Banning instead of errata

[Clovenhoof]

Well, as I have just again experienced, PA is pretty much the only good way for a Str fighter to vary his fighting style. In other words, a Str fighter without PA will just keep rolling and doing pretty much always the same damage no matter if he catches his opponent with their pants down or not. The extra-high BAB of a Fighter class does nothing for you either.

So in other words, PA is very important for the game, and banning it would make combat very boring for Str fighters. So it needs to stay in effect. However, making it an open Maneuver instead of a feat would of course be possible, thereby also making the Special Attack feats more easily accessible.

 

[Demetrio]

If only one attack plus one AoO per round is too big a nerf for the d20 greatsword then I'd suggest halving the number of attacks permitted - both normal and AoOs (and still not allowing Cleave attacks). Otherwise it is only penalised at 11th level or higher.

 

[treeplanter]

make sense

 

[Ichabod]

Well, as I have just again experienced, PA is pretty much the only good way for a Str fighter to vary his fighting style. In other words, a Str fighter without PA will just keep rolling and doing pretty much always the same damage no matter if he catches his opponent with their pants down or not. The extra-high BAB of a Fighter class does nothing for you either.

So in other words, PA is very important for the game, and banning it would make combat very boring for Str fighters. So it needs to stay in effect. However, making it an open Maneuver instead of a feat would of course be possible, thereby also making the Special Attack feats more easily accessible.

How often do you see PC bull rushes, grapples, sunders, trips - options open to everybody? I pretty much never see any of those because it's so much easier killing someone than wasting time with any of that crap. Make it harder to kill stuff and maybe they become relevant. Which, in turn, can see PCs put feats into doing these things well.

Meanwhile, deciding how much Combat Expertise to use and deciding whether to fight defensively come up all of the time for our group.

So, I don't see it being as mindless as it sounds. That doesn't mean I think combat should be a grind or last more than 3 rounds (outside of dramatic duels and surviving overwhelming force scenarios).

 

[Clovenhoof]

Yeah, I did consider trying a Special Attack, specifically Bull Rush would have been fitting, but I thought What the hell, they're 1st-level mooks and it's easier to hit them, with the chance of killing them outright, than to Bull Rush them (off the ship and into the water; however right at the mooring so they wouldn't have drowned) and probably having to deal with them again anyway.

If that fight had taken place on the open sea, and each mook would take two or three hits, then Bullrushing them once instead of trying to hit them several times would have been a better idea.

Come to think of it, question:
Greater Combat Reflexes gives you an AoO on any opponent that attacks and misses you. Does that also trigger when the incoming attack is an AoO itself?
Let's stay with the example and say you want to Bullrush someone and he's not flatfooted, so he gets an AoO on you. If he misses, do you get to attack him before actually Bullrushing him?

 

[Demetrio]

Hmm... I'd say you get the option to either take an AoO or carry on with the Bull Rush. But if you take the AoO you forfeit the Bull Rush attempt and may only attack normally when it's your turn.

I can see it being justifiable to argue it just about every way though...

 

[Vambelte]

First I would like to say that I have beeing reading this forum since 2005. I'm not sure why I've never posted before, but I'll start doing that now

About banning PA or 2h weapons, well I've done some changes, some of I'll list here, that made 2handers and PA aceptable in my game.

First off I've banned bill, bardiche and pollaxe, as I don't think they fit the scenario, and some are ultra over for their price. Changed great sword crit to x2, and tulwar to 19-20x2. (I've shortened the pike a bit, to 10ft reach, but this is another matter)

As for Power attack, I made it +1 damage/-1 hit, for 1 hander, +3 damage/-2 hit, for 2hander, limited by BAB as usual, but you must use at least half your BAB (rounded up) if you apply PA to your attack.

Also I've created Improved Power attack, that requires PA and BAB6+, and gives +3/-2 for 1hander and +2/-1 for 2hander, whit the same rules as power attack.

I have also made the fort DC, for damages of 20+, as 5+1/2damage.

Those changes make PA whit 2handers more acepptable, forcing a bigger penality to hit you will see more misses. 2 feats is a heavy cost for a barbarian, and the improved PA also helps 1hander a bit more. And, finally, I've never allowed my players to enjoy a great sword, or a tulwar, in low levels, before lvl7-8.

 

[Trodax]

First I would like to say that I have beeing reading this forum since 2005. I'm not sure why I've never posted before, but I'll start doing that now

Welcome aboard!

First off I've banned bill, bardiche and pollaxe, as I don't think they fit the scenario, and some are ultra over for their price. Changed great sword crit to x2, and tulwar to 19-20x2. (I've shortened the pike a bit, to 10ft reach, but this is another matter)

As for Power attack, I made it +1 damage/-1 hit, for 1 hander, +3 damage/-2 hit, for 2hander, limited by BAB as usual, but you must use at least half your BAB (rounded up) if you apply PA to your attack.

