Feat: Cunning Attack

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

I quickly thought up this feat and posted it in another thread (UA
bloodlines and paragons), but then I thought I'd start a new thread to
see what people who didn't read that thread thought.

CUNNING ATTACK [GENERAL]
Prerequisites: Int 13, Combat Expertise, base attack bonus +6.
Benefit: Once per round, you can add your Int modifier to one melee
attack (normal or touch).
Special: A fighter may select Cunning Attack as one of his fighter bonus
feats.

Comments? The original version had a BAB requirement of +1, but that
makes it better than Weapon Focus for anyone with Int 14+. BAB +6
ensures you're not getting the bonus to all of you attacks.


--
Jasin Zujovic
jzujovic@inet.hr
31 answers Last reply
More about feat cunning attack
  1. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Too powerful for a feat. Consider that a paladin's smite is limited
    uses per day. A Destruction Domain cleric can only smite once a day.
    Even though they give bonus to damage as well and your feat does not,
    they are still getting a bonus to hit. Weapon Focus is for one
    particular weapon. Your Feat is in every turn regardless of weapon or
    attack spell, either the one attack if only one attack on the
    character's turn because the character moved regardless of BAB or
    definitely among the iterative attacks, more likely not the first to
    offset the penalty on the latter ones.

    Wizards who like to use a lot of touch spells will take it. Ditto
    clerics. Rogues salivate to use in conjunction with Weapon Finesse
    since they're highly likely to have a high IN score as well for the
    plethora of skill points. A fighter has more incentive to dedicate
    Intelligence as a non-dump stat, but the Feat is not attrctive to them
    as to the previously mentioned. They could use it if they like to
    Power Attack a lot to offset that Feat's penalty to hit.

    Gerald Katz
  2. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    I think it's fair enough. Wizards usually hit with their touch attacks
    anyway, so what the hell. Plus they have to have taken Combat Expertise
    as well (not generally a great feat for a wizard). I suppose you could
    say that they had to use their INT bonus _instead_ of their STR or DEX
    bonus but I think that would make it too weak. Or you could make it a
    standard action, but again, I think that would make it too weak.
  3. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Keith Davies wrote:
    > Jasin Zujovic <jzujovic@inet.hr> wrote:
    > > I quickly thought up this feat and posted it in another thread (UA
    > > bloodlines and paragons), but then I thought I'd start a new thread to
    > > see what people who didn't read that thread thought.
    > >
    > > CUNNING ATTACK [GENERAL]
    > > Prerequisites: Int 13, Combat Expertise, base attack bonus +6.
    > > Benefit: Once per round, you can add your Int modifier to one melee
    > > attack (normal or touch).
    > > Special: A fighter may select Cunning Attack as one of his fighter bonus
    > > feats.
    > >
    > > Comments? The original version had a BAB requirement of +1, but that
    > > makes it better than Weapon Focus for anyone with Int 14+. BAB +6
    > > ensures you're not getting the bonus to all of you attacks.
    >
    > No, only ensures you're not getting it on all attacks in a full attack.
    > If you only attack as a single action, you get it on all attacks.
    >

    Just add:
    "You must use the full attack action to use this feat."

    If still considered too powerful, how about always giving the bonus
    to the last attack as follows:
    "You can add your Int modifier to the melee attack (normal or touch)
    with the lowest base attack bonus for the round."

    Reasoning: You trick the opponent into a weak position over the
    course of your former attack(s) during your turn...

    LL
  4. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    In article <MPG.1d350e876055306e98974f@news.iskon.hr>,
    Jasin Zujovic <jzujovic@inet.hr> wrote:

    > I quickly thought up this feat and posted it in another thread (UA
    > bloodlines and paragons), but then I thought I'd start a new thread to
    > see what people who didn't read that thread thought.
    >
    > CUNNING ATTACK [GENERAL]
    > Prerequisites: Int 13, Combat Expertise, base attack bonus +6.
    > Benefit: Once per round, you can add your Int modifier to one melee
    > attack (normal or touch).
    > Special: A fighter may select Cunning Attack as one of his fighter bonus
    > feats.

    I think this would be a solid feat even if it was +1 to hit, instead of
    +IntBonus.

    As it is, it's much too good. This ability should be a high-level class
    ability, if it exists at all.

    --
    Kevin Lowe,
    Tasmania.
  5. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Jasin Zujovic <jzujovic@inet.hr> wrote:
    > I quickly thought up this feat and posted it in another thread (UA
    > bloodlines and paragons), but then I thought I'd start a new thread to
    > see what people who didn't read that thread thought.
    >
    > CUNNING ATTACK [GENERAL]
    > Prerequisites: Int 13, Combat Expertise, base attack bonus +6.
    > Benefit: Once per round, you can add your Int modifier to one melee
    > attack (normal or touch).
    > Special: A fighter may select Cunning Attack as one of his fighter bonus
    > feats.
    >
    > Comments? The original version had a BAB requirement of +1, but that
    > makes it better than Weapon Focus for anyone with Int 14+. BAB +6
    > ensures you're not getting the bonus to all of you attacks.

    No, only ensures you're not getting it on all attacks in a full attack.
    If you only attack as a single action, you get it on all attacks.


