Making ambush feats usable

[Celebrim]

Well, SA dice represent dealing damage to some vulnerable part of the body. Giving up some damage potential to do something else makes sense if you consider that to be simply aiming for another part...

Why other part? The head? The kidney? The groin? The abdomen? Don't these count as vulnerable parts of the body?

Instead of striking opportunistically and getting constant damage in, you're getting less damage but potentially getting better payoff by ignoring all but one spot and consistently attacking that.

Better payoff... in the form of lesser but damage tangible damage (???) to the head, groin, eyes, etc. That's really weak rationalization.

Frankly, I see your objection to this as a manifestation of Non-Casters Don't Get Nice Things^TM.

Frankly, I consider that response to be a manifestation of "When my opponent's argument makes me uncomfortable, I'll divert the argument to a question of the opponent's integrity or intelligence^TM in order to shut down debate."

You don't know very much about my position at all. My position is more like, "The designers of 3.0 were very experienced with 1e AD&D and tended to overcompensate for its failings. As a result, they tended to nerf spellcaster direct damage and generally gave far too little thought to caster's inflicting conditions (ei 'Save or Suck'). Worse yet, the team that was given the job of fixing the problem in 3.5 sucked at their job and produced a product that by and large made the situation much much worse." Unless you've got a copy of my house rules document, I'd suggest refraining from drawing broad conclusions about my general philosophy of play or design.

Secondly, let's compare. Ray of Enfeeblement...

Would be a case in point. In 3.0, it had Fortitude negates. For some unknown reason, they changed it so that it bypassed fortitude and became almost an instant win button against melee based attackers (the very sort that could be counted on to mostly make fortitude saves). That's like example #542 why 3.5 on the whole sucked more than 3.0. They made like 2 or 3 needed fixes, and then just screwed up in hundreds of other places. Based on the fact that you think this is a valid comparison and apparantly a balanced ability, your philosophy seems to be, "Well, that's ok, just so long as everyone can do it." It's not ok. It's dumb.

It's worth pointing out additionally, that comparing magic to attacks is generally invalid to begin with because compared to a straight up attack, there are far more defenses built into the game against spells. The target might have spell immunity, minor sphere of invulnerability, high saving throws, or spell resistance. Which points to one of the big problems with your next comparison:

The poison spell does 1d10 Con on a touch, then 1d10 1 minute later, as a 3rd level spell.

Poison is another attack form that the game builds alot of defenses against into the game. So for poison to work, you've got to get passed possible magical immunities/resistances, then possible poison immunities/resistances, and then possible ability damage immunities/resistances as well as the saving throw and the touch attack. But the hypothetical Con damaging attack has pretty much one hurdle after the hit, and it doesn't do 'half now, half maybe later'.

'No save' is just not something that should be in the game for any significant sort of effect - no matter whether it is a caster or a non-caster attacking.

As for the rest, I hate attempts to 'fix' mundane/non-spellcaster characters by turning them into spell-casters. If it doesn't make sense that it can only be used 'once per day' (as if it was a spell), don't try to balance it that way.

D&D has been dealing with verisimilitude issues from its Critical Existence Failure paradigm since 1e. Anything involving hit points is an abstraction at some level.

I've been playing D&D since about 1981, which is nearly 30 years now. I know all about the problems (and benefits) stemming from hit point abstraction, but what I don't understand is why if something can be a problem it is based on that to just go ahead and make the problem worse. That doesn't make sense to me. Just because something is occassionally bad doesn't mean that highlighting the problem is a great idea.

 

[Celebrim]

Ambush Feats
Ambush feats are a group of feats which have sneak attack as a prerequisite. The number of dice in your sneak attack is sometimes refered to in ambush feats as your 'sneak attack rank'. For example, +5d6 sneak attack is 'sneak attack rank 5'.

Unless otherwise stated, only one ambush feat can be applied to a given attack. If you know multiple ambush feats and the preconditions for several feats have been activated, you must choose which ambush feat applies to an attack. You do not have to choose which ambush feat to apply until after you have made your attack.

Ambush Mastery [General]
No one wants to meet you in a dark ally.
Prerequisite: At least two ambush feats, Dex 13+, Wis 13+, sneak attack +5d6
Benefit:
Strike Deep: You really know how to hit vital points. Whenever you force a saving throw as the result of successfully employing any ambush feat you know, the DC of that saving throw is increased by 5.
Strike Hard: You know how to make the most of a target's surprise. Whenever you attack a flat-footed target, you recieve a +4 bonus on your to hit roll.
Strike Fast: Whenever you catch the opponent by surprise, you move with such startling swiftness and terrifying ferocity that your opponents mistake you for some sort of supernatural force. Whenever you catch an opponent flat-footed, you can make an intimidate check as a free action.

Bleeding Strike [Ambush]
Prerequisite: +1d6 sneak attack, Dex 13, Weapon Finesse in an edged weapon
Benefit: If you make a sneak attack with an edged weapon for which you have the Weapon Finesse feat and score a critical hit, then the target begins bleeding and loses 1 h.p. per round until it can stabilize (Roll its Con or less on a d% dice).
Special: Bleeding strike may be combined with any other ambush feat.

