Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Enchanted Trinkets Complete--a hardcover book containing over 500 magic items for your D&D games!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Scion" data-source="post: 2499840" data-attributes="member: 5777">One of us is fooling themselves, but it isnt me <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />The feat I proposed is very powerful, it allows you to do something that normally you could not do and it could completely ruin another players turn.Maybe it will only work once per combat, but for that once you have a chance to not only do extra damage where you could not before but you also get the chance to make a caster lose their spell.Also, 5' step is not always the answer, often it simply cannot be used. Especially if you want to use a touch range power. What if the opponent has reach?But even then, why would you take that 5' step if you thought you were basically safe from having the aoo happen? If you can make the check 95% of the time why place yourself in a potentially lesser position when you could simply take the check?That is what this feat is supposed to be, forcing tactical choices with one characters benefit potentially overriding anothers. That is exactly what the original feat 'fails' to do, and it fails even more miserably in doing something that feats should not be able to do, it takes away someone elses ability with them having no way of countering it or having the normal check get around it somehow.The feat as originally written is poorly balanced, the one posed by the original poster is horribly unbalanced.At least the one I posted actually gives the character an ability that he has direct use over, instead of something that is more of a supernatural ability that does effectively nothing for him directly.</blockquote>

Verification