Brit O's page

I understood the rouge talent as just increasing the range. It also allows the rouge the ability to detect traps that he wouldn't have set off. The way I understand it (with a free check automatically. its a little hard to understand who thinks which method is RAW) the check is only if you are about to set the trap off. Its a last second roll to avoid triggering the trap.

So the talent comes into play in this scenario: A rouge finds a chest. He stands next to the chest while a fighter pries it open. Without the talent the fighter would trigger the trap and be allowed the Perception check. With the talent the Rouge would have been able to detect it without interacting with it.

It seems like this is also coming under some 3.5/PF transition feelings. I understand 3.5 required an active search but what was never even being dreamed of allowing IN A FEAT is now being offered at level 2. We're already dealing with softer gloves.

Again, I am just wondering what paizo and others read from these rules.

Its a small difference but if you're a rogue about to step onto a 100ft deep poisoned spike pit trap you worry about the little things on the way down. ^_^

Trap Spotter (Ex): Whenever a rogue with this talent comes within 10 feet of a trap, she receives an immediate Perception skill check to notice the trap. This check should be made in secret by the GM.

Creatures that succeed on a Perception check detect a trap before it is triggered. The DC of this check depends on the trap itself. Success generally indicates that the creature has detected the mechanism that activates the trap, such as a pressure plate, odd gears attached to a door handle, and the like. Beating this check by 5 or more also gives some indication of what the trap is designed to do.

So is there an automatic perception check for people who don't have trap spotter? It doesn't say there is but its worded as if the check was automatic. If that is the case, trap spotter would just give the ability a range instead of right before he stepped into it.

I'm just not sure on whether I should be allowing players to roll perception before a trap goes off in their face if they don't have Trap Spotter

Under the rules for mechanical traps, the second paragraph read to me as if everyone gets a free perception trap right before the trap is activated. Am I reading this correctly?

Someone posted the idea awhile back that a +X weapon should grant a +2X damage.

The math is not that hard. My +2 longsword does 4 extra points of damage all the time. This scales well with all the magical abilities too since a +2 all the time is on average better than a d6 elemental damage the works some of the time.

I liked the DR system as was back in 3.5, and changing the system just because magic weapons needed a boost seems a bit backwards to me.

"Item A is broken!" "Well if we put it in unrelated machine B they'll both work fine!" "Yay, my eggs are now cooking and my engine is still working fine."

Our group has been using a d20 for these percentage things for years.

- stabilization rolls
- concealment checks
- other percentage things (like being material for blink, etc)

These are easy because because they're all in chunks of 5%, which is the percent chance of getting each side of a d20. You were clever enough to figure this out. You could also just use a d10 for the first two.

Other places though, like random treasure creation, don't flow into a standard 5% per outcome chart. Ever randomly roll a magical item? There's a 1 in 100 chance of getting a specific one, and that's a hell of a lot less than a 5% chance.

I like the example above about why to keep d100s, because it practically always true. d20s imply modifiers may be added. d100s imply modifiers are not added. There are exceptions to these rules, but generally you know what you're getting yourself into when you pick up the die, or dice.

I wouldn't mind trapfinding allowing traps being found passively. Mechanically it feels like it makes a lot more sense than the rogue taking 20 each square until they make it to a room.

That being said, I am still just a little bit scared that with anyone being able to take 20 and find some of the traps, or all of the traps (in the case of an even level Ranger) as the Rogue. Areas of adventures meant to highlight this feature of Rogue will probably cause much embarrassment as the Ranger takes 20 adds his perception and wis vs the Ranger taking 20 adding his perception and wis. Rogue kinda loses that fight.

A level bonus will keep this competition a little bit closer, but we'll see how that affects DCs and such.

It doesn't help scaling DC's at all. It's a feat that costs an entire round to do, and makes one spell more likely to succeed (not assured success, either - your round might end up having been a TOTAL waste of time and effort). This would be like requiring Power Attack or any other Fighter feat that provides some kind of boost a full round of "powerup" before it could go off. Remember how poorly received the Combat Feat limitation of one-per-round was? Well at least the Fighter got to do something every round. The proposal was for the fighter to be able to do something neat, and forego a full attack option. That got poo-pooed, but now suggesting that a wizard wastes a full round (during which he could be attacked or suffer continuing damage, requiring major rolls just to keep his spell) casting a spell for a very minimal increase in chance of success of one of his major class features. That doesn't sit well with me. :) As I said, it would be a good feat for someone to use late in a fight, maybe, with the big gun. It's not something that a wizard would use with every spell (and, in fact, I doubt it would get used at all until all of my other spells were nearly useless... and since that's kind of the topic of this thread, forcing wizards to only cast a spell every other round to be slightly more effective is just unfair to the wizard).

The feat is only a powered up version of what they could already do. Kind of like counterspelling.

Without Feat: Small boost, and they can't move before finishing the spell on their next turn.

With Feat: Bigger boost, and they can make a move before finishing casting the spell on their next turn.

Assuming the spell is a charm monster, or suggestion doing this the 1st round of combat could turn the tides even before the healers even have work to do.

Sadly, the damage comparison does mean that the spellcasters do miss on a full rounds worth of dishing out damage, but when enemies make their saves to ignore full damage or all damage than wasn't the round just as wasted? At least if wizards used this ability they'd feel a bit more confident in what they're trying than just "I have a 1/4 chance of pulling this off"

I think some of the new tweaks to wizards are nerfing them for sure, but this was just an idea to fix the issue of the DCs not the damage output. I'm sure people fighting any old dragon would just blast it every round, but things with evasion or mettle, or for spells like enchantments and Death effects a boost in DC may be worth the extra round. Not for damage output, but for effect.

I'm also not set on the size of the boost either. I started low because if I said +4/+8 with feat I'm sure i'd get flamed by people with bad saves on how hard that would be to survive. Maybe it would work, maybe not. It was only an idea.

YES, I'VE READ THE WHOLE THING!!!

I would prefer Trapfinding to a feat than just Perception because if its just perception you'll encounter a rise in DCs which will PRACTICALLY be as bad as it was.

The Trap DCs are not made to deny people from finding them. The difference in the average DCs between a CR1 trap and a CR 10 trap is only 5!

Giving a Rogue a bonus by that level means he'll probably not need to roll.
Not giving a Rogue a bonus means he's only as good as everyone else.

Raising the DCs just makes it harder for everyone concerned, and more impossible for people who aren't Rogues, probably killing them in the process.

Did you even read my post? I covered this.

Tweaking Trapfinding is not the answer. The problem I'm reading in people's posts is "I reached a trap and without a Rogue to actually find it I'm going to waste other resources getting past it." How'd they even know something was there in the first place? I'd understand guessing there's a trap but it sounds like everyone's finding traps and working around them since their DM ruled they can't disarm it cause they never searched for it.

