Tribal Protector's Wild swing -- whoah Mama!

[Nareau]

I'm the DM who's running this game...

And yeah, the point about it being so amazingly much better than Two Weapon Fighting was my first thought. I didn't think it through as far as EOL, but I have to agree.

You get an extra attack with your weapon at your highest BAB, but this attack and each other attack made that round suffer a -2 penalty apiece. If you're wielding the weapon two-handed, you may add your Strength bonus to this attack. If you're wielding this weapon one-handed, you may only add half your Strength bonus.

What about these alternatives?

This makes it a pretty good power. It's better than just taking your normal attacks, but not insanely powerful. But it's kinda weird, in that it departs from existing rules dealing with this kind of thing.

Or maybe it could work even more like TWF:
You get an extra attack with your weapon at your highest BAB, but this attack and each other attack made that round suffer a -2 penalty apiece. You may only add half of your Strength bonus to this attack, and your full bonus to all of your other attacks during the round (even in you're wielding the weapon two-handed).

This (I'm pretty certain) would be mathematically unsound in terms of dishing out the most damage. However, it would allow the character to use a shield. A fairly minor bonus. And it departs from the flavor of the PrC (a barbarian relying on a shield?!)

Can someone point me to a combat calculator? I'd love to run some numbers through, see exactly how different scenarios would work out.

[Edit: Clarity]

 

[Bill Muench]

Hey, if you want really icky, pick up a level or more of Frenzied Berserker from MotW. Their Frenzy gives you an additional attack at your highest BAB. So, using my LG character at 10th level as an example (he isn't 10th now, but if he were...):

Half-Orc Brb1/Ftr6/Tribal Protector 2/Frenzied Berserker1
Attacks at +20/+20/+20/+15 for 2d6+16 with a 12-20 critical (using a +1 keen great scimitar rather than a great sword).

Now that's icky.

 

[Jairami]

Lawful barbarians are always icky.

 

[Bill Muench]

Lawful? Eh?
.
.
.
Oh, you thought LG meant Lawful Good. Sorry about that. LG = Living Greyhawk.

Yeah, a Lawful Good Barbarian would be a bit weird.

 

[Pielorinho]

Yeah, I was rather alarmed by the idea of a lawful good berserker myself. But since I couldn't think of any clever way to slip in a comment about muenchkin PCs (and since I'm guessing you've probably heard that joke a bajillion times) I kept quiet.

So yeah, it looks like the consensus is that this power is absurdly good. Do folks think it fixes the power if the additional attack gets 1/2 STR bonus, instead of 1.5 STR bonus?

Or howsabout this for a fix: the wild fighting, instead of allowing a weapon attack, allows for one nonstandard attack. You can disarm, or sunder, or grapple, or something like that -- but not make a third normal attack. This might lessen its power enough, and would represent the idea of lashing out at everything nearby.

Or, in a similar vein, rule that the extra attack from wild fighting cannot be used on the same opponent as all the previous attacks. In other words, you cannot take advantage of this ability unless you attack at least two opponents during the round.

Daniel

 

[SpikeyFreak]

Yes, using this ability should be a full round action. But no rule is a hard fast rule. There are exceptions to them all. That is why the wording and language needs to be more precise or people will be argueing otherwise.

Interesting logic.

There is a rule, but this rule has (very few) exceptions.

Every ability which is an exception to this rule explicitly says that it is an exception to this rule.

But this rule, which doesn't say that it is an exception to the rule, needs to say that it isn't an exception?

Should it also say that it doesn't deal subdual damage, becuase lack of such wording would allow one to argue that it does deal subdual damage?

--Bad Mood Spikey

 

[Crothian]

Interesting logic.

There is a rule, but this rule has (very few) exceptions.

Every ability which is an exception to this rule explicitly says that it is an exception to this rule.

But this rule, which doesn't say that it is an exception to the rule, needs to say that it isn't an exception?

Should it also say that it doesn't deal subdual damage, becuase lack of such wording would allow one to argue that it does deal subdual damage?

--Bad Mood Spikey

First sorry to hear about your bad mood. Those are never fun. Secondly, nothing does subdual damage unless it specifically says so. Normal damage is the default damage. So, is this an exception to the rule? Or is it bad language? It's bad language, obviously. I'll stop playing Devils Advocate. I'm going on vacation today. Best way to fix a bad mood, trust me a I know. My girlfriend just ended our relationship out of the blue. So, I'm going on this vacation alone.