It seems like you can combine the two just fine. I wanted some extra opinions about it.
Dazing Assault: You can choose to take a –5 penalty on all melee attack rolls and combat maneuver checks to daze opponents you HIT with your melee attacks for 1 round, in addition to the normal damage dealt by the attack. A successful Fortitude save negates the effect. The DC of this save is 10 + your base attack bonus. You must choose to use this feat before making the attack roll, and its effects last until your next turn.
The feat states you just need to hit with a melee attack, it doesn't say you have to do damage. Combat Maneuvers are attack rolls, so is there anything stopping someone from using Dazing Assault with Dirty Tricks, Grapples, Trips, and such? Other than the -5 making it much harder to succeed on the maneuver.
Combat Maneuvers are attack rolls, so there's no problem there.
The only potential issue I see with this is the text: "... in addition to the normal damage dealt by the attack." This could be interpreted as meaning you have to deal damage to get the effects of Dazing Assault.
I've thought about it, and I think you should get the bonus even with no damage (Just thought I'd point out a potential hang-up people might have).
I can't believe I've never looked at this feat ... it's amazing.
The big problem with it is that most creatures have good fort saves.
The lowest level you can get this is 11, so you would have a DC 21 save. Lets look at the average save of CR 11 monsters...it's 12 (on average). So about 55% of the time they succeed.
Still, it's not actually too bad. And potentially will land multiple times in a round. And there's not a "save and immune" clause on it.
Yeah...why isn't this used more actually?
MrCharisma wrote: Combat Maneuvers are attack rolls, so there's no problem there.
The only potential issue I see with this is the text: "... in addition to the normal damage dealt by the attack." This could be interpreted as meaning you have to deal damage to get the effects of Dazing Assault.
I've thought about it, and I think you should get the bonus even with no damage (Just thought I'd point out a potential hang-up people might have).
I can't believe I've never looked at this feat ... it's amazing.
Combat Maneuvers Checks are Attack Rolls, but per RAW, a Combat Maneuver is not a melee attack. That being said, I think most GMs would let that slide.
Claxon wrote: Yeah...why isn't this used more actually? You need a BAB of +11 to use it, so you will only see it on high level characters, so it will never see common usage. In Pathfinder Society, for instance, you only see it in 11th level full BAB characters, and Pathfinder Society only goes up to level 12.
Personally, I don't like that -5. The effect of any given Combat Maneuver is usually devastating enough that I'd rather be most certain that something worked rather than take the gamble hoping that 2 things worked. Uaually, I'd rather make sure that I make my opponent Prone and get 2 Attacks of Opportunity as he goes down plus another when he gets up rather than take a -5 hoping to add Dazed on top of that but risking getting nothing. -5 is a lot. If you have Attack Bonus to spare like that, it is probably because you are fighting multiple opponents, and I'd be content to Great Cleave my way through them.
I don't think it's something I'd use on every round - or even in every fight - but the ability to completely remove an enemy from the combat (with a pretty good chance of it too) is incredibly strong.
As claxon pointed out you get this effect on every attack all day every day if you want it, so you can keep going till the enemy fails their save. Even AoO's get it if I'm reading it right.
Any fight against 1 big monster is going to swing waay in your favour. You don't have to power attack, there's no rush when they can't fight back. This means you don't take a -5 penalty, it's more like a -1 or -2 to hit but with less damage.
Scott Wilhelm wrote: Combat Maneuvers Checks are Attack Rolls, but per RAW, a Combat Maneuver is not a melee attack. Where are you getting that? From what I can see they're 100% melee attacks (unless you have feats that let you make them as ranged attacks).
Scott Wilhelm wrote: Combat Maneuvers Checks are Attack Rolls, but per RAW, a Combat Maneuver is not a melee attack. MrCharisma wrote: Where are you getting that? From what I can see they're 100% melee attacks (unless you have feats that let you make them as ranged attacks). That's a fair question.
Melee Attacks are a specific game term with a specific definition.
Combat, Actions in Combat, Attack wrote: Making an attack is a standard action.
Melee Attacks:
With a normal melee weapon, you can strike any opponent within 5 feet. (Opponents within 5 feet are considered adjacent to you.) Some melee weapons have reach, as indicated in their descriptions. With a typical reach weapon, you can strike opponents 10 feet away, but you can’t strike adjacent foes (those within 5 feet).
Whereas Combat Maneuvers have their own special distinction. They are Special Attacks. Different Combat Maneuvers are performed as different Actions. Some of can be done as Standard Actions. Some of them can be done "in place of a melee attack." In either case, neither fits the game-term "Melee Attack." They are classified by a different term: "Special Attack."
I understand if you are frustrated by this. You can easily demonstrate that Combat Maneuvers are Attacks, and you can also demonstrate that they happen in Melee, and therefore they should be considered Melee Attacks. The Pahtfinder Universe does not always follow the logic of our Universe. It's frustrating, sometimes. I am sympathetic.
I have had similar experiences debating things like this on these forums. For instance, I proved that the Amulet of Mighty Fists should enhance your Grapple Checks because they enhance "unarmed and natural attacks." Well, I proved that a Grapple Combat Maneuver Check is an Attack (exactly as you were saying), and you perform it Unarmed, therefore a Grapple Check is an Unarmed Attack. The response was that Paizo Publishing officially changed the rules so that the Standard Action Grapple Combat Maneuver does not count as an Unarmed Attack.
I've had many other such experiences.
MrCharisma wrote: I don't think it's something I'd use on every round - or even in every fight - but the ability to completely remove an enemy from the combat (with a pretty good chance of it too) is incredibly strong. And I don't think it is something that is never useful, but it does seem pretty niche and not as powerful as some other things because of that -5. For instance, with Shield Slam, that free Bull Rush happens with every Shield Bash, and there's no attack penalty. If you have Greater Bull Rush, all your allies automatically get Attacks of Opportunity, and so do you if you can work something out with Paired Opportunist. I would want to ruin multiple AoOs every round with a -5 on the Attack Roll.
Dirty Tricks can make your Opponent Blind, and if your opponent has Blindsight, you can make them Deaf, too! Would it be better to make your opponents Blind, Deaf, AND Dazed? It sure would, but again that -5 makes you risk having nothing.
Tripping can net you lots of AoOs, and if your opponent accepts fighting Prone, he suffers a -4 to attack and a -4 to AC. Not as good as Blinded, but still devastating. But if your attack fails by 10, YOU are the one who gets Tripped! That -5 combined with Tripping would open the door to disaster!
It seems to me that the time to use Dazing Assault is when you have Attack Bonus to spare: when you are so sure of success, you can just go for it. Maybe when you don't want to kill your opponents? If you have True Strike? Yeah, there are times when Dazing Assault is the perfect cherry for your sundae.
Recent threads in Rules Questions
|