Someone said Rangers should get trapfinding even more than Rogues. I say that's absurd. Trapfinding is more than just, I noticed something. Trapfinding is supposed to represent carefully testing and figuring out how a trap works.

Given your Ranger who can read something written on a hummingbirds wing, I'd still say he's never had the experience to know how to make sure a keyhole is just a keyhole without setting a trap off.

A real world example would be driving. You could get me the world's best stuntman but that doesn't tell me he knows how to drive stick. He has the reflexes of a cat and the best timing anyone's ever seen, but that doesn't mean he ever learned how to use the clutch.

To me, Trapfinding was a special ability that reflected the training to know exactly WHAT to look for and what it meant.

Here's another example. Your character with his amazing perception spots a creature miles away. Well unless he's had the training identifying abberations he can't tell me exactly what it is, even though he sees it.

That being said, identifying abberations is a skill in DnD. Trapfinding as its own skill could work, but since it goes against consolidation I'm sure it'll never happen, and if it did somehow happen I'd hope only Rogues, and maybe Bards, would get it.

Brit O wrote:

I guess a 65% chance is ok for some of the huge affects some spells can have on monsters, but I think accepting those odds as being all the character does for a turn is why it feels so bad. tell a fighter he'll miss 60% of the time and he only gets 1 attack he'll be pretty disappointed too.

Here's an idea that might work for the non-optimizers:

Focusing:

Improved Focusing:

this may seem like a big boost, and others may say its not a big enough boost for the cost but this idea also adds to the tactical style of playing.

While the concept is good, it doesn't make it better for prolonged battle. Even if those small addons make the chance of the spell working 100% (which, mathematically, they don't) now the wizard is only getting off one spell every other round. That reduces the number of spells affecting the creature throughout the duration of the combat down to 50% (top end, assuming that the feat makes the spell an auto-success vs SR and saves - which, as I said, it doesn't).

What it does do, however, is make it more likely that a single, big spell will be effective. That will then cause the wizard to throw a handful of spells at the creature that do or don't work, then spend a round doing nothing so that the big one could get pumped up.

Other than for using it once a combat for the "big gun" it doesn't help address the issue of scaling the spell DCs to keep them up with the saves.

Pre-save or die tweak I think wasting a turn to boost a high level spell makes all the difference. A 10% increase in the likelyhood of utterly disintegrating the enemy seems well worth it. Now, it does seem like a bit of a loss to spend a round to get CLx10 damage, especially with the new increased HP. The increase could definantly be biggers, especially since the risk is so great. I can't tell you how much a 1 round casting time makes spellcasters opt for weaker 1 standard action spell.

I think this idea does work to help the scaling DCs issue since the 'big gun' usually just needs to hit for the effects to be amazing. I'm guessing the biggest complaint is rogues making reflex saves and evasion or enemies shrugging off some sort of 'wail of the banshee' effect. Even half damage means the spellcasters got the same effect as someone half their level, so maybe dealing full damage on any spell is worth it. At lower levels I'm sure it feels like 1 round is a big waste but as the enemy saves get better they will think more and more about a +2 or +4 to their spell DCs.

I am not against trapfinding being a bit more available, I'm just saying that as a feat, half the classes will replace the purpose of having traps anyway. Not to mention the mechanical nonsense it includes into a game that expects at least a little roleplaying. "Oh, I'm a ranger. yeah I work in the wild and raise hawks and eventually I tap into the power of nature to work magical wonders. In my spare time at home I just search crates for traps and locked chests for poisoned needles." Not to mention the amount of work needed to learn to spot traps is more than the work for most feats. Someone please convince me that following footsteps on a hard patch of dirt is still as hard as recognizing when a chest has a blade that sweeps out of the lid when you open it.

Trap DCs are pitifully low. I've had a CR 6 trap disarmed by the party's lvl 3 cohort flunky because the real Rogue wanted him to die. He makes the roll, doesn't die, and makes traps look like easy exp.

the DCs just aren't made to make trapfinding difficult. There are plenty of traps that don't even have the 20+ DC to require trapfinding. With perception being the new skill required, and the DCs so low as a feat trapfinding would break the entire game. I can promise you that traps will either A) get a HUGE increase in their DCs just to make up for the easier time parties will have dealing with traps or B) trap's will simply fade into legend.

I'd say let Bards get trapfinding and it doubles your chance the party has someone who can deal with traps. Any other solution I can see would break traps and ruin the concept.

Trapfinding as a skill: Everyone gets it, DCs will rise, more people die from traps, public outcry against raised DCs means nobody uses traps.

Trapfinding as a feat: While not as wild as the above, it still weighs heavily on the system when almost EVERYONE can become an expert trapfinder. Dcs will increase because traps will have felt like less of a threat, which causes above scenario.

Honestly, I think the traps are underpowered as it is to reflect just how easy it usually is to detect and foil them. Other than the high CR traps that specifically say "Or die" as their effect there are plenty of other ways to beat a trap.

You may get hit by a poison needle, but as soon as you feel its effects a delay poison, and lesser restoration can usually cure what ails you. Any damage trap makes normal combat look like a war. that d8 from a crossbow trap got you down? cure light wounds it.

The effects of traps are easy to deal with, even if you couldn't find it. The Wizards in charge knew that people who missed traps or didn't have the tools to deal with them wouldn't want to die, and so they made them a lot weaker than the days of old. The fact that people are still complaining worries me.

To reiterate, unless an adventure or DM is really harsh getting hit by a trap rarely kills you in one hit. A few bad rolls on poison may ruin your day but so could crits and everything else we accept as part of the system. Trapfinding just works for Rogues, and doesn't feel like it makes sense for others to have, and mechanically it just breaks traps for everyone when anyone with spot as an old class skill can find them.

The forum just ate a really long and detailed reply. Shoot. I'm trying to remember the highlites.

Healers are not special, but the system still treats clerics are the expected healer. I've even had adventure specifically call for turn undead at certain moments without a cleric or paladin in sight. It happens, it stinks. This is the adventure's fault, not the systems.

Yes I did read the whole thread, I just didn't cite every idea. Even with his idea of level bonuses than the rogue's search or perception mod is too high to make much of a difference. By level 8 they have 13 + ability mod + magical bonuses which is high enough to find even the most hidden of traps I think. This isn't the answer in my opinion.

Trap sense for Barbarains is stupid. Evasion was a GREAT idea for Ranger and was not a Rogue only ability even then.

Not every adventure NEEDS traps. Its more than expectable that they need a fighter, and then a healer to heal the fighter, and then a mage to act as toolbelt. This box stinks, and adventures that make assumptions as such annoy me. Part of what I liked about the first RotRL campaign was that no matter what was played it seemed like everything worked out.

Making it a feat makes it too easy for other to specialize at trapfinding. Perception is going to be very standard, and trap DCs aren't that high. Increasing the trap DCs and included a Rogue level bonus just means they're even more special, because the search 19 traps will get boosted out of reach of even people without trapfinding.

