| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Tactical Prowess
Your daily weapon training has yielded an understanding of advanced tactics.
Prerequisite: BAB +7, Weapon Training class feature
Benefit: You may declare a target and make a full-attack against that target as a Start/Complete Full-Round Action. Your target declaration and any additional declarations (such as Power Attack) must be declared as you Start the attack. If you do not Complete the attack during the round following the one in which you Started the attack, or if you attack a different target, you gain no bonuses to attack rolls from your Weapon Training class feature on the second round.
----------------------------------------
Improved Tactical Prowess
Your understanding of tactics is unsurpassed.
Prerequisite: BAB +15, Tactical Prowess
Benefit: When you declare a target for your Tactical Prowess you may declare additional targets, up to the total number of attacks granted by your BAB. Additional declarations (such as Power Attack) may be made as you Complete the attack.
----------------------------------------
This is predicated on the little used Start/Complete Full-Round Action mechanic, be sure to check it out so you understand whats happening here.
The "start full-round action" standard action lets you start undertaking a full-round action, which you can complete in the following round by using another standard action. You can't use this action to start or complete a full attack, charge, run, or withdraw.
Any thoughts? Suggestions? The BAB/level prereqs are just my first instinct, if anyone has reasons that those should be different I'd like to hear them especially.
did you read the Start/Complete Action? it lets you split a full-round action into two standard actions on two turns. Meaning you can still move/swift/whatever on those turns since your full-attack is now only taking up a standard action.
true, although if they run away from the combat that is almost as good as killing them in some situations. if you have a ranged weapon yourself then this feat would still help. just drop your melee and draw out your range (move action). or do it as a free action if you picked up quickdraw.
The goal of these feats is to improve the existing combat options that fighters have already.
Seems like an ok-ish option in a vacuum (assuming that on the second turn you can move before you take your standard action to complete the full attack). In practice though:
- What if the enemy moves away in some way that you can't follow, like flying or burrowing?
- What if the enemy is killed by damage from other sources, like stray fireballs, the ranger's full attack, etc?
- What if the enemy takes his turn to full attack you or your pals, and downs someone while you were winding up (since you basically took a standard action last turn to do nothing)?
- You're using two turns to full attack once and move twice. The bow user is going to do twice as much damage in that time.
- Since you're investing two turns into this, control effects become even more effective against you. A 1 turn daze, nauseate or stun has now effectively nullified two of your turns.
I wouldn't mind having this as an option, but I'm not sure I'd want to spend a feat on it.
- What if the enemy moves away in some way that you can't follow, like flying or burrowing?
This is meant to be a tactical gamble, imo no decision should have 0 consequences in combat. Besides, it's not like the baseline full attack situation solves movement problems.
On the other hand if your fighter has special movement options they will be able to follow and still make use of these feats.
- What if the enemy is killed by damage from other sources, like stray fireballs, the ranger's full attack, etc?
Again, it is a tactical decision so the consequences of unforeseen actions should be felt.
However I would consider suggesting to the ranger/wizard whatever that they not screw up your nuke attack if there are other targets to be had. If there are no other targets to be had then losing your attack roll bonus for 6 seconds isn't really going to matter much is it?
- What if the enemy takes his turn to full attack you or your pals, and downs someone while you were winding up (since you basically took a standard action last turn to do nothing)?
Well, he's probably not going to get to full attack you since you still have your movement? If he isn't adjacent to you at the start of the round then it would be your judgement on whether you should hit him once or spend a turn prepping for a full attack. If he is adjacent to your allies it sounds like it is their job to shift or whatever.
This doesn't seem like an issue with the feats to me, please elaborate if you still think it is.
- You're using two turns to full attack once and move twice. The bow user is going to do twice as much damage in that time.
You also have access to any swifts you have, and the bow user doesn't (assuming you mean they are full attacking twice). You are trading a single attack for an extra move, its situational.
Again this doesn't seem like an issue with the feats, please elaborate.
- Since you're investing two turns into this, control effects become even more effective against you. A 1 turn daze, nauseate or stun has now effectively nullified two of your turns.
True, so these feats increase the value of any feats or abilities or items that counter those conditions.
I feel it's best if it includes the ability to follow the target as part of the Start/Complete Full Round Action. You're fighting WITH the enemy AS you move together.
That's the sort of dynamic combat I've always wanted to see.
That could be the Combat Stamina / Combat Trick combo, I was trying to think of one. How would you word it?
Leaving aside for the moment that fighters' problem is not damage but lack of versatility, your patch does not actually fix the full attack problem.
To use the start/complete full-round action approach you need to spend 2 standard actions (over 2 turns). At BaB 7, its better to make 2 attacks at full BaB then it is to make a single full attack.
It may be useful for a two weapon fighter... maybe, but that build is already spending a ton of feats on its build, now it needs to pay 1 more feat to do its thing?