    Keith
    --
    Keith Davies "Trying to sway him from his current kook-
    keith.davies@kjdavies.org rant with facts is like trying to create
    keith.davies@gmail.com a vacuum in a room by pushing the air
    http://www.kjdavies.org/ out with your hands." -- Matt Frisch
  6. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    In article <1120602905.400691.197950@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
    forumite@netzero.com says...

    > Too powerful for a feat.

    Might be.

    > Consider that a paladin's smite is limited
    > uses per day. A Destruction Domain cleric can only smite once a day.

    A paladin's Cha is his primary stat, pretty much. Not so for Int for...
    well, anyone who regularly makes melee attacks (except perhaps eldritch
    knights, who might indeed find the feat a bit too nice...)

    > Even though they give bonus to damage as well and your feat does not,
    > they are still getting a bonus to hit. Weapon Focus is for one
    > particular weapon.

    That's not a big limitation, IME. Most people only use one melee weapon
    and one ranged weapon. You could easily limit Cunning Attack to one
    weapon too.

    > Wizards who like to use a lot of touch spells will take it.

    .... at 12th level, after taking Combat Expertise.

    I don't thing it's the pure wizards who can munch this feat the most.

    > Ditto clerics.

    Clerics? An Int feat that requires Combat Expertise? How high an Int
    does these clerics have?

    > Rogues salivate to use in conjunction with Weapon Finesse
    > since they're highly likely to have a high IN score as well for the
    > plethora of skill points.

    How high is "high"? IME, the typical rogue Int is 14. So he's getting +2
    to one attack instead of +1 to all of them (from Weapon Focus). Sure, he
    could *also* take Weapon Focus, but a rogue doesn't exactly have an
    unlimited supply of feat slots, and there are so many things to take...

    > A fighter has more incentive to dedicate
    > Intelligence as a non-dump stat, but the Feat is not attrctive to them
    > as to the previously mentioned.

    I think it's just as attractive to fighters as it is to rogues and
    wizards, and much more than to clerics.


    --
    Jasin Zujovic
    jzujovic@inet.hr
  7. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Jasin Zujovic <jzujovic@inet.hr> wrote:
    > In article <1120602905.400691.197950@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
    > forumite@netzero.com says...
    >
    >> Too powerful for a feat.
    >
    > Might be.

    Gerald is Players' Advocate.

    If Gerald says it's too powerful, there's a good chance he's right. I'd
    certainly want to look closer before disagreeing.

    >> Rogues salivate to use in conjunction with Weapon Finesse
    >> since they're highly likely to have a high IN score as well for the
    >> plethora of skill points.
    >
    > How high is "high"? IME, the typical rogue Int is 14.

    15, IME. The extra point of Int isn't that expensive, and (if following
    core rules) you don't get skill points for bumping Int after first
    level. So, most rogues I see start with Int 15, bring Dex down a little
    (16 or 17, maybe) and bump that later.

    Of course, could just be the group I was with.

    > So he's getting +2 to one attack instead of +1 to all of them (from
    > Weapon Focus). Sure, he could *also* take Weapon Focus, but a rogue
    > doesn't exactly have an unlimited supply of feat slots, and there are
    > so many things to take...

    It'd be +3 IME. Combat Expertise is often a decent choise for Rogues,
    and assuming they *don't* take more than one attack per round (not an
    unreasonable expectation, especially if they don't pursue TWF) they get
    this bonus on a lot of their attacks.

    And stacking with Weapon Finesse. Between the two, expect to see Rogues
    with +5 or +6 (or better) on most of their attacks. On top of the +6 or
    better BAB.


    Keith
    --
    Keith Davies "Trying to sway him from his current kook-
    keith.davies@kjdavies.org rant with facts is like trying to create
    keith.davies@gmail.com a vacuum in a room by pushing the air
    http://www.kjdavies.org/ out with your hands." -- Matt Frisch
  8. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    In article <slrndcn892.q56.keith.davies@kjdavies.org>,
    keith.davies@kjdavies.org says...

    > > In article <1120602905.400691.197950@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
    > > forumite@netzero.com says...
    > >
    > >> Too powerful for a feat.
    > >
    > > Might be.
    >
    > Gerald is Players' Advocate.
    >
    > If Gerald says it's too powerful, there's a good chance he's right. I'd
    > certainly want to look closer before disagreeing.

    Heh, very true. :)

    As I've (vaguely) mentioned at the beginning, I didn't quite think this
    through completely, it was an off-hand idea in another thread, and I
    wanted to see what other people thought about it.

    I still like the concept, but it might be better off as a PrC ability
    where it can be balanced in a package with the other stuff the class
    would get.

    > >> Rogues salivate to use in conjunction with Weapon Finesse
    > >> since they're highly likely to have a high IN score as well for the
    > >> plethora of skill points.
    > >
    > > How high is "high"? IME, the typical rogue Int is 14.
    >
    > 15, IME. The extra point of Int isn't that expensive,

    Well, 2 points... might be the difference between Con 12 and Con 14, for
    example.

    > and (if following
    > core rules) you don't get skill points for bumping Int after first
    > level. So, most rogues I see start with Int 15, bring Dex down a little
    > (16 or 17, maybe) and bump that later.