The WoW reference was lame, but it harks back to this assumption that's turning me off of 4E and starting to pathfinder is that there are roles players must fit into. Where is it written the party NEEDS a trapfinder? I didn't read that page of the rulebook I guess. I don't begin every campaign with a LFP for a Rogue, Cleric, and Fighter with power attack and a two handed weapon. I have 4-6 close friends and the characters they wanted to be.

I wouldn't mind Bards getting trapfinding as part of core, but for any other class I feel its a stretch for them to grab a feat and say they know how to find traps. Being around traps and detecting them is like going to bomb defusal school. There's aren't many 'in the course of adventuring' explanations for picking up trapfinding. Weapon Focus Longsword vs Trapfinding feels like a 1 week training vs 1 year to me personally.

Searching for traps is different than disarming them. A rogue should be the only one to spot the tiny poison needle if its hidden well enough, but once he's deduced how the trap works and what needs to be done maybe he wouldn't mind a clockwork specialist handling it. Just because I didn't see the poison needle when I looked, if you pointed it out to me until I did see it I can then figure out how to disarm it.

You completely misquoted me at one point, cutting me off mid sentence even. How rude :P I don't hate trapfinding. You shouldn't hate trapfinding. You should hate the adventure that said 'you need trapfinding' thats what I was saying. Your anger feels very misdirected to me because the assumption that the party has a Rogue is as bad as the assumption the party has a Druid. If I ever had a door that needed bardic music to open I'd be pissed too. Should bardic music be a feat?

What horrible World's Largest Dungeon campaigns are everyone running when you've actually need the full golf ball bag everyday? If the campaign makes even a little sense there's no way you encounter even half the special materials DR in a single day, probably week even.

All Demons have the same DR
All Devils have the same DR
I think all Archon have the same DR
I think all Fey have the same DR
I think Vampires and Werewolves and any other Ravenloftish monster has the same DR.

God help you if the DM is cruel enough to have one of each in a room, even one of each in a dungeon.

enough +s canceling out DR is lame because its "the one sword to slay them all" or some nonsensical in game shenanigans. If this is the case why even give level 20+ monsters DR since they're assumed to have +5 weapons anyway?

This gets even wierder at epic levels where you need at least a +6 to count as epic. So once you can beat epic you can beat everything?

If your problem is too many DR types for your fighter to deal with, I recommend adamantine weapons or cold iron with silversheen (cheap as hell) and your good pal the spellcaster for a quick align weapon or bless weapon. Even more crazy, you could pop an easy 1-3k (I don't know the exact price, I'm guessing) and buy wands you can't use AND GIVE THEM AWAY! I've never had a spellcaster turn down casting a wand on me that I paid for.

Defeating DR is not a problem. Defeating DR without any friends is. OMG teamwork FTW.

Edit: I can't believe I did that. it felt campy. sorry

I guess a 65% chance is ok for some of the huge affects some spells can have on monsters, but I think accepting those odds as being all the character does for a turn is why it feels so bad. tell a fighter he'll miss 60% of the time and he only gets 1 attack he'll be pretty disappointed too.

Here's an idea that might work for the non-optimizers:

Focusing:
Spend a round casting a spell with a normal casting time of 1 standard action or swift action or immediate action (I don't know. just in case). The spell goes off at the beginning of your next turn as a standard action. You may not move before casting the spell. You receive a +2 to the spell DC. Spellcraft checks to recognize the spell can be made as soon as you declare you're focusing the spell.

Improved Focusing:
Prereqs: Caster level 10+.
When focusing the spell DC goes up by +4 (instead of +2). On the turn after you focused you may make your move action before finishing casting the spell. Any attacks of opportunity made during this move are still treated as interrupting spellcasting and require concentration checks as normal.

this may seem like a big boost, and others may say its not a big enough boost for the cost but this idea also adds to the tactical style of playing.

The question the OP has is a serious one, and I don't think any of you seem to understand his dilemma. He's worried about controlling players and abilities actually having some sort of limitation.

tell a player he can deal 1 point of damage every round as a free action with no obvious sign he's doing it, and every six seconds he'll deal a damage to anybody he doesn't like, BECAUSE HE CAN.

With fighters its easy to say 'leave your weapons at the door' or to take their weapons away but with the new spellcasters supernatural abilities the only existing mechanic they can't use their abilities is antimagic or the lame manacles that disallow spellcasting (cause even villages have those, didn't you know?).

if they still required even a Verbal component as a requirement there'd still be options to say "you can't use spells." Does it limit the players? yeah, but part of having a fair gaming system is sometimes telling the player, "No that doesn't work" otherwise I'd start every game with 'I win'

Fighters can have their favored weapons taken from them, why can't spellcasters?

As for spellcasters retaining their spells, being bound still limits a lot of them. Once they break free of their bonds they may be still have some, but sometimes you just need to tie up the party.

What everyone seems to be forgetting is that its not just trapfinding is a staple to D&D (which is very important. Just because you say its archaic doesn't mean the play style changes.) Its also very important the availability of this option.

Trapfinding as a feat would make a lot of people as capable or better than Rogues in regards to finding traps. Search, rolled into Perception, means that A LOT of people are going to have maxed out skills in regards to this. Worse still, rogues have lost Int and now its Wis, which also drops their effective roll by anywhere from 2 to 4. Trapfinding as a feat would allow Rangers to completely usurp Rogues in this regard.

You say the 'amazing amount of skill points Rogues get' makes up for this deficiency, but with the same max number of ranks Rogues are becoming more jacks of all trades (especially with the skill consolidation). The new Rogues have just enough skill points and so few skill choices that they're almost equally maxed out in everything!

Hating trapfinding because it was a hindrance in 3.5 doesn't mean it won't make a resurgence using the new pathfinder rules. I'll agree that relying on a rogue being in the party is usually in poor taste for a group, but thats a problem with the module, not the system. A scything blade trap in the middle of a bland hallway is just low, and it encourages these poor "i search every square for a minute before moving into it" style games.

I personally, as a DM, have never had a problem throwing traps at my players without them having a good chance of finding them. There's a nice discussion in complete scoundrel or adventurer (or maybe DMGII) that included a lot of ways of making traps less of a burden and more of an encounter.

To hit the highlights of the tips, you either A) put a clue of the results of the trap (skeleton, acid puddle, tiny rocks from where a rock dropped and shattered, ect) or B) describe a few visible mechanics of the trap. A scything blade trap slot isn't invisible (unless it is I guess) but dungeon walls aren't all just rock and brick. They're usually assumed to have crazy drawing and designs and stuff like that that intentially hide when there is a trap. Example, air holes are either really air holes, or where a poison gas slips in. Example 2, a slit in the wall may be a scything blade trap, or it may just be a viewing slit into another dark hallway (think like looking over the tops of books in a library. Some real life designs actually do this for effect.) The question is do the players ignore it, carefully SEARCH it, or ignorantly try looking through it while standing on the pressure plate.