I mean, you don't have to take it at level 7? I don't see that as a reason to raise the minimum level (if its still a feat).
Do you think it would be better to make this a class feature and leave the improved one as a feat? The bonus feats are already a class feature, i was trying to play off that.
I was saying that the complete-full-round-action was a poor choice as a vector for this fix. Even at level 11 I'm not sure that +11/+11 is worse that +11/+6/+1. Really, if you think fighters are not mobile enough just give them pounce at the appropriate level. Don't make it a feat, as it will just be mandatory... Just say "full-attack focused classes get pounce at level 11" or whatever level you want.
PS. I was just pointing out that the feat was a trap at level 7, where having it is worse than taking skill focus.
That's fair, like i said in the op those are just my first instincts. It seemed like limiting the first feat to a smaller number of levels (assuming the second one will be taken) was unnecessary.
Would making the first one a class feature solve it? maybe even tie it directly into weapon training?
PS. I was just pointing out that the feat was a trap at level 7, where having it is worse than taking skill focus.
Its even worse than that.
Lets assume that our fighter has a 70% chance to hit against a CR appropriate target. That means that the fighter can expect 0.7 hits per turn by taking a single attack as a standard action.
At level 7 (and up to 10), a full attack gets 1.15 hits. Spread over 2 turns, that is much worse than 0.7x2=1.4 hits with two standard actions.
At level 11 (and up to 15), a full attack gets 1.35 hits. That is still worse than two standard actions.
There are a couple of complications, though.
On the one hand, there is haste. At level 7, a full attack gets 1.85 hits, which is somewhat better than two standard action attacks.
On the other (and this is a big one)...the fighter could full attack anyway on the second round. Unless the target takes an action which a)would prevent a regular full attack, and b)can be negated with a single action, this feat is being a total waste of space. Since both of those things happening at the same time is rather rare, this feat is going to lean towards the "useless trap" end of the spectrum much of the time.
Note that my 70% hit rate number is only a guesstimate. Higher hit rates will increase the value of the feat, and decreased hit rates will decrease the value of the feat (because iteratives become disproportionately worse with lower attack bonuses).
This feat becomes a little more value for twf characters, but even then the big bugbear is still there - a full attack is probably happening on the second round either way, so why should this feat be taken on a character who is already blowing horrific amounts of feats on making their combat style work.
ok, so without increasing its power beyond that of a normal 7th+ level feat can anyone think of a way to fix that? Otherwise making it a class feature that comes in at level 10 is sounding like the way to go.
What if we change the 'target declaration' into an attack at the second highest BAB? how does the math work out then?
So I move up to an enemy, and as a standard action I start a full-attack action but don't get to make any attacks yet. On my following turn, I use another standard action and can full-attack the enemy. Does that sound right? I think I would prefer to use the first standard action to make an attack.
If you want to incorperate weapon training, how about a feat that lets you full-attack when using weapon training weapons, maybe with a -2 penalty across the board? You'd still want some kind of minimum BAB.
The feats don't work as you think they do.
Typically the effects of an action do not occur until you complete the action economy. Spellcasting and extended skill checks are great examples of this. You don't roll the skill check and then wait a minute -- you wait a minute and then roll the skill check. The game works like this because you can get interrupted, and you don't gain the benefits of an action if it gets interrupted.
Because of this, a fighter using your feat would not be able to perform any attacks until their next turn. And as Ciaran Barnes pointed out, you're probably better off not using the feat at all.
Have you considered unchained action economy? It does most of what you're trying to make here.
Eh, wrote this in 5 minutes. Too much?
Hurried Attack
You can make many attacks in a short time, at the expense of accuracy.
Prerequisites: Base attack bonus +4.
Benefit: You can perform the full-attack action as a standard action. When you do so, you can use any two attacks of your choice from your normal full attack. Each of them suffers a –2 penalty on the attack roll.
When your base attack bonus reaches +8, and every 4 points thereafter, your can use one additional attack of your choice and the penalty increases by –1. You must choose to use this feat before making an attack roll.
Hurried Attack
You can make many attacks in a short time, at the expense of accuracy.Prerequisites: Base attack bonus +4.
Benefit: You can perform the full-attack action as a standard action. When you do so, you can use any two attacks of your choice from your normal full attack. Each of them suffers a –2 penalty on the attack roll.
When your base attack bonus reaches +8, and every 4 points thereafter, your can use one additional attack of your choice and the penalty increases by –1. You must choose to use this feat before making an attack roll.
Someone more diligent at math can probably determine if the increasing penalty from this feat is worth the extra attacks. In this sense its pretty similar to power attack (and I guess that was your thought process when making it?) though I suspect this one gets even more out of hand at higher levels. My guess is that its probably too strong.