Blinding Strike [Ambush]
Prerequisite: +2d6 sneak attack, Int 13, Combat Expertise
Benefit: If you make a sneak attack and score a critical hit, then the target must make a fort save vs. DC 10 + sneak attack rank + your Wisdom bonus or be dazzled for 1d4 rounds.

Crippling Strike [Ambush]
Prerequisite: +2d6 sneak attack, base attack bonus +9, Improved Critical
Benefit: If you make a sneak attack and score a critical hit with a weapon with which you have the Improved Critical feat, then the target must make a fort save vs. DC 10 + sneak attack rank + your Wisdom bonus or take 1d3 temporary strength damage.
Special: The target of a Crippling Strike must still make a saving throw to avoid the effect, even if they are otherwise immune to sneak attack damage.

Deafening Strike [Ambush]
Prerequisite: +2d6 sneak attack, Int 13, Combat Expertise
Benefit: If you make a sneak attack and score a critical hit, then the target must make a fort save vs. DC 10 + sneak attack rank + your Wisdom bonus or be deafened for 1d4 rounds.

Disemboweling Strike [Ambush]
Prerequisite: +5d6 sneak attack, base attack bonus +9, Improved Critical
Benefit: If you make a sneak attack and score a critical hit with a weapon with which you have the Improved Critical feat, then the target must make a fort save vs. DC 10 + sneak attack rank + your Wisdom bonus or be sickened for 1 round.

Impaling Strike [Ambush]
Prerequisite: +3d6 sneak attack, Int 13, Combat Expertise, Chink in the Armor, base attack bonus +6
Benefit: If you make a sneak attack with a melee piercing weapon and score a critical hit, then the target must make an immediate opposed grapple check against you or be considered grappled. While grappled, you inflict your attack damage on the target each round that you successfully make a grapple check.

Pain Artisan [General]
You know how all the right spots to elicit a whole symphony of pain.
Prerequisite: Dex 13+, Wis 13+, sneak attack 5d6, Ambush Mastery, and at least three ambush feats
Benefit: If you make a sneak attack and score a critical hit, you may select any one Ambush feat that you do not know and for the purposes of resolving the current attack, act as if you had that feat as a bonus feat – even if you do not have the normal prerequisites.

Painful Strike [Ambush]
Prerequisite: +2d6 sneak attack, base attack bonus +1, Chr 13, 4 ranks intimidate, Finishing Move
Benefit: If you make a sneak attack and score a critical hit, then the target must make a Fort save vs. DC 10 + sneak attack rank + your Wisdom bonus is shaken for 1 round.

Pounding Strike [Ambush]
Prerequisite: +2d6 sneak attack, Str 13, Power Attack
Benefit: If you make a sneak attack with a bludgeoning weapon and score a critical hit, then the target must make a Strength check or Balance check (opponent’s choice) vs. DC 10 + sneak attack rank + your Wisdom bonus or be knocked prone.
Special: Pounding strike may be combined with any other ambush feat.

Staggering Strike [Ambush]
Prerequisite: +3d6 sneak attack, Dex 13, Combat Reflexes
Benefit: If you make a sneak attack and score a critical hit, then the target must make a fort save vs. DC 10 + sneak attack rank + your Wisdom bonus or be staggered for 1 round.

Stunning Strike [Ambush]
Prerequisite: +5d6 sneak attack, Str 13, Power Attack
Benefit: If you make a sneak attack with a bludgeoning weapon and score a critical hit, then the target must make a fort save vs. DC 10 + sneak attack rank + your Wisdom bonus or be dazed for 1 round.

Superior Ambush Strike [General]
You’ve mastered the techniques of striking vital points and making it count.
Prerequisite: At least one Ambush feat, base attack bonus +13
Benefit: Whenever you successfully make use of an ambush feat, the effects are increased as per the following table:

[B]Feat Name	Opponent Fails Save	Opponent Makes Save[Sup]1[/Sup][/B]
Bleeding Strike		-						Bleeding for 1d4 damage per round.
Blinding Strike		Blinded 1 round, then Dazzled 1d10 rounds	Dazzled 1d4 rounds
Crippling Strike		1d4 temporary Dex damage			-
Deafening Strike	Deafened 1d10 rounds				Deafened 1d4 rounds
Disembowling Strike	Nausated 1 round, then sickened 1d4 rounds	Sickened 1 round
Impaling Strike		Opponent also sickened 1 round.		-
Painful Strike	             Opponent sickened 1d4 rounds	Shaken 1 round
Pounding Strike	             In addition, attacker may push opponent back 5’ 	-
Staggering Strike	             Staggered 1d4 rounds	Staggered 1 round
Stunning Strike	             Stunned 1 round	             Dazed 1 round
[Size=1][Sup]1[/Sup] Or normal effect if the strike does not normally allow a save.[/Size]

Weakening Strike [Ambush]
Prerequisite: +2d6 sneak attack, base attack bonus +9, Improved Critical
Benefit: If you make a sneak attack and score a critical hit, then the target must make a Fort save vs. DC 10 + sneak attack rank + your Wis bonus or take 1d3 temporary strength damage.
Special: The target of a Weakening strike must still make a saving throw to avoid the effect, even if they are otherwise immune to sneak attack damage.

