Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 5020546" data-attributes="member: 4937">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.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?  You typically have pit fiends and solars as PC's in your games?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.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 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 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.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 is 'Ray of Enfeeblement' and the relative balance between casters and non-casters.  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.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'.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.</blockquote>

Verification