Would you allow this feat?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion


*
**
***
****
*****
So I was wandering the maze of my train of thought, and I came up with this feat:

][b wrote:

Balanced Assault[/b]

Requirements: Base Attack +11

Benefit: As a full attack action, you may make three attacks at your highest base attack bonus -5.

*

Would anyone allow/want this feat? Is there some hidden DPR math that makes this outright superior? Could it just be a regular combat option?

*

As a bonus for the 2WFers:

][b wrote:

Tempest Assault[/b]

Requirements: Balanced Assault, Greater Two Weapon Fighting

Benefit: When using Balanced Assault while weilding two weapons, you may make three attacks with each weapon at your highest base attack bonus -5. Normal penalties for fighting with two weapons apply.


So it would only be useful until the character gets a 4th iterative attack?


Depends on how much you think that 4th attack might contribute. Also, seems pretty good for any 3/4 BAB class.


I would allow it with one change, have the -5 penalty apply to all attacks until the beginning of their next turn.

Grand Lodge

I think you'd probably need a math number-cruncher (Chris Mortika, for example) to crunch the odds of +11/+6/+1 as opposed to +6/+6/+6.

But yeah, even then, when it gets to be +11/+11/+11/+11 at 16th level it seems too strong. A Fighter could make it his 16th level Feat. Also, by that level you're often gonna be Hasted.

Even without crunching numbers, though (something against my religion), it seems too strong.


Keirato - Why? The penalties for normal iteratives don't apply to other attacks.

W E Ray - At 16th it would still only allow 3 attacks.

Grand Lodge

See, told ya I'm not a number cruncher.

So, is it 17th level, then, yes??


W E Ray wrote:

See, told ya I'm not a number cruncher.

So, is it 17th level, then, yes??

Uhh, no. Once you get 4 iteratives, you have the choice of making 4 attacks at -0/-5/-10/-15 or using this feat to make 3 attacks at -5/-5/-5.

I really want to balance this for even numbers of iteratives, but it escapes me.


Haste (or similar effects) won't grant you any more attacks while using it, will it? Because it's not a normal full attack action.

Grand Lodge

See, it's just further proof -- I should never, ever get into a Crunch conversation.

Ever.

Hey, y'all wanna talk Alignment?
Or Class concepts?
Or the art of DMing...?

anyone?

anyone? . . . .

*leaves Thread apologetically


Symar wrote:
Haste (or similar effects) won't grant you any more attacks while using it, will it? Because it's not a normal full attack action.

If I worded it as well as I hope, Yes. The bonus attack would even be at your full base attack (+1 from Haste). I tried to word it like a Monk's Flurry of Blows, and Haste works with that. So...


Because you are getting a nice benefit. As is, I see it as too strong for it's level. I almost never have trouble hitting with the first attack, while the last one may as well not exist. With this, player will be hitting more often, you need a counter balance. Thematically speaking, your "balanced assault" could throw you out of balance for the rest of the round.

Dark Archive

W E Ray wrote:

See, it's just further proof -- I should never, ever get into a Crunch conversation.

Ever.

Hey, y'all wanna talk Alignment?
Or Class concepts?
Or the art of DMing...?

anyone?

anyone? . . . .

*leaves Thread apologetically

Your not the only one, if it looks right I just roll with it. :)


I'm not a good number cruncher, but let me take a stab at it.

11th level fighter, elite array. 17 base Str, +2 levels = 19 natural strength.

Weapon training 2, Greater Weapon Focus.

Gear - 82,000 gp in stuff. Assuming no item over 25% in value, we have 20,500 gp for any single item. That's a +3 weapon, and either a +2 belt of physical might or +4 of giant strength. We'll assume the more balanced physical might.

So our average fighter has a +11 BaB, a +5 Str bonus, +2 from feats, +3 from weapon, and +2 from weapon training. Total attack bonus is +23/+18/+13

With your feat, he gets 3 @ +18. If he were power attacking, he would take a -3 penalty for +15.

Grabbing 4 random CR 11 monsters (barbed devil, hezrou, retriever and stone golem), we have 2 at AC 25 and 2 at AC 26.

Since all attacks deal the same damage, only percentage to hit matters. The best possible rating would be 300%, or 285% once you consider that there is an auto-miss on a natural 1.

Against AC 25. Normal full attack. 90%+65%+40% = 195%
Against AC 26. Normal full attack. 85%+60%+35% = 180%

Against AC 25. Balanced full attack. 65%+65%+65% = 195%
Against AC 26. Balanced full attack. 60%+60%+60% = 180%

It would seem in any situation where the first attack isn't an automatic hit, the feat provides no strict numerical advantage. So let's adjust the AC to 20.

AC 20 Normal full attack. 95%+95%+70%=260%
AC 20 Balanced full attack. 95%+95%+95%=285%

In situations where the first attack is 'wasting' some of its attack bonus because it needs less than a 2 to hit, your feat is superior.

Let's adjust the AC again, this time to 35.

AC 35 Normal full attack. 45%+20%+5%=70%
AC 35 Balanced full attack. 20%+20%+20%=60%

In situations where the last attack is benefiting from autohit 20s because it needs more than a 19 to hit, your feat is inferior.

Unless your games see a preponderance of super high or super low ACs, I don't see an issue. Unless someone does the math crunching better than I, it would appear that your feat is fundamentally the same.


Crits and TWF might fudge things around with this (at least prior to greater TWF), but otherwise it seems that Kain's basically right. It's balanced, if possibly underwhelming to some.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

It's bad in terms of balance... there's also no justifiable need for such a feat.


i don't know about twf mixing with it, but i've always kinda wished for some kind of "combo-move" option. by the time you get 4 swings, that last one feels kinda useless.


LazarX wrote:
It's bad in terms of balance... there's also no justifiable need for such a feat.

Would you like to justify your statement about it being bad in terms of balance? Unless you can show me that my numbers are off to the point where the conclusions are altered, I don't think you can actually say that.


Perhaps, since it doesn't really change your hit chance, the feat investment makes it not worth it? *shrug*


@ Darkwind - Thanks for the crunch. Looks like as long as the ACs are in the expected range this does what I want it to.

@ Symar - I was a bit worried about that. Going to crunch some numbers to see what the real change is.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Would you allow this feat? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.