 

[Eldritch_Lord]

Frankly, I consider that response to be a manifestation of "When my opponent's argument makes me uncomfortable, I'll divert the argument to a question of the opponent's integrity or intelligence^TM in order to shut down debate."

[...]

Unless you've got a copy of my house rules document, I'd suggest refraining from drawing broad conclusions about my general philosophy of play or design.

I'm not trying to shut down debate; where did I say or imply that just because I feel you're being too hard on the mundanes that your opinion is invalid? I do, however, think that calling ambush feats too powerful and objecting to status effects or lots of stat damage is unwarranted when comparing it to what monsters, martial adepts, and casters can do around that level. Seriously, how does 10 Con damage 1/encounter compare to things like greater planar binding or polymorph for a wizard, initial 1d6 Con/secondary death poison for a pit fiend, Bows of Infinite Slaying Arrows for solars, 2d6 to all physical abilities via the Shadow Hand capstone for swordsages, or similar?

Rogues should be able to take out single opponents with sneak attacks fairly easily. It's what they do in combat. Whether that comes through +50d6 SA for a plain dual-wielding rogue, a bunch of Con damage for an ambusher or poisoner rogue, instant death for an assassin rogue, or something else, killing things suddenly isn't nearly as awesome as you're making it out to be. If your gaming philosophy (and by extension house rules) change that assumption, then (A) it doesn't really apply, because the OP most likely isn't using them and (B) you should probably state such up front.

Would be a case in point. In 3.0, it had Fortitude negates. For some unknown reason, they changed it so that it bypassed fortitude and became almost an instant win button against melee based attackers (the very sort that could be counted on to mostly make fortitude saves). That's like example #542 why 3.5 on the whole sucked more than 3.0. They made like 2 or 3 needed fixes, and then just screwed up in hundreds of other places. Based on the fact that you think this is a valid comparison and apparantly a balanced ability, your philosophy seems to be, "Well, that's ok, just so long as everyone can do it." It's not ok. It's dumb.

I never said whether I thought it was a balanced ability or not; I did, however, note that it exists in 3.5, and unless you've houseruled it back to the 3.0 version or ruled it out of existence it's something you have to take into account. Again, unless stated otherwise it can be assumed the OP is using things like that in their game, balanced or not, and ambush feats should be balanced with its availability in mind.

It's worth pointing out additionally, that comparing magic to attacks is generally invalid to begin with because compared to a straight up attack, there are far more defenses built into the game against spells. The target might have spell immunity, minor sphere of invulnerability, high saving throws, or spell resistance.

And there are a bazillion-and-a-half monsters with SA immunity as well, so are magic vs. SA comparisons invalidated because of that? Of course not; there are different ways to protect against them, and different ways to get around those protections, but the end result is the same effect regardless of which subset of enemies might be vulnerable to it.

Which points to one of the big problems with your next comparison:

Poison is another attack form that the game builds alot of defenses against into the game. So for poison to work, you've got to get passed possible magical immunities/resistances, then possible poison immunities/resistances, and then possible ability damage immunities/resistances as well as the saving throw and the touch attack. But the hypothetical Con damaging attack has pretty much one hurdle after the hit, and it doesn't do 'half now, half maybe later'.

For the ambush feat to work, you have to get past possible SA immunity, then AC and miss chances, and you have to be in a position to get SA. The amount of work needed to get past defenses should help determine the strength of an effect, yes, but we're talking about a 3rd level spell vs. the ability of a 19th level rogue, and the spell's damage potential is higher!

'No save' is just not something that should be in the game for any significant sort of effect - no matter whether it is a caster or a non-caster attacking.

Again, an admirable goal (and one I happen to agree with), but as long as there are no save abilities in the game, you have to take those into account for balancing abilities.

As for the rest, I hate attempts to 'fix' mundane/non-spellcaster characters by turning them into spell-casters. If it doesn't make sense that it can only be used 'once per day' (as if it was a spell), don't try to balance it that way.

But it does make sense that ambush feats be limited in use--if you leap at your opponent, stab him in the stomach, and yell "Hah! Betcha didn't see that coming!" then he's not going to fall for it a second time. Hence why I suggested once per opponent per encounter.

I've been playing D&D since about 1981, which is nearly 30 years now. I know all about the problems (and benefits) stemming from hit point abstraction, but what I don't understand is why if something can be a problem it is based on that to just go ahead and make the problem worse. That doesn't make sense to me. Just because something is occassionally bad doesn't mean that highlighting the problem is a great idea.

So...what? You'd suggest implementing a condition track or other penalties from lost hit points? Good idea, but outside of the scope of this thread. You'd suggest making sure any attack dealing status effects should deal HP damage, or that rogues get these effects for free on top of SA? Fine by me, but that seems to go against your earlier points.