    What does Int 15 get them? It's still +2 modifier, just like 14, so if
    they don't bump Int later, those are 2 pretty much wasted points.

    If they do, they're (as you note) not getting the skill points
    retroactively, so again, wastage occurs...

    IME, most rogues go with 14. They want the skill points, it's too much
    of an investment to go with 16, and going with 15 and increasing it
    later gives you that nagging feeling that you're not getting all you
    should.


    --
    Jasin Zujovic
    jzujovic@inet.hr
  9. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Jasin Zujovic wrote:
    > In article <1120602905.400691.197950@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
    > forumite@netzero.com says...
    >
    > > Too powerful for a feat.
    >
    > Might be.
    >
    > > Consider that a paladin's smite is limited
    > > uses per day. A Destruction Domain cleric can only smite once a day.
    >
    > A paladin's Cha is his primary stat, pretty much. Not so for Int for...
    > well, anyone who regularly makes melee attacks (except perhaps eldritch
    > knights, who might indeed find the feat a bit too nice...)
    >

    My examples was just comparison, not that smiting utilizing IN, which I
    know it doesn't. The points was to show that other class abilities
    adding a non-ST modifier to attack rolls have it done in a limited
    amount of times per day where as your proposed Feat is unlimited.

    > > Even though they give bonus to damage as well and your feat does not,
    > > they are still getting a bonus to hit. Weapon Focus is for one
    > > particular weapon.
    >
    > That's not a big limitation, IME. Most people only use one melee weapon
    > and one ranged weapon. You could easily limit Cunning Attack to one
    > weapon too.
    >

    I like another poster's idea to have the Feat allow the character to
    use his IN modifier for attack rolls instead of ST. Combat Expertise
    is no longer a needed prerequisite, I would think. Limiting Cunning
    Attack to one weapon and to be used instead of ST modifier makes it on
    par with Weapon Finesse.

    > > Wizards who like to use a lot of touch spells will take it.
    >
    > ... at 12th level, after taking Combat Expertise.
    >

    Harm spell doesn't come into play until 11th level, and that still
    causes problems for some despite 3.5 improvement. Having something
    come in a the higher levels is not necessarily enough of a balance
    factor. It can be, just not automatically be.

    > I don't thing it's the pure wizards who can munch this feat the most.
    >
    > > Ditto clerics.
    >
    > Clerics? An Int feat that requires Combat Expertise? How high an Int
    > does these clerics have?
    >

    Why must clerics have low to average IN?

    > > Rogues salivate to use in conjunction with Weapon Finesse
    > > since they're highly likely to have a high IN score as well for the
    > > plethora of skill points.
    >
    > How high is "high"? IME, the typical rogue Int is 14. So he's getting +2
    > to one attack instead of +1 to all of them (from Weapon Focus). Sure, he
    > could *also* take Weapon Focus, but a rogue doesn't exactly have an
    > unlimited supply of feat slots, and there are so many things to take...
    >

    He only gets +1 to all attacks for one weapon only. This Feat is
    useful for any weapon. Some rogues will go for 16 or 18 IN, even if
    it's higher than DX. Weapon Finesse allows the rogue to use his DX
    modifier instead of ST to all attack for one weapon only. This Feat
    would stack with that. Limiting Cunning Attack to one weapon and using
    IN instead of ST should also be clarified that it does not stack with
    Weapon Finesse. Cunning Attack is then Weapon Finesse Feat using IN
    instead DX. That is fine for a Feat.

    > > A fighter has more incentive to dedicate
    > > Intelligence as a non-dump stat, but the Feat is not attrctive to them
    > > as to the previously mentioned.
    >
    > I think it's just as attractive to fighters as it is to rogues and
    > wizards, and much more than to clerics.
    >
    >

    Perhaps, but then that's more evidence against passing the "will
    everyone take this test".

    > --
    > Jasin Zujovic
    > jzujovic@inet.hr

    Gerald Katz
  10. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Keith Davies wrote:
    > Jasin Zujovic <jzujovic@inet.hr> wrote:
    > > In article <1120602905.400691.197950@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
    > > forumite@netzero.com says...
    > >
    > >> Too powerful for a feat.
    > >
    > > Might be.
    >
    > Gerald is Players' Advocate.
    >
    > If Gerald says it's too powerful, there's a good chance he's right. I'd
    > certainly want to look closer before disagreeing.
    >

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    Gerald Katz
  11. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Lorenz.Lang@gmx.de wrote:
    > Just add:
    > "You must use the full attack action to use this feat."
    >

    That helps a little but ...

    > If still considered too powerful, how about always giving the bonus
    > to the last attack as follows:
    > "You can add your Int modifier to the melee attack (normal or touch)
    > with the lowest base attack bonus for the round."
    >
    > Reasoning: You trick the opponent into a weak position over the
    > course of your former attack(s) during your turn...
    >
    > LL

    If your BAB is between +6 to +10, this Feat goes a long way in negating
    the -5 to hit on your second attack. Still too good.

    >From BAB 11+, you're offsetting the -10 to hit and later the -15 to
    hit, for the warriors. Sure, a couple of extra pluses to that roll
    doesn't hurt, but you're still at a more significant minus. The Feat,
    with this change, becomes too weak over time.