The main point though, Trapfinding as a feat, I don't think this is a solution to the greater problem. This is just a bandaid that hurts the rogue (no matter how small a hurt, its a hurt). Since Pathfinder is going to be the new assumed core rulebook for their adventures, maybe they should realize that we're not playing WoW and have LFPed until we had every part we need. Every party doesn't need a rogue, but giving rogue abilities away doesn't fix the problem. Every party doesn't need a healer either, so should we give feats that allow anyone to get cure light wounds? No.

Then it seems a problem that all his DCs are too low, and not just his low ones. I like the idea of the 9th level spells having a DC 8 higher than the level 1s, but perhaps there are just too few ways of boosting a DC for those especially tough monsters.

I agree with you, that your 20th level caster vs the balor seems pretty useless, but the lower level spell DCs aren't the problem since the level 9 spells are also already weak. It seems the scaling DC system as is (using spell levels and getting higher spells) just isn't fast enough for actual use.

Then there should be more ways to give your save DC a boost.

Perhaps casting a spell with 1 action times as a 1 round time (note, plenty of time to attack and get a concentration check) should improve the DC.

There's a 4th level spell I like that boosts the DC by 2. Can't remember its name.

The feats are woefully specific to the wizard who wants to do it all. When a wizard wants his in-town roleplaying spells to work he needs a feat just for them (2 using 3.5 feats for a small 10% better chance). Then he goes into the dungeon and he needs 2 more feats just to make his fireball do more damage more often.

I especially hate the will negates or fort negates spells. At least with a fireball they needed a class ability to completely ignore what I'd done. Charm Monster and Suggsetion and several others (I can't think of a good attack spell because I'm sure i switch it for something that did half damage) are extremely disappointing and a point of ridicule when monsters make their saves.

So I'd say keep the spell level based DC system as is, but include a lot more ways of boosting a DC since it does seem like even the worse saves progress faster than a wizard's spell DC.

Brit O wrote:

The problem I have with scaling DC systems is that the low spell level is intentional on most spells. Charm Person is level 1 because it is fairly easy for a high level character to resist. Glitterdust would be my best spell always if I could get the DC to scale for the whole game (area blindness? rofldead).

1) It's a powerful spell. It is arguably more powerful than Blindness, in terms of a combat encounter. I don't think it's a good example for a counter-argument.

2) Saves scale with levels. I fail to see why DCs shouldn't. It's a suggested optional rule intended to bring additional balance to the system. A 20th level character should have a +6 (poor) and +12 (good) to saves, without taking into account ability modifiers, gear, Feats, ect.
Essentially, the saves against spells scales with level but the potency of spells does not.

By way of example: A 20th level fighter with 14s across the board is: +14, +8, +8. Add in Feats and gear, he's probably going to be +15, +9, +9 ...at a minimum. His ability to defend himself (saves) scales, in addition to being boosted by gear. The caster cannot. His DCs are linked to ability modifier and Feats alone.

Obviously, if you don't think the system needs improvement, don't incorporate the rule. ;)

Thanks for your feedback!

~Jaye

I'm glad you appreciated my feedback, I'm sorry if you thought I was attacking your idea, I was just pointing out why I thought it was too powerful for any group. I personally have had mages walk all over monsters already, and as such don't think they need this kind of power boost.

1) Charm Person is the exact example I wanted, because with your system it WILL be the best spell possible since it will outshine meteor swarm. The weakness of Charm Person was its low level slot but high DC with your system. I'd feel much safer as a DM if I could challenge my players a bit more than a lvl 1 slot can solve.

2)Saves scale with levels because the levels available scale with level. By level 20 a characters bad save is only +6 or +9 as you put it with you assumed actual value, which is perfect since the spell level of the caster's spell is 9th which means the spellcaster still has his ability modifier over the opponent. An ability modifier which should be high enough to counter the extra 6 points of his good save too.

What I was saying is that the weakness of low level slots is its low level slot affect DC. Height spell balances this by making the player use a higher level slot to improve the effectiveness of the spell he wants to use.

I'd rather get rid of Heighten Spell and make it a permanent option any caster can use than simply have a caster with lvl 1 DC 25+ saves.

If I may be so bold:

Wizards need d4s just as bad as Barbarians need d12s and Rogues need d6s.

This is idea of "If you're BAB is this, your HP is this" is simplistic and takes a lot of uniqueness out of classes would have desired. We could equally assume Fort saves follow BAB (it pretty much does with the exception of monk) and from that conclusion came up with Ref and Wis ones too.

A Rogue is the Fighter and Barbarian's annoying little brother who they usually complain about. A lot of threads are still yelling about Rogue TWF uber-tweakedness, which I completely disagree with because while Rogues CAN SOMETIMES deal more damage per round than the other fighters they were primarily skirmishers because of their weak HP and lower AC.

Same applies for the wizard. The low HP is lower than the BAB because the power is still high even for such a low BAB. "Oh no, my BAB progression stinks! I've never been sadder in my whol- oh I get touch attack spells which ignore the largest boost to AC a person has and area attack spells that don't need BAB? pfft give me the d6 HP."

BAB does not decide my role in combat. Saying so you may as well get the party roles out of 4e and slap them in Pathfinder too. It seems like they've stripped a lot of creativity out of the game in the name of simplicity. This being just one of them.

It sounds like, and I hope we're all in agreement, that the 15 DC is too high. If I can't change your minds about a flat DC, then please at least let me agree with you that 15 DC is impossibly high.

But I really don't think the new system is any better than the old one though. I'll admit that your proposal will make each roll a bit faster to calculate but how much faster, and is it really worth what you're doing to the probabilities of success?

A flat DC hinders success because its a flat 5% chance per modifier that a player will not succeed or succeed on a task. When we rolled opposed rolls there were still the possibilities of one rolling high and the other rolling low.

It also hurts the defenders. When they changed it to a flat DC they introduced a natural 20 being an auto success. The old way, even with a natural twenty, if its a tiny pixie trying to trip a colossal dragon I don't care what you rolled.

At least with opposed rolls the difference in modifiers needed to be 20 to make a difference, not 5.

I've personally never had any problems with special maneuvers slowing the game down, and when special maneuvers were used it was a moment of suspense, not annoyance.

Finally, the reason I'd be for opposed rolls for special maneuvers and not AC is that AC has very flat bonuses and already suffers for stagnant growth. BAB progression makes AC look like a low CR zombie. Based on this idea, we're not comparing two similar numbers we're comparing two numbers that are mildly associated with each other.

With CMB rolls, we're comparing two scores that were calculated using the same rules and that should be treated equally. Giving one advantage over the other is saying "This guy deserves to win" but I don't think that's fair. Opposed rolls is completely fair from my point of view.

I know that scaling DCs is usually what most spellcasters feel like they need, and that they feel like its their biggest limiting factor as casters once they get a real good amount of spells per day.