If I seem overly antagonistic here, I apologize, but I sincerely believe that you're being overly conservative when considering where the rogue's power level should fall relative to other classes, and that you're not considering the full scope of 3.5 when making your assessments. Yes, it's broken in places; yes, its designers made a mistake or two dozen in the 3.5 update, but short of a system-wide fix you need to consider ambush feats as they fall in 3.5 as it is, not as it should be.

I don't have time to go through all the feats right now, but here's an example of what I mean:

Blinding Strike [Ambush]
Prerequisite: +2d6 sneak attack, Int 13, Combat Expertise
Benefit: If you make a sneak attack and score a critical hit, then the target must make a fort save vs. DC 10 + sneak attack rank + your Wisdom bonus or be dazzled for one round.

Taking this feat, a 3rd-level rogue has spent two feats for the privilege of imposing a -1 penalty on attack rolls and 2 skill checks...for a grand total of 1 round...if they hit with a sneak attack...if they manage to also crit with that sneak attack...and if the enemy fails a Fort save whose DC is based on a tertiary rogue stat. Meanwhile, he could instead have used that feat slot for Martial Study (Blistering Flourish) to dazzle everyone within 30 feet for 1 minute after any successful attack, SA or crit or otherwise, if he absolutely must dazzle people. Sure, it's supernatural and has a lower save DC, but that doesn't justify giving the ambush feat the restrictions it has.

 

[Celebrim]

I do, however, think that calling ambush feats too powerful...

In some cases I do think that they are too powerful, but I didn't actually say that. I said that I thought the idea of scaling CON damage up is too powerful. I objected to your idea of -10 CON 'no save' as being too powerful; I didn't object to ambush feats generally as too power. My specific objections to ambush feats were:

1) Too hard to balance.
2) Poor flavor.

I objected generally to solutions that relied on a spell-like mechanic, particularly combat manuevers that are limited to 'once per day' or 'once per target' without some clear indication why (for example, you over exert yourself to perform the manuever.) IMO, the solution for non-spellcasters has to work flavorwise for a theoretical campaign where there are no supernatural PC's or even a historical campaign where there is no supernatural anything. I'm not saying I'm running that, I'm just saying that's my philosophy with regards martial abilities.

If a rogue can manage +50d6 damage and kill something instantly, then such an attack doesn't bypass the hit point mechanic and as such doesn't create alot of wierdness. That isn't to say that hit point damage in itself can't be unbalancing, but its much much less likely to be unbalancing than anything that bypasses hit points. When you start bypassing hit points, you have to be careful on several grounds. First, that you don't implement a 'I win' button, and second that you don't introduce a (arguably realistic but not necessarily fun) GURPS style, 'spiral of death', where things just get worse and worse for the losing side as things go on.

Seriously, how does 10 Con damage 1/encounter compare to things like greater planar binding or polymorph for a wizard

First of all, I would object - and have objected - to the '1/encounter' rule as intrinsicly gamist. If the martial combatant could pull the manuever once, then why not again? Nothing about your description of what an ambush attack means suggests its impossible to attempt it and succeed many times in a row. So before I'd consider a Con damaging attack, I'd have to consider the effects of potentially doing the attack 3 or 4 times in a row. An attack is an 'attack action'; a spell is usually a 'standard action'? How does 30 Con damage per round strike you? Every round?

initial 1d6 Con/secondary death poison for a pit fiend, Bows of Infinite Slaying Arrows for solars

You typically have pit fiends and solars as PC's in your games?

2d6 to all physical abilities via the Shadow Hand capstone for swordsages, or similar?

It should be clear by now that I in no way think late 3.5 material is balanced. By late 3.5, D&D had entered an out of control spiral that can't be discribed as 'power creep' or 'power inflation' but rather as 'power avalance'. Each new broken ability was deemed balanced based on how it compared to other newly created broken abilities. Dozens if not hundreds of broken builds existed that could one shot any monster in the game, hurl collosal opponents to the moon, and even sillier things. Monsters were printed with ever increasing power per CR to try to keep up. It was a mess.

If your gaming philosophy (and by extension house rules) change that assumption, then (A) it doesn't really apply, because the OP most likely isn't using them and (B) you should probably state such up front.

This is the 3.X house rules forum. It should be completely clear that most of the remaining hard core participants here are not interested in merely patching or adding to 3.X, but completely overhauling it.

I never said whether I thought it was a balanced ability or not; I did, however, note that it exists in 3.5, and unless you've houseruled it back to the 3.0 version or ruled it out of existence it's something you have to take into account.

I know that this is difficult at times, but in general and in most threads in this forum, things are not balanced against 'what is out there', but some theoretical standard generally assumed to be monsters and challenges of a given CR. That is, if the character looks like that they can contribute and pull weight for their level, it really doesn't matter if they aren't balanced against 'Pun-Pun'; which I note, does exist in 3.5, so unless you've houseruled it out of existence if we are to use your standard of what is balanced and appropriate no fighter class not balanced with 'Pun-Pun' (or many similar broken builds) is really balanced.