    Gerald Katz
  12. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Jasin Zujovic <jzujovic@inet.hr> wrote:
    > In article <slrndcn892.q56.keith.davies@kjdavies.org>,
    > keith.davies@kjdavies.org says...
    >
    >> > In article <1120602905.400691.197950@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
    >> > forumite@netzero.com says...
    >> >
    >> >> Rogues salivate to use in conjunction with Weapon Finesse
    >> >> since they're highly likely to have a high IN score as well for the
    >> >> plethora of skill points.
    >> >
    >> > How high is "high"? IME, the typical rogue Int is 14.
    >>
    >> 15, IME. The extra point of Int isn't that expensive,
    >
    > Well, 2 points... might be the difference between Con 12 and Con 14,
    > for example.

    Hit points will go up when you bump Con, skill points won't go up when
    you bump Int. RAW, at least. Most rogues I've seen like to get their
    Int up as far as they (reasonably) can at first level.

    >> and (if following
    >> core rules) you don't get skill points for bumping Int after first
    >> level. So, most rogues I see start with Int 15, bring Dex down a little
    >> (16 or 17, maybe) and bump that later.
    >
    > What does Int 15 get them? It's still +2 modifier, just like 14, so if
    > they don't bump Int later, those are 2 pretty much wasted points.

    16, then (sleepy last night, you're right)

    > IME, most rogues go with 14. They want the skill points, it's too much
    > of an investment to go with 16, and going with 15 and increasing it
    > later gives you that nagging feeling that you're not getting all you
    > should.

    Right, I meant 16.

    No, wait -- I was taking the *mean*. That's it. About half go with Int
    14, half go with Int 16. Yeah.


    Keith
    --
    Keith Davies "Trying to sway him from his current kook-
    keith.davies@kjdavies.org rant with facts is like trying to create
    keith.davies@gmail.com a vacuum in a room by pushing the air
    http://www.kjdavies.org/ out with your hands." -- Matt Frisch
  13. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Jasin Zujovic <jzujovic@inet.hr> wrote in
    news:MPG.1d350e876055306e98974f@news.iskon.hr:

    > I quickly thought up this feat and posted it in another thread
    > (UA bloodlines and paragons), but then I thought I'd start a new
    > thread to see what people who didn't read that thread thought.
    >
    > CUNNING ATTACK [GENERAL]
    > Prerequisites: Int 13, Combat Expertise, base attack bonus +6.
    > Benefit: Once per round, you can add your Int modifier to one
    > melee attack (normal or touch).
    > Special: A fighter may select Cunning Attack as one of his
    > fighter bonus feats.
    >
    > Comments? The original version had a BAB requirement of +1, but
    > that makes it better than Weapon Focus for anyone with Int 14+.
    > BAB +6 ensures you're not getting the bonus to all of you
    > attacks.

    It's a bit good. A combat-oriented wizard might use this with
    devastating effect on his ray attacks. I think most monks would
    take this too. What about high-Int monsters like dragons - I can
    see them using this on their bite attacks. What sort of bonus is
    granted?

    Is the bonus to attack or damage or both?

    Also, doesn't this sort of duplicate the effect of a successful
    Feint without the Bluff skill check? Combining the two as is could
    be devastating.

    I think that rewarding the high-Int fighter is a good idea, but
    I'd suggest putting it a little further down the Feat Tree. How
    about:

    CUNNING ATTACK (GENERAL):
    Prerequisites: Weapon Specialisation, Improved Feint, BAB +6
    Benefit: On a successful feint, you can make a Full Attack
    sequence against your opponent who loses his Dex bonus to AC for a
    number of attacks against that opponent equal to your Int bonus,
    for that turn only. This includes Attacks of Opportunity.
    Special: A fighter may select Cunning Attack as one of his fighter
    bonus feats.

    Normally, feinting is a move-equivalent action, so you can only
    make one attack afterwards anyway.

    Example: Thog has BAB +8/+3 and Int 14 but has an item which gives
    him +2 Enhancement bonus to Int, so he's effectively Int 16.

    Thog is fighting a Dex 16 ogre and successfully Bluffs the ogre,
    so the ogre loses his +3 Dex bonus against both Thog's attacks.
    The ogre then twice provokes an attack of opportunity, but only
    loses its Dex bonus on the first (being Thog's third attack).

    Simpler alternatives might be a plain +4 to your Bluff check or
    being able to Feint as a free action, in which cases I'd drop the
    Weapon Specialisation pre-requisite.
  14. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    In article <Xns968BC4ED98296stqstqstq@130.133.1.4>,
    stq@stq.gro.ku.invalid says...

    > > I quickly thought up this feat and posted it in another thread
    > > (UA bloodlines and paragons), but then I thought I'd start a new
    > > thread to see what people who didn't read that thread thought.
    > >
    > > CUNNING ATTACK [GENERAL]
    > > Prerequisites: Int 13, Combat Expertise, base attack bonus +6.
    > > Benefit: Once per round, you can add your Int modifier to one
    > > melee attack (normal or touch).
    > > Special: A fighter may select Cunning Attack as one of his
    > > fighter bonus feats.
    > >
    > > Comments? The original version had a BAB requirement of +1, but
    > > that makes it better than Weapon Focus for anyone with Int 14+.
    > > BAB +6 ensures you're not getting the bonus to all of you
    > > attacks.
    >
    > It's a bit good.