However, I think that the DCs of all the spells of a 20th level caster are fine, especially when you practice using them on creatures with obvious weaknesses toward certain spells. A 20th level caster can have an assumed ability modifier of +6 to +9 which makes any 1st level spell still have a 25% chance of success on people with poor saves.

If you really want more use out of the low level spells once you reach higher levels then I'd recommend Heighten Spell. While I lvl 4 Sleep usually seems like a waste of a 4th level slot, its still a +3 to the save.

The problem I have with scaling DC systems is that the low spell level is intentional on most spells. Charm Person is level 1 because it is fairly easy for a high level character to resist. Glitterdust would be my best spell always if I could get the DC to scale for the whole game (area blindness? rofldead).

This is actually one of my main contentions against psionics, and how overpowered they are in my games because of 2 reasons: Spending extra points on spells boosts them stronger than standard spell casters get from caster levels. (second is the fact that half the psionic stuff basically reads: "only counterable by enemy psionic, and completely unrecognizable except for enemy psionics")

Now if you love psionics, than maybe this is the way to go for you but when a wizard looks at his spell list and thinks "my low level spells are weaker" its because the DCs ARE low. making all the DCs even and the wizard will think "I effectively have a huge list of my highest spell level of spells with a wide range of effects."

its about as useful and climb or swim. We could probably lump all those together too, or at least send Use Rope where ever climb is now adays (since climbing is already boosted by ropes the 2 go hand in hand.)

I think the adventuring skills keep getting forgotten because there were just 1 or 2 skills that actually read more like "Get a bonus in Battle!" vs. "Make exploring easier!"

Case and point Intimidate for every fighter >_< Worst substitute for a Diplomacy check ever.

Honestly, I think Hide-in-Plain-Sight was just a cool ability not because of the idea of fading into darkness but because usually the hiding conditions are almost NEVER defined in a person's game.

As a Rogue preferring player, when I DM with a rogue in the party I make sure I've outlined areas of shadowy illumination and cover so they can know when they can hide during a fight.

What percentage of DMs to you think use the hiding rules RAW and remember to put those details on their map? I'd say 30% TOPS in my experience.

I've even had the horrifying experience of explaining to several players that Hiding does not work like it does in WoW (Where you just say you hide and make a check no matter the conditions, which is what HIPS almost allows).

I'd say if the Rogues get an ability like HIPS, it should have a choice in what surroundings it should work and that it can only be taken once for a specific condition. A lot of HIPS have an area it only works in or an area it doesn't work in, and letting a rogue eventually have it everywhere is broken IMO.

I've never really had the 'I have too low HP at low levels' arguement from any mages in my game because their spells are usually so good they understand the balance.

An extra 1 hp per level and +2 at first doesn't seem like a lot, but its about a 25% boost over what they had and with them already getting boosted in other departments and the way they were powerful enough to begin with I don't see it as necessary.

PS. Have you ever had Rogue's complain about low HP? I never have, so giving mages a Rogue's HD kinda means taking the 1 weakness mages usually have.

Giving all agile characters a free feat to fix an 'bug' in the system is a small time fix. You're basically saying all Rogues should either get another free feat, or they should all take it as their 1st level feat.

Here's a big example of what the OP's problem is.

Fighting defensively is a -4 to attack rolls for 1 round, +2 to AC.
CMB is counted as an attack roll right? its based on the current attacks to hit.

So theoretically, if I fight defensively I have a -4 to my CMB DC. Which is just plain wrong.

The touch attack was mostly a moot point in the 3.5 system, but it was crucial to monsters with high dex but bad grapple modifiers. It helped prevent them from being in combat.

Even if dodge bonuses were added to CMB, the above example of fighting defensively still gives the player a -2 to CMB DC which is contrary to what you'd think fighting defensively would do.

PS. I liked the 3.5 way, it wasn't THAT hard to understand (They should have just drawn a simple flow chart to help people visual the order of things. Its a simple order once you see it.) I am saddened by the idea of turning it into a flat roll like normal attacks. It took the suspense out of "I Bull Rush!" into "I attack for the effect of moving him back."

Agreed kae. If you rule it as a bonus feat, then every high level fighter that wants an extra attack at full BAB will take 2 levels of Ranger to get it for free and ignoring its prereqs, plus the other class abilities being a bonus.

The problem with allowing the feat to be used in medium armor is that ANY armor can be turned into medium or less by using mithral. Mithral armor counts as 1 type lighter, especially for restrictions like this.

That would mean allowing this virtual feat to be used in medium armor means letting 6th level Rangers the ability to wear mithral full plate, something I would consider an imbalance in any of my games.

I see real potential for abuse. I love the low level games and I see lots of my spell casters using their cantrips. If this change was made because at high levels its annoying to keep track of cantrips than that's a poor excuse for doing so.

The game was considered pretty fair and balanced even before this change, and now spellcasters are getting a boost by having one level of their spells unlimited. You say the spells are worthless and huge x nothing = nothing, but the spells aren't nothing.

Besides the obvious wierdness caused by create water, there's other spells that gave boosts and the reason they were cantrips was their limited duration. Give a player unlimited casting and the duration means nothing. What happens when every lvl 1 NPC starts using his new powers? Cure Minor Wound just means NPC spell casters heal at different speeds between level 1 and lvl 3 but in the end they both get the job done.

Splat books had new cantrips that had the obvious power boost all the spells in splat books have. Cantrips, Launch Bolt, they were not meant to be used every round.

This change even changes the way we think about some of the classes. Sorcerors who had all their spells spontaneously I can kind of understand, but wizards who can't keep a spell for longer than a casting suddenly having every cantrip at the tip of his tongue? Clerics who had to pray for their spells now just hum a prayer and get everything handed to him? It used to be once per day deities took phone calls. Bards kind of fall in with Sorcerors I think so I don't have much problem with that.

Especially at low levels, where the power difference between a cantrip and a 1st level spell is low, the power of unlimited cantrips can be seen. Why use shocking grasp when I can do an unlimited number of d3s with the various attack spells I have at will? Why use Charm Person when you have Daze unlimitedly? Disrupt undead is as good as any 1st level spell against those dang lively dead people.

Thats why I felt the improved version needed the Also part. Another feature that on its own doesn't seem that powerful (I'd have to have someone prove to me its broken) while also increasing the power of the old feat.

The game already does what you say you hate in a lot of places, and its because of balancing issues. The reason there isn't 1 feat, Cleave, that keeps granting an additional attack is because its really worth 2 feats. Improved Combat Expertise, if you allow a splat book to argue your splat book example.

Some abilities are just worth 2 feats, and I think with the fighter's large amount of feats and BAB taking a second feat to use up to 10 isn't that bad of a call. Sure, some meta gamers or people who prefer the easy way of dealing damage will houserule it into 1 feat, but it fixes the STR based system in the Alpha.

In my example above, I've basically turned Improved Power Attack into a new ability, while improve the ability of the old feat. I think it satisfies your problem already.

