That is actually my point Wraith. If this completely, totally removes the rogue in question from being useful to the party, then I could see it. It doesn't, it shuts off one class feature if it works. A fighter with no ranged bonus feats spent using a bow isn't able to use his class feature of bonus feats. Bad choice? I dunno, I don't see many melee oriented fighter builds toting the ranged combat feats (they do carry a bow/xbow/whatever for ranged combat, not arguing that).
Yes, there could be better examples. But that level of player stupidity is about how I feel about this feat.
Could it be worded better? Yep.
Is the potential to, like in your example, shut down sneak attack from a rogue like that broken? Not really, other things do it as well.
I think the biggest problem most people have with this feat is it is so specific. Outside of shutting down a feature usually associated with only a rogue (sneak attack), there is 0 reason to take this. And even to do that its sub par. But it is specific, which makes it feel like the rogue is getting picked on/singled out/nerfed, and that never goes over well.
Its just...not as bad (mechanically and tactically speaking) as folks make it sound.
It is a pretty good example of how not to design a feat (IMO anyway). Its to specific, wording is vague enough that RAI isn't clear enough, and it just isn't very imaginative.
Your 3rd paragraph nails it. Poor rogue.
Eh, problem with all the non casting 3/4 BAB classes right now.
Its like the front liners and the casters have nice, defined roles and abilities, and the 3/4 BAB classes they just weren't entirely sure what they wanted them to do or how they wanted them to do it.
*shrug* No system is perfect, but it'd be nice for those classes to have a bit of a boost somehow.
This is the most absurd and hilarious threads I've read in a while.
I mean really. I don't need a feat to shut down the rogue. That's part of the problem really. Why take paragon surge or even this feat when I could, I dunno, cast blur? Or darkness? Or invisibility? Or throw down a smokestick?
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
regardless, it's evading the issue: if the INTENT is to only affect flanking Sneak Attacks
What I'm saying is the intent is to have concise rules that accomplish a given thing with minimal collateral damage. Whether there is some extraneous wording in there or not, the feat does what's intended and the side effect (once in a blue moon someone is denied sneak attack) isn't a big deal. Either way you interpret it isn't going to alter game balance much.
|
I like how everyone is looking at it as, "this feat would be a waste to any PC I could think of..." and think that makes it ok.
It's a feat that exists for a DM to **** over a rogue PC, hard.
Sorry...but that isn't a feat issue...that is a your DM is a jerk issue and really, there is only one solution for that. The hammergun.
The rogue is in a party right? So once he knows the enemy has this feat he just gets into flank and uses full defense, daring the enemy to attack (and miss). Sure, the enemy can attack him, but the result is that the foe is basically wasting his actions while the rest of the party kills him. Generally speaking, one PC using their action to deny an opponent of theirs is a net win. And if the foe does miss, then you can still get sneak attack on the next round, so double win. Now, who is really getting the better end of this?
As a side note, you don't threaten any square when using the full defense action, so you can't flank either. ;)
That's a good point, but it's easily countered. Simply ready an action to use full defense when attacked. Up until such time you are attacked, you are threatening.The rogue is in a party right? So once he knows the enemy has this feat he just gets into flank and uses full defense, daring the enemy to attack (and miss). Sure, the enemy can attack him, but the result is that the foe is basically wasting his actions while the rest of the party kills him. Generally speaking, one PC using their action to deny an opponent of theirs is a net win. And if the foe does miss, then you can still get sneak attack on the next round, so double win. Now, who is really getting the better end of this?As a side note, you don't threaten any square when using the full defense action, so you can't flank either. ;)
Oh, that's a good idea! I never thought about that before, which is strange, because I often use readied actions.