Quicker than the Eye feat - broken?

[KnowTheToe]

I didn't take it personally, that is just my writing style.

Part of the reason I cut it out completely was the third party feats designed to make it even better. Quicker than the Eye & Expert Tactician both come to mind. With upto 10d6 extra damage with sneak attack, I did not think it needed any power boost. I give the rogue lots of RPing options, as the class is suited to do so much, and I think the creators really liked that class as it has so much more depth than any of the classes.

 

[Deset Gled]

This feat can make a big change in the tactics players use. Flanking can be very good for the characters in some situations, but it can also lead to a lot of trouble for a rogue doing it recklessly. This feat allows them to make sneak attacks without help from any other party member, at just about any time. Also, it has potential to become even more powerful with the Expert Tactician feat (IIRC, feignting causes a player to be denied their dex bonus to ac, which would make ET kick in).

Even though this feat is powerful, however, I don't think it could be considered broken. It does have its limitations (sacraficing multiple attacks to go for one powerful attack). Also, while I don't have personal experience with the situation, I can see this feat as being very important for a rogue on solo adventures.

If the rogue in your game is starting to overpower other characters, however, this would probably be one of the first feats to take out, as it takes focus away from group cooperation, and allows a single player to run amuck a lot easier.

Edit: "Expert" Tactician. Riiiight.

 

[IceBear]

I didn't take it personally, that is just my writing style.

Part of the reason I cut it out completely was the third party feats designed to make it even better. Quicker than the Eye & Expert Tactician both come to mind. With upto 10d6 extra damage with sneak attack, I did not think it needed any power boost. I give the rogue lots of RPing options, as the class is suited to do so much, and I think the creators really liked that class as it has so much more depth than any of the classes.

Ah - again, since no one in my group has EVER played a rogue, the sneak attack stuff never even entered my thoughts (probably a bad thing). I was thinking of a fighter wanting to feint so as to get a hit on a fast (high Dex) opponent. So, I guess I was looking for a fighter-based feinting option

IceBear

 

[KnowTheToe]

Funny, I never thought about a fighter using it. I will have to look into the feinting rules one more time.

Edit: It just struck me, but since Bluff has a few strictly combat aspects, and fighters do nothing but focus on combat, why is it not on thier skill list?

 

[IceBear]

Funny, I never thought about a fighter using it. I will have to look into the feinting rules one more time.

Edit: It just struck me, but since Bluff has a few strictly combat aspects, and fighters do nothing but focus on combat, why is it not on thier skill list?

I know - this is my main problem with Feint as written. It's really a rogue (or bard) combat option when it should be a combat option open to everyone - especially fighters.

Hmmm - I think I saw some house rule that would allow a fighter to use his BAB as the modifier to his Bluff/Sense Motive Checks instead of the normal modifier.

IceBear

 

[KnowTheToe]

Hmmm - I think I saw some house rule that would allow a fighter to use his BAB as the modifier to his Bluff/Sense Motive Checks instead of the normal modifier.

IceBear

That is a darn good house rule, so much so I may allow the bluff combat features back into the game, but always have it Bluff vs BAB, no matter the class, after all, you are bluffing someone's combat skills/reaction/reflex, not their intellect. Thanks for the info!

 

[IceBear]

That is a darn good house rule, so much so I may allow the bluff combat features back into the game, but always have it Bluff vs BAB, no matter the class, after all, you are bluffing someone's combat skills/reaction/reflex, not their intellect. Thanks for the info!

Well, I could see using the better of BAB or Sense Motive as part of your combat skill is your understanding of your opponent. This rule still allows you to be crafty in combat (ie Bluff or high BAB) but experienced warriors (high BAB) and people with keen insight (Sense Motive) could still see though it. I don't think it should JUST be BAB as I could see arguments for the other side too. (I'm wishywashy )

IceBear

 

[KnowTheToe]

I thought the same thing, but judged on the side of the BAB, not because the other did not make sense, but to keep things simple. Now though, I think you are right, although for every class except the rogue you will only have to worry about the Bluff being higher than the BAB for the first few levels.

 

[IceBear]

I think I'll just use your BAB or your Bluff/Sense Motive - whatever is higher. That way I'm not punishing the player that wanted to become an expert and reading someone's body language (and spending the skill points), but still making feinting something that an experienced warrior (regardless of class) would be good at even if they don't have a great Charisma and spent the skillpoints.

Anyway - I think we've hijacked this thread enough

IceBear

 

[KnowTheToe]

Murrdox declared it resolved in the fouth post, so we borrowed it more than hijacked it.