Again, unless stated otherwise it can be assumed the OP is using things like that in their game, balanced or not, and ambush feats should be balanced with its availability in mind.

Again, unless stated otherwise, it can be assumed you are using 'Pun-Pun' in your game, balanced or not, and ambush feats should be balanced with its availablity in mind. Or, we can just reasonably assume that if the poster is recreating an entire class or subsystem, that he's probably willing to do that to every class or subsystem and not bother comparing what he's posted to what may or may not be available, but rather to some CR baseline which we know is available.

But it does make sense that ambush feats be limited in use--if you leap at your opponent, stab him in the stomach, and yell "Hah! Betcha didn't see that coming!" then he's not going to fall for it a second time. Hence why I suggested once per opponent per encounter.

So, some other opponent who sees you gut his friend isn't now immune? If you fail in your attack roll, is the opponent now immune? By your own description "Disemboweling Strike is "I'm going to keep aiming right for his stomach until I get in a solid hit." Surely if you can negate this ability by just sensing that he's trying to hit your gut, that it doesn't take much in the way of a sense motive score to think, "Gee, if I just protect my gut, this guy who keeps doing straight forward attacks at my gut can never hit me!" In short, I reject your description as utterly unreflective of actual combat. 'Thrust at his gut' is not an unforeseeable dirty trick, nor something that you can't defend against until you've seen it, nor even necessarily something that is easy to defend against once you've seen it.

So...what? You'd suggest implementing a condition track or other penalties from lost hit points? Good idea, but outside of the scope of this thread.

So is 'Ray of Enfeeblement' and the relative balance between casters and non-casters.

You'd suggest making sure any attack dealing status effects should deal HP damage, or that rogues get these effects for free on top of SA? Fine by me, but that seems to go against your earlier points.

I'm not at this time sure you know what my earlier points were, so I'm not able to comment on this confusing comment. For the record though, I've suggested both the things you question.

If I seem overly antagonistic here, I apologize, but I sincerely believe that you're being overly conservative when considering where the rogue's power level should fall relative to other classes, and that you're not considering the full scope of 3.5 when making your assessments.

LOL. If we start trying to balance things against the 'full scope of 3.5', then we shall be just as dumb as the 'full scope of 3.5'.

Taking this feat, a 3rd-level rogue has spent two feats for the privilege of imposing a -1 penalty on attack rolls and 2 skill checks...for a grand total of 1 round...if they hit with a sneak attack...if they manage to also crit with that sneak attack...and if the enemy fails a Fort save whose DC is based on a tertiary rogue stat. Meanwhile, he could instead have used that feat slot for Martial Study (Blistering Flourish) to dazzle everyone within 30 feet for 1 minute after any successful attack, SA or crit or otherwise, if he absolutely must dazzle people. Sure, it's supernatural and has a lower save DC, but that doesn't justify giving the ambush feat the restrictions it has.

Oh good grief. What the heck is 'Martial Study (Blistering Flourish)' and why in the heck would I want to have it in my game?

How do you justify 'Blistering Flourish' as anything but a spell? Is it an at will ability? I guess I don't really care.

I note that you took one of the weakest feats on the list because at its lower level it doesn't impact the action encomy. The main worry in all these is how the condition effects help a PC monopolize the action economy. These are at will abilities, and the stronger ones steal actions from the target. The ability to steal actions from the target is hugely powerful and it dominates high end play. I play MtG too and one idea in MtG I take to heart is, "Is the ability a 'Time Warp' in disguise?" That is, does the ability effectively read, "Take another turn?" Some of the more powerful abilities - staggering strike, stunning strike, and at the high end disembowling strike steal actions outright. If you hit with these in a 'party on one' or 'one on one' situation, you've all but won the fight outright. Some of the other abilities don't steal actions directly, but do tend to steal actions over time. The higher end blinding strike blinds the target for one round (then dazzles for 1d4 rounds after that). On a round that you are blinded, if you depend on vision for attacks there is a good chance that your actions will be utterly futile.

Since these are at will abilities representing some degree of combat skill which is on the one hand extraordinary in its ability but on the other hand ordinary in its application, you can do them again and again. The risk is that the rogue finds a way to consistantly generate criticals round after round, resulting in targets that are either never able to act or else which are never able to act effectively. Essentially the ability then reads, "Take another turn. Then another. Then another..." This is a 'I win' button of the same caliber as the most offensive and unbalanced spells. For this reason, the saving throw absolutely has to be in there.

I could probably up the duration of the 'Blinding Strike' feat at its lower level - it is I agree one of the weakest feats in the list with one of the worst prerequisites from a pure rogue standpoint - and feedback of the sort 'this feat is much weaker than similar feats on your list' is the sort I'm looking for. But I'm a little bit leary of its interaction with the 'Foul Sneaking' feat that lets you sneak attack dazzled targets and it becomes I think a really nifty feat at the 'Superior Ambush Strike' level, essentially gauranteeing your ability to sneak attack the target for the likely duration of the fight and quite possibly stealing a round from, but I can definately entertain the argument that compared to Staggering Strike, Impaling Strike, or Stunning Strike little compels one to take it.