As an added note, I think the extra attack should only apply to the first attack made. If every attack that hit required a second roll it would take too much time. Instead, the first attack rolled has a chance for a free hit on another enemy and then the rest of the attacks are rolled normally.

I know what you're going for here, but the reason they haven't is it creates a mundane save or die type instance.

I've always been frustrated at the lack of rules about putting manacles or tying pinned foes. Then I DMed a few games and I realized that players do anything they think will help them win faster, and why shouldn't they. The book flat out tells us that the monsters should lose for characters to grow.

The problem comes from there being absolutely no way to make a reasonable but scalable targeted attack system. A low level, incapacitate foe ability seems far until at high levels the DC seems low. We could argue CMB might help relieve this scaling problem, but that doesn't change that wizards eventually have 10 less than fighters, and when the question is does the wizard keep his head you should side with the player. But which is the player? The wizard or the fighter? But if it works for the player, why not the monsters?

The best way to Rush Kill a monster (and one that makes sense) is monk tripping, rogue flanking, fighter and barbarian bashing, and the spellcasters piling on the debuffs and damage and Save or die spells.

Back to the OP:

I was just stating my position, then I suggested an idea. I didn't mean to steal anyones thunder from copying their post. Since I won't edit it, I'll just say that I'd like to change that line from what it was and what it was quoted as to "/sign"

To the person who said 'hear hear." thanks but I think the other guy wants it. ;)

Anyone think my shield AC changes are... anything? good, bad?

Agreed. The only characters that might use this feat are wizards who didn't do anything on their turn (to attack nothing but reap the rewards of this feat) or Int focused rogues. No other class got anything from high int than skill points.

Fighters already have dex and str as primary attributes. This feat was another way for fighters to boost their AC when they were playing it safe but they have to either sacrafice AC (ironically) or reduce their damage dealing ability turning themselves into walls.

What if we just made Power Attack feats in increments of BAB requirement +5?

Power attack
Prereq: str 13
Take up to your base attack bonus in penalty and add that to your damage (max penalty 5). If you're using 2 handed weapons make this x times your penalty.

Improved Power Attack
Prereq: str 13, Power Attack, BAB +6.
You may now take a penalty up to 10 (still limited by BAB).

We could do a greater version that leaps up to 20. I don't think a 15 max and then a 20 max would be necessary since at that point their roll must either be negligible or they're just praying for a crit.

I feel like the Improved version should get some sort of "Also..." power. Maybe roll one of the existing feats into it as a different sort of Power Attack.

I actually like the idea of "If you take a penalty of at least 6 and manage to hit your target, roll an attack using the same modifier -5 (or 10?) against an adjacent foe. If the second attack hits, deal half the damage you already rolled to the second."

It'd be like a cleave that you didn't need to kill the monster for. I'd house rule a -10 penalty to avoid letting this get over abused but this 'free hit' only does half the damage it should, and have a -16 at least from the normal attack roll.

These are just suggestions, and I like the old system of trading BAB for damage and I think this kind of helps. Thoughts?

Half elf was the weakest class in my mind, maybe the halfling.

I like these improvements because every time I've had a party start above 1st level the first thing they look at isn't higher level class abilities, but what races they can now be. I tell my players lvl 4 campaign and they all look up +3 level adjustment races and lower.

Either house rule core races only, or use these improvements. I'm definitely happy Humans are now more than a bonus feat, and races like elves and dwarves have their 'unique improved abilities' in more than 1 area. Elves that are always more dexterous but AREN'T innately smarter than humans? Seemed a bit different than what most expect, especially when wizard was their favored class.

Honestly, I think dirk hit it on the nail with the +x weapon gives +x to hit and +2x to damage. This makes them a lot more applicable (especially everyone loves dealing all that damage!)

A +2 damage always is easily worth a 3.5 damage average sometimes.

Leave DR the way it was in 3.5. DR was never the problem.

Is nobody concerned that these changes make this feats a Two handed Fighter strength maxed character only feat?

They're the only ones that benefit from it now. With these changes, a high INT fighter will be as likely to take Power Attack as a monk is to take rapid shot. It just doesn't make sense.

Sure, the INT fighter has combat expertise but just based on his stats his feat choices have been made for him? What was the point of feats? OPTIONS. UNIQUENESS. Now we're stripping this feat of its versatility and tossing it toward the barbarians.

Screw this, my wizard's taking mounted combat. :P

Then this is a problem with the magic weapon system, not DR. The golfbag syndrome never happened in my gruops, and I played 3.0 and 3.5 for 5 years almost nonstop. DR was never a problem for my party, an its only purpose in the game is to give the Fighter and Barbarian SOMETHING that doesn't just die from their relentless onslaught. Its SR for regular damage dealers.

Magic weapons were annoying back in our 3.0 games. A monster needing a +3 sword was the most annoying thing ever, and mostly handed to our spellcasters to deal with. When DRs were based on the amount of +s on the weapon, then the only time someone wanted to put a flaming or shocking or bane ability on a weapon was when they had a deathwish or it was a secondary. We had a lot of characters actually switch to their +1 flaming weapon and when a stupid DR monster came out switch to their secondary: a more expensive +3 weapon.

The +x is more reliable, and while some players may not realize this when they are chalking up hundreds of plat per upgrade it eventually the difference between hitting 20% of the time for 4 extra points of damage. Never having to worry about resistances, ect. This has been covered before.

For the person who replied to that about how the average damage isn't as good. Taking into resistances and the like over the career I think a +4 holds at least as much as the flaming. Fire resistance, and few other resistances are handed out like candy by lvl 8-11.

One truly easy fix and that I've always wondered is this:

Why are small shields offering the same AC bonus as bucklers? Who uses small shields when they could have a buckler?

Making a small shield AC +2 and a large shield AC +3 gives shields a pretty big boost, especially with shield specialization. That increases the Shield noshield gap to be at least +3 an higher, instead an slightly sad +2 difference.

I'd like to see feats that help the shield user avoid damage. I don't want new feats the improve their damage output.

My biggest problem with his feat was that it took away from the characters who didn't want to maximize damage. Sounds crazy right?

A Tank type character or any character who's primary concern was something else and then, to fall back on, Power attack.

Monks who do their job well and trip and stun an opponent, have just given themselves an effective +6 and no dex to their chances to hit. Thats when you go for the big hits!

Single-handed fighters (with or without shield) are already not prioritizing damage over safety, but its a rule of DND that damage decides all. An encounter isn't over until one side stops fighting. So these characters who only had a high AC and good BAB needed Power attack to even stay par with other characters.

Rogues, Bards, and Clerics who wanted to be frontline probably all gave some thought to Power Attack. While its not a staple of the classes it definantly had some appeal.

When Power attack took from BAB and returned damage at a flat rate anyone could benefit from it. Now that its STR based means that only high STR people can reap its reward. The 13 STR prereq means that a lot of people eligible for the feat can only get a +1 or 2 points of damage out of it.

