Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Feat: Cunning Attack

Last response: in Video Games
Share
Anonymous
July 6, 2005 2:39:53 AM

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

More about : feat cunning attack

Anonymous
July 6, 2005 2:39:54 AM

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
Anonymous
July 6, 2005 2:39:54 AM

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.
Anonymous
July 6, 2005 9:04:00 AM

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
Anonymous
July 6, 2005 12:18:33 PM

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.
Anonymous
July 6, 2005 1:09:51 PM

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
Anonymous
July 6, 2005 1:48:29 PM

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
Anonymous
July 6, 2005 1:48:30 PM

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
Anonymous
July 6, 2005 5:29:21 PM

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
Anonymous
July 6, 2005 7:27:27 PM

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
Anonymous
July 6, 2005 7:28:54 PM

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
Anonymous
July 6, 2005 7:38:00 PM

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
Anonymous
July 6, 2005 8:16:41 PM

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
Anonymous
July 6, 2005 10:21:31 PM

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.
Anonymous
July 7, 2005 2:06:40 AM

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
Anonymous
July 7, 2005 3:57:53 AM

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
Anonymous
July 7, 2005 4:00:35 AM

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.
Anonymous
July 7, 2005 5:10:01 AM

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
Anonymous
July 7, 2005 11:02:32 AM

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
Anonymous
July 7, 2005 11:29:55 AM

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.
Anonymous
July 7, 2005 3:53:19 PM

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
Anonymous
July 7, 2005 8:34:44 PM

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
Anonymous
July 7, 2005 8:39:13 PM

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
Anonymous
July 8, 2005 4:31:19 AM

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
Anonymous
July 8, 2005 11:12:04 AM

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.
Anonymous
July 8, 2005 4:28:31 PM

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.
Anonymous
July 8, 2005 7:33:59 PM

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
Anonymous
July 8, 2005 7:41:23 PM

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
Anonymous
July 8, 2005 8:25:54 PM

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
Anonymous
July 9, 2005 1:07:48 AM

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
Anonymous
July 9, 2005 9:56:38 AM

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
Anonymous
July 9, 2005 9:55:07 PM

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
!