    Seems so.

    > A combat-oriented wizard might use this with
    > devastating effect on his ray attacks.

    "... one melee attack (normal or touch)."

    And if wizards and touch attacks are the main worry, it's easy enough to
    limit it to attack or full attack only, so no spellcasting.

    > I think most monks would take this too.

    Again, different groups, apparently: IME, monks tend to have Int 10.
    They get 4 skill points, but they don't have that many vital skills, and
    they don't have the attack bonus to make Combat Expertise a very
    attractive choice.

    > What about high-Int monsters like dragons - I can
    > see them using this on their bite attacks.

    Ow. I wasn't thinking about that at all.

    > What sort of bonus is granted?

    Untyped was my original though.

    > Is the bonus to attack or damage or both?

    Attack only.


    --
    Jasin Zujovic
    jzujovic@inet.hr
  15. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Quentin Stephens <stq@stq.gro.ku.invalid> wrote:
    >
    > CUNNING ATTACK (GENERAL):
    > Prerequisites: Weapon Specialisation, Improved Feint, BAB +6
    > Benefit: On a successful feint, you can make a Full Attack
    > sequence against your opponent who loses his Dex bonus to AC for a
    > number of attacks against that opponent equal to your Int bonus,
    > for that turn only. This includes Attacks of Opportunity.
    > Special: A fighter may select Cunning Attack as one of his fighter
    > bonus feats.

    Weapon Specialization doesn't really have a place here, I think -- this
    ability isn't particularly tied to a single weapon, nor to Fighter
    class.

    > Normally, feinting is a move-equivalent action, so you can only
    > make one attack afterwards anyway.
    >
    > Example: Thog has BAB +8/+3 and Int 14 but has an item which gives
    > him +2 Enhancement bonus to Int, so he's effectively Int 16.
    >
    > Thog is fighting a Dex 16 ogre and successfully Bluffs the ogre,
    > so the ogre loses his +3 Dex bonus against both Thog's attacks.
    > The ogre then twice provokes an attack of opportunity, but only
    > loses its Dex bonus on the first (being Thog's third attack).
    >
    > Simpler alternatives might be a plain +4 to your Bluff check or
    > being able to Feint as a free action, in which cases I'd drop the
    > Weapon Specialisation pre-requisite.

    Make it a swift action rather than free (free action, you could do it
    for each attack). Thus, perhaps:

    Cunning Attack
    Prereq: Combat Expertise, Improved Feint, BAB +6, Int 13+,
    Bluff 4+ ranks [, Skill Focus(Bluff)]
    Benefit: You can make a Bluff check to feint in combat as a swift
    action.
    Normal: Feinting in combat is a standard action.
    Special: A fighter may select Cunning Attack as one of his fighter
    bonus feats.

    This limits it to a single attack per round. Skill Focus(Bluff) is
    marked as an optional prereq, if this feat is seen as a little too much.
    I also added a Bluff prereq (which might not be particularly meaningful
    here, since you wouldn't take this feat unless you were decent at Bluff
    anyway).


    Keith
    --
    Keith Davies "Trying to sway him from his current kook-
    keith.davies@kjdavies.org rant with facts is like trying to create
    keith.davies@gmail.com a vacuum in a room by pushing the air
    http://www.kjdavies.org/ out with your hands." -- Matt Frisch
  16. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Jasin Zujovic <jzujovic@inet.hr> wrote in
    news:MPG.1d36583d45293dd7989761@news.iskon.hr:

    > In article <Xns968BC4ED98296stqstqstq@130.133.1.4>,
    > stq@stq.gro.ku.invalid says...
    >
    >> > I quickly thought up this feat and posted it in another
    >> > thread (UA bloodlines and paragons), but then I thought I'd
    >> > start a new thread to see what people who didn't read that
    >> > thread thought.
    >> >
    >> > CUNNING ATTACK [GENERAL]
    >> > Prerequisites: Int 13, Combat Expertise, base attack bonus
    >> > +6. Benefit: Once per round, you can add your Int modifier to
    >> > one melee attack (normal or touch).
    >> > Special: A fighter may select Cunning Attack as one of his
    >> > fighter bonus feats.
    >> >
    >> > Comments? The original version had a BAB requirement of +1,
    >> > but that makes it better than Weapon Focus for anyone with
    >> > Int 14+. BAB +6 ensures you're not getting the bonus to all
    >> > of you attacks.
    >>
    >> It's a bit good.
    >
    > Seems so.
    >
    >> A combat-oriented wizard might use this with
    >> devastating effect on his ray attacks.
    >
    > "... one melee attack (normal or touch)."

    A spellcaster casting a spell doesn't count as a normal attack?

    > And if wizards and touch attacks are the main worry, it's easy
    > enough to limit it to attack or full attack only, so no
    > spellcasting.
    >
    >> I think most monks would take this too.
    >
    > Again, different groups, apparently: IME, monks tend to have Int
    > 10. They get 4 skill points, but they don't have that many vital
    > skills, and they don't have the attack bonus to make Combat
    > Expertise a very attractive choice.