The only non-fighter abuse I've seen on this thread is the truestriking mage. Honestly I feel that that's a non issue under the old rules because if he was Two-Handing a weapon for full BAB at 20th level.
Oh no, two attacks at +20 damage! the first one will almost always hit!" Still subpar as far as the 20th level game goes, especially since he wasted a turn casting truestrike just to set up the attack.

The only fighter abuse I've heard is the two-handed fighting, so that's what needs to be fixed, not the amount they're subtracting or how its determined.

Give us back the 3.5 system. Make a -5 penalty be the cap, and make an improved power attack have a -10 penalty cap. And either be happy with the lowered 2-handed weapon style damage with these caps or change it to 1.5 times the penalty.

They should put it back to the old way, and create a new magical power such as this:

Penetrating
+2 cost
After the first hit on an opponent, this weapon assumes the characteristics to overcome that Damage Reduction, only effective against Damage Reduction. Example, A character with a +1 Penetrating longsword hits a monster with DR 5/good and cold iron the weapon then takes on the characteristics of good and cold iron for the purposes of avoiding DR on all attacks after that one until he hits an opponent with a different type of DR. Note, the weapon does not actually become cold iron, so a weapon that gains adamantine for awhile does not gain the ability to overcome hardness.

Laithoron wrote:

Brit O, Saurstalk: In what issue of Dragon did the Imbued Staff appear? I've used UA's Item Familiars before (omg the book-keeping horrors!) but I don't recall seeing the article You're both referencing. It sounds intriguing.

Dragon 338, Page 55.

As an aside, I actually expanded it to be Imbued Weapon, to allow for more variety.

It isn't as simple as Arcane Bond, but is more on par with the complexity involved with Familiar advancement. (Of course, this isn't to say that Familiars couldn't be simplified further.)

Or expanded on. I've always hated familiars because to actually get any use out of them they had to either be A) tweaked out in magic gear you're playing for to help them survive in combat or B) be a tool that as the party is pondering a puzzle or something you go "Oh yeah, well I got this animal in my pocket!" and use like its a freaking thieves's tools.

Improved Familiar kind of added to this problem for me because your character just arbitrarily waited to get a more powerful companion who's power didn't stem from how great a wizard or sorcerer you were, but their own innate powers. Imps are cool for evil characters, psuedodragons are amazing, but when I turn one into my familiar I get.... their spell like abilities with evasion.

One variant I offered and people were excited about was offering to use your feat to grant your familiar a feat. Something like, "For my 3rd level feat I'm getting my viper Ability Focus." My players were all excited about it and we all agreed it was balanced.

THEN THEY ALL WAITED FOR IMPROVED FAMILIAR AND WE NEVER MADE IT THAT FAR. It was infuriating for me, to think that even with that offer on the table they still couldn't do without their improved familiars.

Familiars need to be fixed, and when I used the staff it felt good being able to USE IT. That's why I completely endorse this variant. Until familiars become more than just tools, they won't be remembered as more than tools.

I love hearing everyone say "Every Fighter took it." Thats just funny to me. We might as well say Weapon Focus was broken because "Every Fighter took it" and they were still using it at level 11+ also.

First off: Every fighter took it because WOTC basically said "We need a base feat for a feat tree. which should it be?" and someone said "Power Attack!" Perhaps weapon focus makes more sense. Why not make Power attack just like improved sunder and make weapon focus the new base feat.

I like the old mechanic, and here's why:

Not all fighters maximize strength. Sword and board fighters who worry about AC don't put attribute points in STR first but still need some damage dealing options.

Not all characters who want to deal a lot of damage in melee are fighters. Power attack was a useful advantage for characters like monks and clerics, and even my own once crazy but eventually respected melee mage (wizard).

I don't think any player who would make everyone wait for him to calculate the best number to subtract should be sitting at the table anyway and have never had any problems with a player just blurting out a number than rolling. It actually made it a bit exciting making them guess what to use.

I have problems with the new mechanic because:

To make the feat do anything, you need to be wielding two handed weapons.

Also, to make the feat do anything, you need a high enough strength your damage is already amazing.

Here's the biggest reason it should be BAB based and not STR: For people who don't have max strength but have the ability to drop the opponent's defenses or at least abuse a drop in defenses. Rogues with Power attack. Monks with Power attack. People who were already in the role of battlefield skirmisher could get into positions to get +4 to rolls or -2 to AC and then using those weaknesses to deal more damage.

I'm not talking about sneak attack here, that's different. I'm talking about a monk who stuns his opponent, then while he stands there dazed takes his time for walloping roundhouse kick to the head or something.

I've playtested the new power attack rule, and I had the same question my monk and other support fighters had. "Where'd my decreased chance to hit for increased damage go?" Obviously, they gave it to the Maxed STR Two handed weaponed characters.

But different damage reductions is what made each creature unique. All the special materials were out there specifically for avoiding damage reductions. I feel it takes a lot of flavor out of the game, and from a ROLEplaying point of view I'd like it changed back.

Now the carrying 5 weapons problem isn't as big a deal in any of my games as people seem to have. I've never had a campaign that just threw monsters at the party with bizarre DR/types just for fun. Assuming that there are DMs out there (and maybe a few crazy modules) but even then I don't think the fighter really NEEDS to drop a lot of coin to avoid it.

Have a preferred weapon, and make it your cash cow. early in the game all the monsters have either DR/magic or type. having a silver sword, a cold iron sword, and you were fine for a long while. Eventually you might need to toss a +1 on your alternates and you're still fine.

The biggest Damage Reduction type is good and evil, which are ridiculously annoying to put on alternate weapons because of its steep price. Luckily there's spells that just fling this damage type on weapons so you're usually fine playing with these as buff effects and not paying a +2 cost on all your gear.

All in all, I think the carrying different weapons of types can be annoying. However, the system as is with 3.5 didn't suffer any real problems for most groups, and if you did suffer a problem I'd prefer those groups play with this variant instead of making it a core ruling.

Just to reiterate: Leave it in, but make it a variant and give us the core mechanic back please.

The reasons Warforged are almost never allowed in games (glad to hear its not just me) is their ridiculous list of immunities. I kept trying to make my warforged player fear for his safety, and unless I threw a CR +4 or higher he wouldn't stand down. Its because a lot of monsters are rated based on abilities that the Warforged were just plain immune to.

Poison? Disease? Ruins every vermin encounter, and most magical beasts, abberations, and plenty of others.

Fatigue? NO-SLEEPING? A considerable amount of monsters do prey upon this weakness. A harrowing wolf encounter could keep a party member worrying about falling asleep. Hell, watch at night was completely eliminated because he just took the whole night shift, ruining fun encounters during the night.

Ability Damage? (I may be miss-remembering this one but I think they have it) Good god, Poisons and every other form of 'oh-no' moments brought to you by WOTC immune? I've had players turn their proud smiles to fearful gasps at the mention of "4 points of ... CON DAMAGE!!!"

