Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Matrixryu" data-source="post: 5019106" data-attributes="member: 84553">Is it just me, or are the ambush feats in Complete Scoundrel just not worth it?&nbsp; For example, Disemboweling Strike, you can give up 4d6 sneak attack damage to do 1d4 constitution damage to a target.&nbsp; I can see how that might be useful in some situations against very high level opponents...but aren't there better things to use a feat on?&nbsp; Please tell me if you think I'm wrong.Anyway, I'm trying to think of a way to make these more usable without making them overpowered.&nbsp; Has anyone tried to do this before?My idea is instead of making using ambush feat cause a character to lose sneak attack damage, let's have the sneak attack loss that an ambush feat instead be a requirement of some sort.&nbsp; Say, you can 'invest' ambush feats into your sneak attacks as long the total sneak attack penalty those feats would have given you x2 (for balance sake) would not be greater than your sneak attack dice.So, a rogue with +10d6 sneak attack could choose to use Disemboweling Strike (8d6 investment requirement) or he could use Throat Punch (4d6) and Deafening Strike (6d6) for a total of 10d6.&nbsp; Remember, we're taking the amount that the feat would normally reduce a sneak attack by and doubling it to create the 'investment requirement'Of course, we can't have people go around using these feats for free constantly, so another requirement might be that any one target can only be hit with any specific ambush feat once per day.&nbsp; If a character wants he could continue using the feat on a person by applying the sneak attack damage penalty normally.I'm just throwing around ideas at this point, so if anyone thinks that this stuff would be unbalancing, or if there are any better ideas out there I'd be interested in hearing about it.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Matrixryu, post: 5019106, member: 84553"] Is it just me, or are the ambush feats in Complete Scoundrel just not worth it? For example, Disemboweling Strike, you can give up 4d6 sneak attack damage to do 1d4 constitution damage to a target. I can see how that might be useful in some situations against very high level opponents...but aren't there better things to use a feat on? Please tell me if you think I'm wrong. Anyway, I'm trying to think of a way to make these more usable without making them overpowered. Has anyone tried to do this before? My idea is instead of making using ambush feat cause a character to lose sneak attack damage, let's have the sneak attack loss that an ambush feat instead be a requirement of some sort. Say, you can 'invest' ambush feats into your sneak attacks as long the total sneak attack penalty those feats would have given you x2 (for balance sake) would not be greater than your sneak attack dice. So, a rogue with +10d6 sneak attack could choose to use Disemboweling Strike (8d6 investment requirement) or he could use Throat Punch (4d6) and Deafening Strike (6d6) for a total of 10d6. Remember, we're taking the amount that the feat would normally reduce a sneak attack by and doubling it to create the 'investment requirement' Of course, we can't have people go around using these feats for free constantly, so another requirement might be that any one target can only be hit with any specific ambush feat once per day. If a character wants he could continue using the feat on a person by applying the sneak attack damage penalty normally. I'm just throwing around ideas at this point, so if anyone thinks that this stuff would be unbalancing, or if there are any better ideas out there I'd be interested in hearing about it. [/QUOTE]

Verification