    Were you to introduce this feat the way you suggest, then I think
    you might see higher Int monks. That's not necessarily a bad
    thing.

    >> What about high-Int monsters like dragons - I can
    >> see them using this on their bite attacks.
    >
    > Ow. I wasn't thinking about that at all.

    :)

    Unfortunately one has to look at how a proposed feat can be
    abused. This is where we can help :)

    >> What sort of bonus is granted?
    >
    > Untyped was my original though.

    I'm not sure why, but I don't like untyped bonuses.

    >> Is the bonus to attack or damage or both?
    >
    > Attack only.

    I must say that you have a good idea, but I think that making it
    an advanced feint seems better.
  17. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    In article <1120688847.083706.242720@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
    forumite@netzero.com says...

    > > > Ditto clerics.
    > >
    > > Clerics? An Int feat that requires Combat Expertise? How high an Int
    > > does these clerics have?
    >
    > Why must clerics have low to average IN?

    It's not that they must, it's just that they do. IME at least.

    > > > A fighter has more incentive to dedicate
    > > > Intelligence as a non-dump stat, but the Feat is not attrctive to them
    > > > as to the previously mentioned.
    > >
    > > I think it's just as attractive to fighters as it is to rogues and
    > > wizards, and much more than to clerics.
    >
    > Perhaps, but then that's more evidence against passing the "will
    > everyone take this test".

    I have been convinced it's too much, as written, but I still don't think
    everyone would take it.


    --
    Jasin Zujovic
    jzujovic@inet.hr
  18. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    In article <Xns968CA45CF903stqstqstq@130.133.1.4>,
    stq@stq.gro.ku.invalid says...

    > >> A combat-oriented wizard might use this with
    > >> devastating effect on his ray attacks.
    > >
    > > "... one melee attack (normal or touch)."
    >
    > A spellcaster casting a spell doesn't count as a normal attack?

    A spellcaster casting a *ray* spell doesn't count as one *melee* attack.


    --
    Jasin Zujovic
    jzujovic@inet.hr
  19. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Keith Davies <keith.davies@kjdavies.org> wrote in
    news:slrndcos00.for.keith.davies@kjdavies.org:

    >> Simpler alternatives might be a plain +4 to your Bluff check or
    >> being able to Feint as a free action, in which cases I'd drop
    >> the Weapon Specialisation pre-requisite.
    >
    > Make it a swift action rather than free (free action, you could
    > do it for each attack). Thus, perhaps:

    What's a swift action? I can't spot it in the SRD. I presume this
    means that the user gets his full attack afterwards but the user
    can only make one. For this limited benefit, I'd definitely drop
    the Skill Focus requirement.

    Having thought about it, getting a full attack sequence, which
    could be 8 attacks, is a bit much.

    I think making CA a free action is a bit better, so you can do it
    before every attack, but there needs to be some penalty - how
    about -2 per consecutive Bluff?

    Good call on the Weapon Specialisation, BTW.
  20. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Jasin Zujovic wrote:
    > I quickly thought up this feat and posted it in another thread (UA
    > bloodlines and paragons), but then I thought I'd start a new thread to
    > see what people who didn't read that thread thought.
    >
    > CUNNING ATTACK [GENERAL]
    > Prerequisites: Int 13, Combat Expertise, base attack bonus +6.
    > Benefit: Once per round, you can add your Int modifier to one melee
    > attack (normal or touch).
    > Special: A fighter may select Cunning Attack as one of his fighter bonus
    > feats.

    The feat is way too powerful. I'm surprised no one has yet pointed out
    the most obvious brokenness with it: Polymorph-based builds. Especially
    Egoist Psions.

    Laszlo
  21. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Keith Davies wrote:

    > >
    > > Compare it with Whirlwind attack: one attack at full BAB against
    > > all opponents within reach.
    >
    > Against their full AC, with *no Sneak Attack*.
    >
    > There's a reason you only get one Sneak Attack per round.
    >
    > Keith
    > --
    >

    That's not entirely true. A rogue making a full attack while flanking
    does sneak attack damage for each attack. Ditto benefiting from
    Greater Invisibility. If a rogue happens to have whirlwind attack and
    all opponents are flat-footed, he gets sneak attack damage against all
    opponents on his whirlwind attack because they are all denied their DX
    bonus to AC.

    Gerald Katz
  22. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Quentin Stephens wrote:
    > Keith Davies <keith.davies@kjdavies.org> wrote in

    > > Allowing a Rog20 to get potentially +10d6 points of damage *on
    > > every attack* seems reasonably balanced to you?
    >
    > No - I wouldn't allow sneak attack damage. I'm not sure you can have
    > sneak attack damage with a basic feint anyway.
    >

    Yes, you can. That's the whole point of a rogue feinting in the first
    place. The rogue feints as a standard action. If succesesful, his
    opponent is denied his DX bonus on the rogue's next attack, ergo the
    rogue does sneak attack damage. Improved Feint Feat makes the feint
    attempt a move-equivalent action, but if successful the target is again
    denied his DX bonus, hence the rogue gets to use sneak attack.