 

[Eldritch_Lord]

In some cases I do think that they are too powerful, but I didn't actually say that. I said that I thought the idea of scaling CON damage up is too powerful. I objected to your idea of -10 CON 'no save' as being too powerful; I didn't object to ambush feats generally as too power. My specific objections to ambush feats were:

1) Too hard to balance.
2) Poor flavor.

I objected generally to solutions that relied on a spell-like mechanic, particularly combat manuevers that are limited to 'once per day' or 'once per target' without some clear indication why (for example, you over exert yourself to perform the manuever.) IMO, the solution for non-spellcasters has to work flavorwise for a theoretical campaign where there are no supernatural PC's or even a historical campaign where there is no supernatural anything. I'm not saying I'm running that, I'm just saying that's my philosophy with regards martial abilities.

In your initial reply you said "My problem with the ambush feats is that they are very hard to balance.

Disembowling strike would be a case in point. I wouldn't allow it in my game. Are there better things to spend a feat on? Probably not if you do 4d6 or more worth of sneak attack damage.

[...]

It's hard to think of another feat that can yield such a big upside in so many situations. At the upper levels, the rogue would never not use Disembowling Strike except when they couldn't sneak attack at all.

Inflicting at will condition damage is very powerful. It's like spells only worse because it evades the normal defences against spells."

...which makes it look as though you are objecting to the power level in this case.

First of all, I would object - and have objected - to the '1/encounter' rule as intrinsicly gamist. If the martial combatant could pull the manuever once, then why not again? Nothing about your description of what an ambush attack means suggests its impossible to attempt it and succeed many times in a row. So before I'd consider a Con damaging attack, I'd have to consider the effects of potentially doing the attack 3 or 4 times in a row. An attack is an 'attack action'; a spell is usually a 'standard action'? How does 30 Con damage per round strike you? Every round?

Gamist or not, I made the suggestion with the caveat that it's usable 1/round and 1/opponent/encounter; if it were usable more often you'd of course want to tone it down. And I did describe why it might be hard to pull it off many times in a row: they're called [Ambush] feats and do something above and beyond the normal SA damage, so whatever you think of the (admittedly flimsy) fluff justification, they're obviously not as easy to pull off as the standard sneak attack. If you don't agree with that, then rebalancing with the assumption that you can pull them off with every single SA is possible.

You typically have pit fiends and solars as PC's in your games?

No, but you need to take monster abilities into account for two reasons:

1) PCs should be able to accomplish things on a par with their enemies. If a PC can take a full attack from a pit fiend which results in "Make 4 Fort saves or take 4d6 Con, then 4 more or die," and the worst that the pit fiend will take in return is +40d6 sneak attack, the pit fiend has the advantage.

2) Rogues can be NPCs. Just as you want to ensure that all PCs in a party have roughly equal power and spotlight time, you want to make sure that any given NPC you throw at the party can have a roughly even effect for its CR.

It should be clear by now that I in no way think late 3.5 material is balanced. By late 3.5, D&D had entered an out of control spiral that can't be discribed as 'power creep' or 'power inflation' but rather as 'power avalance'. Each new broken ability was deemed balanced based on how it compared to other newly created broken abilities. Dozens if not hundreds of broken builds existed that could one shot any monster in the game, hurl collosal opponents to the moon, and even sillier things. Monsters were printed with ever increasing power per CR to try to keep up. It was a mess.

On the contrary, the overall balance level increased significantly in the last few years of 3.5. The large majority of the most broken material was in core, and most broken tricks are based on something out of core. Psionics, Tome of Magic, Tome of Battle, and Magic of Incarnum stuff are among the most balanced 3e material (with the exception of the truenamer, of course)--and yes, that's in relation to core and the shenanigans a core caster can pull, not the latest and greatest splatbook.

CR never really worked anyway. It was based on an assumed sword-&-board/thief/blaster/healbot party of average tactics and below-average optimization and wasn't playtested past level 10 at most. Trying to up the power-per-CR in later supplements wasn't power inflation, it was trying to give an accurate assessment based on what the designers were learning about the system.

This is the 3.X house rules forum. It should be completely clear that most of the remaining hard core participants here are not interested in merely patching or adding to 3.X, but completely overhauling it.

Which is fine and dandy, but in a thread specifically asking for the tweaking of one mechanic, giving advice requiring a major overhaul is out of the bounds of the thread unless you go into all the overhauling you'd need to do to make the advice work.

I know that this is difficult at times, but in general and in most threads in this forum, things are not balanced against 'what is out there', but some theoretical standard generally assumed to be monsters and challenges of a given CR. That is, if the character looks like that they can contribute and pull weight for their level, it really doesn't matter if they aren't balanced against 'Pun-Pun'; which I note, does exist in 3.5, so unless you've houseruled it out of existence if we are to use your standard of what is balanced and appropriate no fighter class not balanced with 'Pun-Pun' (or many similar broken builds) is really balanced.