Also I've created Improved Power attack, that requires PA and BAB6+, and gives +3/-2 for 1hander and +2/-1 for 2hander, whit the same rules as power attack.

This all sounds quite reasonable. I like it.

Just to clarify, to see if I got this right. With your houserule, if you have BAB +6, a two-handed weapon and Power Attack (not the Improved version), then you have to use Power Attack at a minimum of -4 to hit/+6 damage, and you can use it at a maximum of -6 to hit/+9 damage. Is that right?

I have also made the fort DC, for damages of 20+, as 5+1/2damage.

I've thought about using exactly this houserule myself. Never did try it, though. Has it worked out well, does it make death by massive damage much more uncommon?

 

[Vambelte]

Just to clarify, to see if I got this right. With your houserule, if you have BAB +6, a two-handed weapon and Power Attack (not the Improved version), then you have to use Power Attack at a minimum of -4 to hit/+6 damage, and you can use it at a maximum of -6 to hit/+9 damage. Is that right?

Yes, it works just like that.


And about the massiv damage, yes, it makes droping down, both PCs and NPCs, less frequent, but the risk is still there, specialy on critical hits and other massive hits, such as thiefs sneak attacks, heavy blows whit power attack and mounted charges. It has beeing working really well, and it helps balance more, in favor of those dual wielding, 1 handing or whit a bow.

 

[Clovenhoof]

The important thing to keep in mind is, if you nerf Power Attack, you also need to nerf Sneak Attack. By RAW both are insanely powerful. A 10th-level character can have up to +7 dice Sneak Attack per hit, which already makes TWF _very_ viable, but it's pretty much on par with Power Attack.
Nerfing only PA will just mean that players concerned about dealing maximum damage will simply play Zingaran Pirates instead of Cimmerian Barbarians.

 

[treeplanter]

I think sneak attack is more circonstancial than Powerattack tough. also it is a class ability, not a feat. Pirate and thief are LOT more fragile than the barbarian and soldier. However I think you could allow only one sneak attack per round (like the first attack that hit) and it would be fine

 

[thulsa]

I have also made the fort DC, for damages of 20+, as 5+1/2damage.

I've thought about using exactly this houserule myself. Never did try it, though. Has it worked out well, does it make death by massive damage much more uncommon?

I have used this rule (DC = 5 + half damage) for a long time. Death by massive damage is still a threat to both PCs and NPCs, but it's no longer the insta-kill it used to be. (We have been playing in the character level 2-12 range.)

- thulsa

 

[Vambelte]

I think sneak attack is more circonstancial than Powerattack tough. also it is a class ability, not a feat. Pirate and thief are LOT more fragile than the barbarian and soldier. However I think you could allow only one sneak attack per round (like the first attack that hit) and it would be fine

I agree whit him. The best sneak comes from the thief, a class doesn't have a single defensive ability. If you get a pirate(bandit for me), he have way more defenses than the thief, but he have less sneak attack dices, and uses d6. You don't cleave whit sneak, you don't go trough armor whit SA. What sneakers usually do is a feint, but when you feint (whit improved feint) you can attack just once per round.

At least in my games, sneak attack isn't a problem.

I forgot to say that I give a penalty, to someon trying to feint the same opponent over and over. The penalty is -2, for the second atempt, -4 for the third, -8 for the fourth, and so on. I give the same penalty to someone using mounted combat, to avoid attacks on his mount.

 

[Clovenhoof]

Well, that's true in itself, but keep in mind that the Thief gets such enormous heaps of SA that 9 (or even 7) Thief levels are more than enough to pretty much guarantee Massive Damage on every Sneak hit. That leaves you more than enough room to add some class levels with defensive abilities. For instance, Dodge + Mobility feats + 5 levels Barb or Pirate --> Improved Mobility and Uncanny Dodge.

Note that I am all in all NOT in favour of nerfing every class, style and mechanism down to harmlessness, as some here seem to be aiming for. The game balance needs to warrant that PCs can triumph over their opposition most of the time, or at least survive, but I don't want to go back to those wars of attrition known from older games.

 

[Clovenhoof]

Today, our GM also has expressed his concern over extreme Sneak Attack at higher levels. He proposed the following houserule, which was unanimously accepted:

In the event of a Sneak Attack situation, only the first attack(s) at the highest Attack Bonus count as full Sneak Attack. All iterative attacks have a reduced effect, granting +1 damage per SA die.

I'm confident this will work out fine in the game; it nerfs SA power somewhat without totally denying the player his ability.

 

[treeplanter]

I forgot to say that I give a penalty, to someon trying to feint the same opponent over and over. The penalty is -2, for the second atempt, -4 for the third, -8 for the fourth, and so on. I give the same penalty to someone using mounted combat, to avoid attacks on his mount.

Yeah sounds great. this week-end I just denied the player the second feint against the same opponent cause it seem fine for me and he was somewhat upset. I guess a penality might be more appropriate but I tend to hate the player going "I do my feint then attack" over and over...