an obvious idea for a feat, I think its abscence from the rules is deliberate: it can lead to bizarre circumstances, such as what you described.
2) The damage from a sneak attack is the same damage type as whatever causes the main damage. In the case of an assassin sneak-attacking with (for example) a dagger, the sneak-attack damage is in all respects dagger damage. If the assassin took a -5 on attack damage, rolled 1d4+3d6+1 (str) on damage, then the -5 would subtract from total damage, not just from the 1d4 damage. If the feat's text contradicts this, then it's way overpowered, and becomes a must-have feat for every rogue out there.

Daniel

 

[JacktheRabbit]

I retracted the statement as you were reading it (see above). More details at the outset would have made this more clear.

Obviously, we have differing definitions of 'soon'. Especially in light of your previous 'DR' thread. I still am curious, do your players enjoy these sort of things? It sounds like this will potentially be the third time you spring something on them, anticipating they won't enjoy it. Is this just one player, or the group?

In general I get a one who grumbles a bit but quickly lives with it. DnD is his way of letting out work aggression so he just wants to smash things.

Another grumbles cause he is a DM and when something doesnt rules jive he wants everything explained.

The rest take it in stride and often feel they accmplished more cause they had to be origional instead of falling back on years of gaming experience.

 

[D'karr]

Even as a feat I'd not design this as a substitute "readied action"

In 3e whoever acts first has an advantage. In combat allowing this substitute action would actually be almost the same as allowing the character two actions as if hasted. Besides by allowing it to be a readied action then the character has the advantage of taking his normal actions, in this case attack, and then interrupting the other character's action by taking his readied action.

There is a good reason why readied actions are considered "standard actions." They require you to sacrifice your action to be prepared for a specific contingency. To me this feat would be clearly unbalancing in my campaign. But to each his own.

 

[Dreeble]

Last attack?

Heya:

"3. I will only allow the last attack to be held this way. So if you get three attacks per round then you can only ready the last attack."

The last iterative attack is the _least_ valuable attack, I mean, it's not likely to hit anyway if used normally, right? Giving that attack up isn't much of a price to pay to be able to ready an action, seems to me. Also, could the readied action be a partial charge? Also also, what attack bonus (if any) does the readied action use? The iterative rate of that last attack or the BAB?

Take care,
Dreeble

 

[JacktheRabbit]

I agree that you shouldn't have to explain things in the middle of a fight, but a couple of points:
1) Although "unerring strike" is an obvious idea for a feat, I think its abscence from the rules is deliberate: it can lead to bizarre circumstances, such as what you described.
2) The damage from a sneak attack is the same damage type as whatever causes the main damage. In the case of an assassin sneak-attacking with (for example) a dagger, the sneak-attack damage is in all respects dagger damage. If the assassin took a -5 on attack damage, rolled 1d4+3d6+1 (str) on damage, then the -5 would subtract from total damage, not just from the 1d4 damage. If the feat's text contradicts this, then it's way overpowered, and becomes a must-have feat for every rogue out there.

Daniel

1. Possibly, it was used in a single fight and once the party realized the dangers from letting this rogue flank he was toast. It only works until the party adapts.

2. Even if I did it this way. (Which I may in the future) the difference is only a couple points of damage.

 

[JacktheRabbit]

Re: Last attack?

Heya:

"3. I will only allow the last attack to be held this way. So if you get three attacks per round then you can only ready the last attack."

The last iterative attack is the _least_ valuable attack, I mean, it's not likely to hit anyway if used normally, right? Giving that attack up isn't much of a price to pay to be able to ready an action, seems to me. Also, could the readied action be a partial charge? Also also, what attack bonus (if any) does the readied action use? The iterative rate of that last attack or the BAB?

Take care,
Dreeble

Partial charge would be out. The fighter made a full round attack to get all his attacks. Since he is still technically within his full round attack he cannot move.

The attack would be at the bonuses of the last attack not of your full BAB.

 

[drnuncheon]

This feat allows a fighter to ready his final attack of a full round attack. This final attack works then as a standard readied action. The figher must state the exact action that will make him take his readied attack.

Design flaw: the feat goes up & down in usefulness as the fighter's BAB increases. At level 6 he'll be able to hold a +1 attack. At level 8 a +3. At level 10 a +5.

At level 11, he's back to holding a +1 attack again.

J