    Gerald Katz
  23. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Hadsil <forumite@netzero.com> wrote:
    >
    >
    > Keith Davies wrote:
    >
    >> >
    >> > Compare it with Whirlwind attack: one attack at full BAB against
    >> > all opponents within reach.
    >>
    >> Against their full AC, with *no Sneak Attack*.
    >>
    >> There's a reason you only get one Sneak Attack per round.
    >
    > That's not entirely true. A rogue making a full attack while flanking
    > does sneak attack damage for each attack.

    He does? I thought there was a limit on the number of sneak attacks you
    can make in a single turn. I may have misremembered.


    Keith
    --
    Keith Davies "Trying to sway him from his current kook-
    keith.davies@kjdavies.org rant with facts is like trying to create
    keith.davies@gmail.com a vacuum in a room by pushing the air
    http://www.kjdavies.org/ out with your hands." -- Matt Frisch
  24. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    "Hadsil" <forumite@netzero.com> wrote in
    news:1120779553.546151.239890@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

    >
    >
    > Quentin Stephens wrote:
    >> Keith Davies <keith.davies@kjdavies.org> wrote in
    >
    >> > Allowing a Rog20 to get potentially +10d6 points of damage
    >> > *on every attack* seems reasonably balanced to you?
    >>
    >> No - I wouldn't allow sneak attack damage. I'm not sure you can
    >> have sneak attack damage with a basic feint anyway.
    >>
    >
    > Yes, you can. That's the whole point of a rogue feinting in the
    > first place. The rogue feints as a standard action. If
    > succesesful, his opponent is denied his DX bonus on the rogue's
    > next attack, ergo the rogue does sneak attack damage.

    Well, it appears that I've been doing it wrong and thus you can
    ignore all the stuff I've written in this thread.
  25. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    In article <slrndcseic.h5f.keith.davies@kjdavies.org>,
    Keith Davies <keith.davies@kjdavies.org> wrote:

    > I've since been told that, should you be a rogue and catch someone
    > flatfooted, you can indeed get sneak attack damage on every attack of a
    > full attack action. Similarly for Whirlwind Attack, should you have
    > this feat (everyone denied Dex or flanked gets sneak attack damage).
    >
    > That seems absolutely *obscene* to me.

    It looks worse than it is. People have run the numbers in the past, and
    against appropriate opponents rogues are competitive with fighters if
    they get their Sneak Attack damage but they certainly do not outclass
    them greatly. When they don't get Sneak Attacks, they aren't even close.

    Which is what you want, really. Rogues should be able to compete with
    fighters under those circumstances.

    --
    Kevin Lowe,
    Tasmania.
  26. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Keith Davies wrote:
    > Hadsil <forumite@netzero.com> wrote:
    > >
    > >
    > > Keith Davies wrote:
    > >
    > >> >
    > >> > Compare it with Whirlwind attack: one attack at full BAB against
    > >> > all opponents within reach.
    > >>
    > >> Against their full AC, with *no Sneak Attack*.
    > >>
    > >> There's a reason you only get one Sneak Attack per round.
    > >
    > > That's not entirely true. A rogue making a full attack while flanking
    > > does sneak attack damage for each attack.
    >
    > He does? I thought there was a limit on the number of sneak attacks you
    > can make in a single turn. I may have misremembered.
    >
    >
    > Keith
    > --
    >

    No offense intended ...

    Are you mixing in your home made campaign sneak attack feat tree or
    similar in regards to this?

    Gerald Katz
  27. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Kevin Lowe wrote:
    > It looks worse than it is. People have run the numbers in the past, and
    > against appropriate opponents rogues are competitive with fighters if
    > they get their Sneak Attack damage but they certainly do not outclass
    > them greatly. When they don't get Sneak Attacks, they aren't even close.
    >
    > Which is what you want, really. Rogues should be able to compete with
    > fighters under those circumstances.
    >
    > --
    > Kevin Lowe,
    > Tasmania.

    My group had to convince our rogue player just how effective in combat
    he really could be. He kept using his wand of fireball instead of
    getting in there and flank. Once he realized what he could really do
    in combat, he goes for the flank as he should as well as use Improve
    Feint. He'll still use the wand - it's his favorite magic item - but
    he uses it less often, for which we're all greatful ;). We gave him
    the nickname of "fireball on a stick".

    Gerald Katz
  28. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Kevin Lowe wrote:
    > In article <slrndcseic.h5f.keith.davies@kjdavies.org>,
    > Keith Davies <keith.davies@kjdavies.org> wrote:
    >
    > > I've since been told that, should you be a rogue and catch someone
    > > flatfooted, you can indeed get sneak attack damage on every attack of a
    > > full attack action. Similarly for Whirlwind Attack, should you have
    > > this feat (everyone denied Dex or flanked gets sneak attack damage).
    > >
    > > That seems absolutely *obscene* to me.
    >
    > It looks worse than it is. People have run the numbers in the past, and
    > against appropriate opponents rogues are competitive with fighters if
    > they get their Sneak Attack damage but they certainly do not outclass
    > them greatly. When they don't get Sneak Attacks, they aren't even close.

    If the fighter is a 1-hd weapon and shield type the Rogue wins
    handily on damage done, even if he is also 1-hd weapon and
    shield type. (Especially true if we give them the same ability
    scores, the Rogue can do surprisingly well with a fighter type
    ability set.)