You'll note I said balance against what is available, not what is the most powerful option out of what is available. What is the likelihood that the OP's game includes Pun-Pun vs. the likelihood that it includes a RAW ray of enfeeblement? That it includes any no-save abilities? That it includes other high-power rogue options to which ambush feats are inferior? The last one is 100%, apparently, because the OP asked for help making the ambush feats better.

Again, unless stated otherwise, it can be assumed you are using 'Pun-Pun' in your game, balanced or not, and ambush feats should be balanced with its availablity in mind. Or, we can just reasonably assume that if the poster is recreating an entire class or subsystem, that he's probably willing to do that to every class or subsystem and not bother comparing what he's posted to what may or may not be available, but rather to some CR baseline which we know is available.

...which, again, is a fine assumption, but out of the bounds of this thread. The OP has asked for help making ambush feats better. Whether he's willing to overhaul all of 3e to do so shouldn't matter unless he say "Hey guys, I've houseruled X, Y, and Z, so that's the power level I'm looking for." All we got was "make them better but not overpowered," and without being given a standard of balance to compare them to, what other metric should we use aside from "what else can be done in 3e?"

So, some other opponent who sees you gut his friend isn't now immune? If you fail in your attack roll, is the opponent now immune? By your own description "Disemboweling Strike is "I'm going to keep aiming right for his stomach until I get in a solid hit." Surely if you can negate this ability by just sensing that he's trying to hit your gut, that it doesn't take much in the way of a sense motive score to think, "Gee, if I just protect my gut, this guy who keeps doing straight forward attacks at my gut can never hit me!" In short, I reject your description as utterly unreflective of actual combat. 'Thrust at his gut' is not
The difference between the ambush feats and regular SA is that an unforeseeable dirty trick, nor something that you can't defend against until you've seen it, nor even necessarily something that is easy to defend against once you've seen it.

Yes, it doesn't really describe combat well, but neither do many aspects of combat. I offered one possible interpretation of how they work; if you don't like it, well, you're free to come up with your own. Obviously the OP is fine with them from a fluff standpoint.

So is 'Ray of Enfeeblement' and the relative balance between casters and non-casters.

The relative balance of rogues to other classes is in fact what's in question if the OP believes the ambush feats aren't up to par. If you're trying to give the rogue ways to inflict stat damage or status effects, compare those ways to ways PCs can do the same--currently, via spells. If you're trying to up his damage, compare methods to do so with ways other PCs do more damage--currently, ToB maneuvers and feat chains.

LOL. If we start trying to balance things against the 'full scope of 3.5', then we shall be just as dumb as the 'full scope of 3.5'.

"Full scope of 3e" =/= "Every broken trick you can do with 3e"

Just because you seem to think 3e is irretrievably broken without a complete overhaul doesn't mean that there aren't plenty of useful balance metrics in 3e or that the rogue can't be balanced without a complete overhaul.

Oh good grief. What the heck is 'Martial Study (Blistering Flourish)' and why in the heck would I want to have it in my game?

It's a feat from Tome of Battle that lets you pick up one maneuver of your choice. You might want to have it in your game because it (ToB in general, not this particular maneuver necessarily) gives martial characters the ability to do more things than existing feats do.

How do you justify 'Blistering Flourish' as anything but a spell? Is it an at will ability? I guess I don't really care.

It's a supernatural ability of the swordsage class (the pseudo-monk of the book), and it can be used 1/encounter.

I note that you took one of the weakest feats on the list because at its lower level it doesn't impact the action encomy.

Actually, I picked the second one on the list. The first one is strictly inferior to Arterial Strike from Complete Warrior, so I skipped over that one.

Since these are at will abilities representing some degree of combat skill which is on the one hand extraordinary in its ability but on the other hand ordinary in its application, you can do them again and again. The risk is that the rogue finds a way to consistantly generate criticals round after round, resulting in targets that are either never able to act or else which are never able to act effectively.

If you're so worried about crits, why not balance them as if they can be used on regular sneak attacks? Anything that triggers off of a crit is going to be one of two things: someone not focusing on crits is going to find them too situational to use, and someone focusing on getting crits as often as possible is just going to make their crits more powerful by adding them onto the other "triggers on a crit" abilities they can get.

 

[Celebrim]

In your initial reply you said "My problem with the ambush feats is that they are very hard to balance....which makes it look as though you are objecting to the power level in this case.

No, I'm objecting to two things. First, the claim that this is a 'weak' and undesirable effect, and secondly I'm objecting to what I said I'm objecting to - the difficulty in pricing an attack which scales with the target's HD. Normally, having HD represents a defense against damage, but if you attack CON directly roughly how much damage does this equate to? If we balance the power by trading off damage for Con damage, it's not easy to pick a number.

2) Rogues can be NPCs.

Which is another reason why you want to be sure that rogues have abilities that when used against the PCs, the PCs will find fun and fair. The fact that spellcaster's have unfun and unfair abilities when directed against the PCs doesn't justify us making more for rogues.