This list goes on. They might as well have added immunity damage to the list.

Another, slightly less severe benefit Warforged had was their racial feats were all horribly scaled compared to what others got. Adamantine armor is just nuts, giving a lvl 1 character DR. Then he got to improve it. good lord.

If any Developers or publishers are in here, I beg of you to please read the Imbued Staff idea. I dug it up one day and now I can't imagine a wizard without it.

For those of you who are interested, it works like this:

A wizard has his staff, and as he levels up it levels up just like a familiar except its abilities are different.

Light 3/day, and can deliver touch attacks as part of a quarterstaff attack if made against the full AC of the target for extra unarmed damage.

At about 5th level it gets a +1 enhancement bonus.

All at increased cost to get, and increased risk of loss (500 exp instead of 200).

ect.

Its everything you'd expect a wizard staff to be. I am personally disappointed with the current "Staffs are extra cool wands" mechanic. I've made all my game's staffs have some form of recharging to avoid them being used as firewood by lvl 15.

Again, please look it up in the Dragon Magazine. Its a really cool mechanic and makes an excellent choice for wizards, who I never thought of needing a familiar as much as the sorceror.

One of the reasons the diplomacy skill is so simple and undeveloped is that there are basically 2 ends of the spectrum. If you don't want to roleplay the encounter then make the roll and move on with the story with the DM telling you what the NPC does. On the other end, leave the diplomacy check off the table and do the entire encounter as a roleplaying experience.

I personally like the latter, and in a few rare instances I make them roll and just come up with a reaction based on their roll modified by how I felt they did roleplaying and coercing the character.

Complicated rules for something that is either used, or not used at all will make these scenes even more complicated. When the diplomacy skill is used, its used and the game moves on.

Personally, I think the only reason diplomacy is even a skill in D&D is to help DMs who don't want to prolong simple encounters. Why roleplay an hour about an orc salesman when you just wanted him to sell an item and move the PCs on. Roll, narrate, progress.

its a variant, but if after a roll of 1 you make a dex check or something vs DC 15. If you fail, something truly bad happens in the form of (here's my examples):

Dropping your weapon.
Tripping and falling Prone.
Hitting the wrong target (sometimes allies in extreme cases)
Somehow leave an opening in your defense (-2 to AC for a round)

And my favorite, in one funny case we had a character with a lasso and he crit failed and I ruled he accidently caught his head in the rope before throwing and entangled himself. Luckily this was a pretty lighthearted game and it was fun for the whole group and not frustrating. Woudln't recommend as a core suggestion.

But what I'm saying is if I think a player dropping his weapon is more appropriate than him tripping I'd like to have something to point at besides arguing with him about how I'm just punishing him. Just being able to say, "It says here that's one of the possibilities" makes me seem like less of a meany.

PS, I understand the Swarm Fighting sharing spaces part can't work, but the other bonuses part could. Again, this still works since I'm sure the first part says 'Small' which implies that it can't work for medium creatures, while the second part as written isn't based on size. Which is perfect btw.

Size is a requirement designed to keep core players from taking the feat. since [monster] isn't a subtype, it's about the best way they have.

-S

But I don't see why certain players shouldn't benefit from the same choices. It's like saying players can never have DR, and that was practically the truth except for Barbarian until finally they released a bunch of spells and such.

Monster-Only feats tell me that monster's need an advantage over the players and have access to special abilities the players can't have. That stinks, especially since players strive to make interesting concepts.

I too like the idea of batting goblins and kobolds around the battlefields and into distressing situations. Its not like that feat is particularly powerful too since RAW its a single hit that moves the monster. Only in interesting battlefields such as the Glassworks or the Thistletop Briars make it a fun and worthwhile concept. (both RotRL)

Honestly this is the only one I can think of right now, but in a lot of the supplemental material I think there's a few more like Swarm Fighting (Complete Warrior?) and the like. I don't see why Dwarves can't swarm fight giants like goblins can swarm fight, same principle different scale.

Just a little addendum or something since all it does is open more existing possibilities without rewriting every feat.

OGC? Whats that, if you don't mind?

On average that's essentially what its doing already. The only thing that makes it 'better' than bull's strength is the scalable penalty. It can get as high as -11, but that's not that bad since by then there are plenty of dispel magics and other buffs out there.

What makes bull's strength better is the longer duration. Ray of Enfeeblement only lasts the full encounter is somehow the enemy just refuses to die, or there's a lot of them. I consider 10 rounds to be something of a standard encounter, and anything less just didn't require that much thought.

Touch but no save spells are the defiantly powerful, but none of them hand an encounter totally over. Ray of Enervation could be considered a big problem, but with the short range and a d4 at a time you are either an entire group of spellcasters to get a quick kill or somehow the wizard isn't being threatened enough. Close range is practically always within charging distance, hence the huge risk involved.

Again, the touch attack is a huge gamble especially on the high level spells since there's more to lose. Deflection bonuses and dex. Amen.

I'd like a clearer set rules for crit fail. Since we're including it, it seems like a better explanation of what should happen be included. Just an example set of what could happen for the DM to pick from instead of it seeming like the DM is just screwing with his players.

I for one, always call them on the fly but one idea i had is to include weapon damage on the list of possibilities. Something like accidentally hitting a rock that kinda blunts the blade. The biggest reason I'd like this is that equipment damage only comes up after fighting an opponent that sunders things, and you encounter something like that once every 5th campaign.

Including it as the result of a crit fail would be interesting, especially since it'll increase the likelyhood of non-sundering experts to go "Oh, his just cracked his axe haft. This could be worth a shot." and trying for it. To often I see players think "well I could sunder his weapon, but by the time I was finished I may have just killed him already." If damage occurs naturally as a part of combat it'll make it a bit more viable and exciting.

Anyone think this is a good idea, even as just a variant?

Brit O wrote:

Thanks Hogarth. I hear people asking for DC 10 to 12 base CMB all over the forum but when I start mentioning it feels like they're all left. lol.

Just for the record, I prefer the 3.5 grapple/trip/disarm/sunder/bull rush rules as they are, warts and all.

rofl, me too. Opposed rolls aren't much slower than this system, and they're a lot more flexible. At least with a -10 difference in modifiers you still have a chance of a high roll vs their low roll. This new system strips that entirely and even gives them a better roll on average, which stinks because not an 18 is always an 18, and only a little bit better than their assumed roll.

Imagine any grappling or tripping characters you might have ever encountered in 3.5. Then imagine telling that players that the opponent will always roll 5 higher than their d20. They'd look at you like you were crazy, and that the rule was unfair.

Well thats basically the new rule. my modifier vs their modifier with a 15. Even worse for me is the set 15 makes people with high modifiers that much closer to setting an impossible DC for low level characters. If the fighters need high rolls to succeed low modifier character will have nothing to hope for, after all if you can't roll a higher than a 20, whats to hope for?