    But consider the more likely two-handed fighting builds:
    A level 20 fighter with 26 strength, a +5 Greatsword, and the
    specialization chain of feats hits at +35/+30/+25/+20 for
    2d6+21 damage. Assuming improved critical she does 33.6 damage
    per hit.

    The equivelent two-shortsword fighting rogue with 26 dex,
    14 str, duel +4 and +3 short swords, weapon finesse, focus,
    and improved critical with his short swords, and the two-weapon
    fighting chain of feats hits at +26/+25/+21/+20/+16/+15 for
    1d6+6+10d6 or 1d6+4+10d6. Averaging his attacks he does 45.2
    per hit (noticably more), and he gets 50% more attacks!

    So at first glance the rogue looks a lot better. He does over
    twice as much damage if everything hits. He has used 6 feats
    to only 5 for the fighter, but that's minor. Let's use the
    one extra feat for the fighter for power attack and assume
    that feats have the same value to both classes... (They
    don't, the fighter has 11 more feats than the rogue and is
    in a far better position to spend 6 on melee combat feats.)

    The fighter gets +27.5 to hit on average, and the rogue is
    only +20.5, so if the fighter power attacks for roughly 7
    points she gets about the same hit chance, and power attack
    for seven points brings her average damage up to 50.4 points
    per hit. The rogue is down to doing 271.2 damage to 201.6
    damage if everything hits. Good but not all that great.
    (Basically 4:3 in terms of damage).

    But I'm assuming everybody gets to full attack every round,
    which is unlikely given that the rogue has to move into
    a flanking position (if the target is mobile he may have to
    move every round to get a flank). If we compare single
    attacks the rogue attacks once at +28 for 46.4 damage, but
    the fighter hits once at +35 for 33.6 damage, if she power
    attacks to get the same hit chance (+7 again) she does 50.4
    again, which actually outdamages the Rogue.

    Bottom line, if the foe is vulnerable to sneak attacks, the
    rogue will outdamage a comparable fighter build right up
    until the target either moves or kills the rogue. But he
    doesn't outdamage the fighter by enough to wreck the
    game balance by any means and if you give an actual AC the
    odds are the fighter can do better than what I just posted
    by adjusting the Power Attack.

    DougL
  29. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Kevin Lowe <me@private.net> wrote:
    > In article <slrndcseic.h5f.keith.davies@kjdavies.org>,
    > Keith Davies <keith.davies@kjdavies.org> wrote:
    >
    >> I've since been told that, should you be a rogue and catch someone
    >> flatfooted, you can indeed get sneak attack damage on every attack of a
    >> full attack action. Similarly for Whirlwind Attack, should you have
    >> this feat (everyone denied Dex or flanked gets sneak attack damage).
    >>
    >> That seems absolutely *obscene* to me.
    >
    > It looks worse than it is. People have run the numbers in the past,
    > and against appropriate opponents rogues are competitive with fighters
    > if they get their Sneak Attack damage but they certainly do not
    > outclass them greatly. When they don't get Sneak Attacks, they aren't
    > even close.
    >
    > Which is what you want, really. Rogues should be able to compete with
    > fighters under those circumstances.

    Oh, I agree -- under the right circumstances they should be able to.
    Fighters should be able to outdo them handily, but if things happen
    right...

    Not having run the numbers, though... it still doesn't seem right.

    Ah well. I'll accept it.

    Leave Cunning Attack as being a swift action still sets better with me.
    Normally the Happy Multiple Sneak Attack requires the targets to do
    something wrong (get flanked/denied Dex/surround rogue); Cunning Attack
    allows the rogue to force someone to be denied Dex. I'd still rather
    see that happen only once per round.


    Keith
    --
    Keith Davies "Trying to sway him from his current kook-
    keith.davies@kjdavies.org rant with facts is like trying to create
    keith.davies@gmail.com a vacuum in a room by pushing the air
    http://www.kjdavies.org/ out with your hands." -- Matt Frisch
  30. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    "Keith Davies" <keith.davies@kjdavies.org> wrote in message
    news:slrndcseic.h5f.keith.davies@kjdavies.org...
    > Quentin Stephens <stq@stq.gro.ku.invalid> wrote:
    > I've since been told that, should you be a rogue and catch someone
    > flatfooted, you can indeed get sneak attack damage on every attack of a
    > full attack action. Similarly for Whirlwind Attack, should you have
    > this feat (everyone denied Dex or flanked gets sneak attack damage).
    >
    > That seems absolutely *obscene* to me.

    Only because you haven't done the math. A full-attacking sneak-attacking
    rogue (ie; flanking) has a damage output that is essentially only "on par"
    with that of a fighter's full attack in the same situation.


    -Michael
  31. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    "Keith Davies" <keith.davies@kjdavies.org> wrote in message
    news:slrndcusi1.kkg.keith.davies@kjdavies.org...
    > Michael Scott Brown <mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote:
    > IOW, I no longer have a problem with allowing it. I still don't like
    > giving out a free action goodie, though.

    Neither do I. Flank or go home.

    -Michael
Ask a new question

Read More

Games Video Games