Psionics, Tome of Magic, Tome of Battle, and Magic of Incarnum stuff are among the most balanced 3e material...

I beg to differ. I never was attracted to any of that on the basis of fluff (except, ironicly, the Truenamer, but not in any way as they did it mechanically), and so don't have much experience with it. But I have been reading EnWorld, and your claim doesn't seem to match the general consensus opinion I've heard.

Trying to up the power-per-CR in later supplements wasn't power inflation, it was trying to give an accurate assessment based on what the designers were learning about the system.

Even were that true, since the power-per-level of characters during this period was also going up, they just ended up in a race to infinity.

Which is fine and dandy, but in a thread specifically asking for the tweaking of one mechanic, giving advice requiring a major overhaul is out of the bounds of the thread unless you go into all the overhauling you'd need to do to make the advice work.

The advice I'm giving is independent of any overhaul. When someone comes in and asks you to fix the engine, you don't go, "Well, sense your transmission is busted, it doesn't matter if we break the engine too." You fix the engine and then say, "You are aware aren't you that the transmission is unsound too?"

Yes, it doesn't really describe combat well, but neither do many aspects of combat. I offered one possible interpretation of how they work; if you don't like it, well, you're free to come up with your own.

Which I did.

Obviously the OP is fine with them from a fluff standpoint.

"This is exactly what bothers me about these feats, lol." - OP, Yesterday, 11:48 AM

Actually, I picked the second one on the list. The first one is strictly inferior to Arterial Strike from Complete Warrior, so I skipped over that one.

Not that I'm an expert on late 3.X material, but I thought Arterial strike was another one of those 'trade abstract damage for more concrete damage' style feats. Hense, it can't be 'strictly inferior' since the suggested fix doesn't require you to trade away damage.

 

[Eldritch_Lord]

Which is another reason why you want to be sure that rogues have abilities that when used against the PCs, the PCs will find fun and fair. The fact that spellcaster's have unfun and unfair abilities when directed against the PCs doesn't justify us making more for rogues.

So if you don't want the rogue dealing ability damage, and you don't think casters should be doing as much ability damage, do you want to just remove it from the monsters too and get rid of ability damage altogether? By a certain level, someone is going to be able to do a lot of Con damage, and I don't see why casters and monsters should be able to do it but rogues shouldn't.

I beg to differ. I never was attracted to any of that on the basis of fluff (except, ironicly, the Truenamer, but not in any way as they did it mechanically), and so don't have much experience with it. But I have been reading EnWorld, and your claim doesn't seem to match the general consensus opinion I've heard.

I tend to spend more time on the WotC forums (where all the rules gurus hang out) and GitP (where all the homebrewers do all their rules tweaking) and the consensus there is that they're solidly middle-of-the-road: a badly-built class from one of those books is better than a badly-built fighter/rogue/wizard/etc., but a well-built class from those books is still within the upper bounds of balanced and easily outclassed by fighters/rogues/wizards/etc. I couldn't tell you what the EnWorld consensus is, but I've seen enough number-crunching and playtests to convince me that they're just fine.

Even were that true, since the power-per-level of characters during this period was also going up, they just ended up in a race to infinity.

Except that it wasn't going up as drastically as you claim. For every Incantatrix or Iot7V introduced, there were dozens upon dozens of crappy PrCs, for every Power Attack there were dozens of useless feats, and for every wish there were dozens of redundant spells. The imbalance level curve was never monotonically increasing; it was more like a big spike at the beginning that decreased toward the end with a few spikes up.

The advice I'm giving is independent of any overhaul. When someone comes in and asks you to fix the engine, you don't go, "Well, sense your transmission is busted, it doesn't matter if we break the engine too." You fix the engine and then say, "You are aware aren't you that the transmission is unsound too?"

Well, to continue the metaphor, we're not doing any engine breaking or repairing. The OP asked "My transmission isn't performing in top shape; how do I make it run better?" so the appropriate response is "To fix your transmission, you can do X, Y, and Z," not "I can help you fix the transmission, but it'll only work if you do X to the engine and brakes too."

"This is exactly what bothers me about these feats, lol." - OP, Yesterday, 11:48 AM

Okay, I admit I missed his post in between both of yours. He didn't say anything about the fluff in the OP, so I was going off the assumption he didn't mind it.

Not that I'm an expert on late 3.X material, but I thought Arterial strike was another one of those 'trade abstract damage for more concrete damage' style feats. Hense, it can't be 'strictly inferior' since the suggested fix doesn't require you to trade away damage.

It's not late 3e, it's Complete Warrior. Instead of hoping for a crit on a SA, you give up 1d6 SA to deal a bleeding wound which (A) explicitly stacks with itself and (B) can't stabilize on its own. Yes, the damage per strike is 1d6 lower, but the fact that you can use it on any SA you want makes the overall average damage output equal or higher (assuming combat lasts 3 or more rounds) and can cause the enemy to waste actions to stop it.