-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
Power Attack!?!?!?!?!?!?
- Thread starter Berk
- Start date
Plane Sailing
Astral Admin - Mwahahaha!
Berk said:
Isn't this a bit like saying "why do 1st level characters choose Power attack?"
Even at low levels it is a benefit, and it is a pre-req for cleave which "advanced" versions of the creature may wish to take.
What's the issue?
WizarDru
Adventurer
To dcollins point: AFAICT, you are correct, there is no rule that actually allows you to change such creatures feats. I've never seen one, and the closest I could find in the SRD was this:
I consider it a 'no-brainer' to make such modifications, but you are correct that this is creative Dm-ing to do so. I blame Piratecat.
As to Power Attack being silly for such creatures, I have to agree that for a low level creature, that additional damage is useful. Powerful, no, but useful. When attacking the party wizard, two points makes a BIG difference at 1st or 2nd level. At later levels, it allows the now classed or advanced monsters to get access to feats more quickly than different monsters lacking such ability.
I consider it a 'no-brainer' to make such modifications, but you are correct that this is creative Dm-ing to do so. I blame Piratecat.
As to Power Attack being silly for such creatures, I have to agree that for a low level creature, that additional damage is useful. Powerful, no, but useful. When attacking the party wizard, two points makes a BIG difference at 1st or 2nd level. At later levels, it allows the now classed or advanced monsters to get access to feats more quickly than different monsters lacking such ability.
And you are going to be roleplaying and running the creature to the point where it gets extra feats? If you are just going to advance the creature then you can give it whatever feats you want. But it is a rare oddity that a monster straight from the MM gets run and roleplayed up to higher power.
IceBear
Explorer
If I were creating a monster I'd decide on what it's behaviour is like and then pick feats that would best suit that behaviour. Just because a "typical" monster isn't going to advance doesn't mean that said monster wouldn't think about the feat chain that it would want to advance IF it did gain levels.
It is pure DM metagaming to pick feats that would maximize a monster's combat abilities when said abilities don't "fit" said monster.
IceBear
It is pure DM metagaming to pick feats that would maximize a monster's combat abilities when said abilities don't "fit" said monster.
IceBear
Nail
First Post
Berk said:
I'm still not sure what your issue is with this. Gnolls, for example, get Power Attack in the MM. You say that you give the monsters whatever feats you'd like......so why do you care what the MM does?
As for the logic behind the feat choice: Gnolls get a feat, and of the feats available in the core rules power attack was deemed to fit both the role-playing of the creature and be appropriate and consistent background for the creature's advancement (even as "rare" as such a thing is....BTW, have you seen SHARK's campaign? It's not at all rare there....).
And as for the "there's no rule for that feat swap, so I'm not gonna do it": Sounds great! Can I play in your campaign? I've got the MM memorized! So if I see a gnoll, I know exactly what it can do! And all of your orcs had better be weiding Great Axes...
Ok, that is just boggling. So say I'm your atypical elf. That means that I must, must, have weapon focus (longbow). Specially since I don't even meet the requirments for it!!!! A 1HD humanoid has a BaB of 0. While "roleplaying", and I mean that lightly, thoughts were a part of the feat selection process I seriously think that the process wasn't given much thought. Not everything in the monster manual was taken purely on roleplaying alone. A gnoll gets listen and spot as chosen skills. But it says that gnolls use intimidation and fear. So why don't they then have bluff or intimidate as skills? The fact that they have power attack isn't really balanced by the thought that it was picked as a roleplaying alternative.
IceBear
Explorer
Did I say a lot of thought went into it? Not equal amount of thought went into all parts of the game unfortunately. For all I know they said "Gnoll - power attack fits", they took a quick look and said they meet the prereqs (maybe they didn't always do that).
Anyway, I still stand by it sounding like you want to "max/min" your monsters and that's metagaming to me. I have no issue with you changing stuff for an particular tribe, individual, etc, but to come here and complain about the "default" monster in the MM just seems like min/maxing to me.
And I never said the monster must, must take anything. That's dcollins. I'm just saying, it's the default monster - live with it. If you don't like it, freaking change it like you've been told already. Stop whining that the designers were smoking up or something when they picked the feats.
What low-level feat do you think (from the Core rules) that a Gnoll should have had instead?
You asked for a reason WHY some monsters seem to have a useless (in your opinion) feat as a default. I've suggested that possibly because the designers thought that said feat "fit" with how they see the monster operating. If you don't like said feat, change it.
IceBear
Anyway, I still stand by it sounding like you want to "max/min" your monsters and that's metagaming to me. I have no issue with you changing stuff for an particular tribe, individual, etc, but to come here and complain about the "default" monster in the MM just seems like min/maxing to me.
And I never said the monster must, must take anything. That's dcollins. I'm just saying, it's the default monster - live with it. If you don't like it, freaking change it like you've been told already. Stop whining that the designers were smoking up or something when they picked the feats.
What low-level feat do you think (from the Core rules) that a Gnoll should have had instead?
You asked for a reason WHY some monsters seem to have a useless (in your opinion) feat as a default. I've suggested that possibly because the designers thought that said feat "fit" with how they see the monster operating. If you don't like said feat, change it.
IceBear
Last edited:
WizarDru
Adventurer
Berk said:
I'm not sure what you're driving at, here. If I advance a creature or give it character levels, the Power Attack feat (to use the given example) allows it to advance up the feat chain faster than a base creature without it. When creating appropriate challenges for my players, I can factor that in. I can make the Azer a 4th level fighter, effectively making him a CR6, IIRC. I equip him appropraitely and set him loose, designing him knowing that he has power attack already, he can qualify for several feats earlier than the Rust Monster with 3 fighter levels can.
As for the 1 HD elf...yes, he does qualify for the feat. He's an elf, it's part of their racial makeup. Yes, you can take it away, possibly for nothing in return. I don't think anyone is saying you can't. Even dcollins is just pointing out that it's not official in the rules to do a feat substitution. All of this ignores the issue that regardless of the creatures power, things can change the environment. Have an evil cleric cast Bull's strength on the Azer...now he's getting a bonus to off-set the power attack, and bonus damage, besides. Throw down a Bless and a few other things, and the equation changes again.
If you don't like it, that's fine, but there are plenty of situations where the additive would make sense. 3E is a toolkit that lets you do as much or as little as you like, IMHO.