Also, unless I'm misreading something, this penalizes Two weapon fighting pretty badly because they miss out on a bunch of attacks when compared to 2-handing.
Just considering BAB and the penalties inherent to TWF and this feat (ignoring STR or DEX):
@BAB=4 TWF makes 2 attacks as a standard at +0/+0, with damage scaling of 1.0/0.5 on STR. 2-handing makes a single attack at +4 with damage scaling of 1.5.
@BAB=6 TWF makes two attacks as a standard at +2/+2 for 1.0/0.5 scaling, OR they just use their mainhand for +4/-1 with 1.0/1.0 scaling (either way they miss out on two potential attacks when using this feat). 2-handing makes two attacks as a standard at +4/-1 with 1.5/1.5 scaling.
@BAB=8 TWF makes three attacks as a standard at +3/+3/-2 for 1.0/1.0/0.5 scaling (wasting one attack). Two-handing gets +6/+1 with 1.5/1.5 scaling (unless they have haste, in which case its +5/+5/+0 with 1.5/1.5/1.5).
Basically 2-handing is not only always ahead on accuracy and STR scaling, but it always gets to use all of its attacks. Plus, it has the potential to get even better with haste.
A logical countering opinion would be that a spellcaster can move 30 feet and still cast a spell that will defeat an enemy of change the rules of the encounter.
Linking it to weapon training kind of devalues most fighter archetypes.
Linking it to a feat like weapon specialization or greater weapon focus would raise the stock of archetype fighters as well as base book.
One day, there will be so many fighter patch feats, that the fighter will have less feats then a paladin.
Or we can just call it the Quilter.
What it sounds like the intent of the OP is to allow a Fighter to make a single standard action attack on round 1, then use the rest of his iterative attacks as a standard action on round 2. So, he can move and standard action attack on round 1, then move and finish the iterative attacks on round 2.
If that's the case, then why not just word the feats something like that? (Instead of using an existing option that wasn't designed for it)
Even if the feat is worded that way, doing that is straight up worse than a standard action+full attack unless the enemy is kiting.
What if we flip this feat around? Part of the problem here is that you need to pay an action the turn before you get the benefits of your action. What if you get the benefits up-front, then pay for it the following turn?
Tactical Prowess
Benefits: When performing a charge action you may choose to perform a full attack rather than a single attacking against your target. After your attack completes, you are staggered until the end of your next turn.
This allows you to get your full attack off immediately, at the cost of only being able to take a single standard or move action the following turn. While in the long-run this doesn't get you any action economy advantage, it does give you up-front certainty and can potentially remove an opponent a turn earlier.
It would be a choice on Round 2. If you can full attack, do so. If you can't, move and finish iteratives.Even if the feat is worded that way, doing that is straight up worse than a standard action+full attack unless the enemy is kiting.What it sounds like the intent of the OP is to allow a Fighter to make a single standard action attack on round 1, then use the rest of his iterative attacks as a standard action on round 2. So, he can move and standard action attack on round 1, then move and finish the iterative attacks on round 2.
If that's the case, then why not just word the feats something like that? (Instead of using an existing option that wasn't designed for it)
The intent is to use this against enemies that aren't going to let martial's get their full attacks in normally (one of the big complaints I've seen when talking about mid-high level martial combat).
Other intended effects:
--Not meant for use every round, definitely meant as either an engage or chase option. Unless the enemies are continually scrambling to get away from the fighter this should be useful about twice in one combat, if that.
--Final product should be at least better (damage wise) than simply taking a standard attack for two turns (Snowblind's math up above shows that my original proposal fails here).
--I'd like to avoid giving out negatives for the successful usage of this, thats why i reserved the negatives to a consequence of breaking off the attack in the second round (in the original form of the feats anyway)
These things being said it looks like that Start/Complete action is a bad framework for what i wanted. Just re-reading my intentions here makes it seem like charge would be better. So now I'd like to think of a way to make this better than simply charging.
What if we flip this feat around? Part of the problem here is that you need to pay an action the turn before you get the benefits of your action. What if you get the benefits up-front, then pay for it the following turn?
Tactical Prowess
Benefits: When performing a charge action you may choose to perform a full attack rather than a single attacking against your target. After your attack completes, you are staggered until the end of your next turn.This allows you to get your full attack off immediately, at the cost of only being able to take a single standard or move action the following turn. While in the long-run this doesn't get you any action economy advantage, it does give you up-front certainty and can potentially remove an opponent a turn earlier.
I like this a lot as a feat, basically for the reasons you've identified (up front certainty/removing individual enemies from a fight at the cost of staying power). The second turn you won't be able to full attack but you retain your full complement of other actions, meaning that you can get some potentially good use out of the turn (if an enemy has moved into melee, you can still attack it at your full BAB, use your swift, and 5ft step).