Brutal Attack question

[Tenken]

Could someone clarify how this works for me? I mean it takes a full-attack action against a flat-footed foe. Is this feat ever worth taking? As far as I understand, flat-footed only applies during a surprise round and before the first action by a character.

What is the point of a feat that has so many prerequisites, takes away any multiple attacks, only allows for a five foot step, and can only--maybe--be used once per combat?

 

[Belkregos]

i think you can use it also if you feint an oponent, if you have improved or greater feint then it becomes more usefull
i think this feat was thought of for a pirate combining its sneak attack and ferocious attack,
not to mention sneak attack!! (also check this thread http://www.mongoosepublishing.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=6001&sid=36b87a609e00e5fcfd18a25c46a4e927 )
add Bruttal attack and nobody will want to stand before a pirete (at least at the start of combat :twisted: )

 

[Sutek]

No idea. I thought the same thing. If it were "denied parry or Dodge" it'd be viable.

 

[Tenken]

No idea. I thought the same thing. If it were "denied parry or Dodge" it'd be viable.

Exactly. And my GM hates altering any written rule.

 

[VincentDarlage]

If a character gains a surprise round, he gets a single action. He can use that to move into his foe, who is denied an attack of opportunity. If his initiative is high enough (higher than his foe), when regular combat starts, his foe may STILL be flat-footed (because he has not acted yet) and, with the full-attack action, the brutal attacker can clobber his foe.

 

[Belkregos]

If a character gains a surprise round, he gets a single action. He can use that to move into his foe, who is denied an attack of opportunity. If his initiative is high enough (higher than his foe), when regular combat starts, his foe may STILL be flat-footed (because he has not acted yet) and, with the full-attack action, the brutal attacker can clobber his foe.

couldn't he also use it with a feint?

 

[Hyborian Apeman]

If a character gains a surprise round, he gets a single action. He can use that to move into his foe, who is denied an attack of opportunity. If his initiative is high enough (higher than his foe), when regular combat starts, his foe may STILL be flat-footed (because he has not acted yet) and, with the full-attack action, the brutal attacker can clobber his foe.

couldn't he also use it with a feint?

I think so:

He fients, then moves into his opponents square.
Next round the defender is still flat-footed and, with a full attack action, the brutal attacker can clobber his foe.

 

[Voltumna]

This has been a topic of discussion in our group also. Feinted and flat footed is not the same thing, though the effects are similar or the same. So I would say this feat can not be used while feinted. Just consider: a character with a +4 strenght bonus already deals 12hp of damage just like that, +weapon damage and any other damage bonuses he might have, like sneak attack dice, weapon specialization, power attack, etc. It`s very mean to be allowed with a feint in any round.

Flat footed is only at the begining of combat, before one has time to react, or when surpraised, or totally unaware of someone (a sniper for instance). Feinted is someone tricked in combat who was actively defending himself.

As for if it`s woth taking the feat, it`s still a cool feat, specially for someone who doesn`t have sneak attack, but I am also hesitatnt to take feats that can be used only at the begining of combat.

 

[Tenken]

Thanks for the replies.

I suppose it's too bad that my GM only allows surprise rounds against us. I've played with him for many years and have never surprised an opponent.

 

[Voltumna]

If a character gains a surprise round, he gets a single action. He can use that to move into his foe, who is denied an attack of opportunity. If his initiative is high enough (higher than his foe), when regular combat starts, his foe may STILL be flat-footed (because he has not acted yet) and, with the full-attack action, the brutal attacker can clobber his foe.

couldn't he also use it with a feint?

I think so:

He fients, then moves into his opponents square.
Next round the defender is still flat-footed and, with a full attack action, the brutal attacker can clobber his foe.

Can some one once and for all clarify if feinted and flat footed are or are not the same thing? I think they are not, as posted previousle here by myself. That makes all the difference or none for the matter.

As I understand it feinted means denied dodge or parry bonus for the next attack of the feinter.

Flat footed means someone is denied his dexterity bonus, and dodge along the way, so he is subject to sneak attacks. But this has to happen before everyone has had a chance to act. After evryone already acted, there are no more flat footed characters, unless something would cause someone to disregard battle (let's say the woman in red is walking by, and you can't help turning your head). Flat footed is being used for a catchall term for situations when a character is subject to being sneak attacked, but all these different situations are circumstatial: flat footed, feinted, stuned, helpless does not mean the same, although all deny you defence bonuses, and thus allow sneak attacks.

 

[Hyborian Apeman]

I will have to look at the rules again, but I am pretty sure when someone is flatfooted, they cannot parry either.

If so,

flat footed = no dodge or parry
fient = no dodge or parry

I have extended that to mean flatfooted = fient

But as anyone following the 'Claws' thread will point out. I have a tendency to overread the rules. I will look up if flatfooted denies parry as well.

 

[Tenken]

There are three main categories that you're looking at here:

Flat-footed: Anyone that has not acted in initiative order in the combat. As soon as the character acts in combat, they are no longer flat-footed. I believe there are a couple of feats that render a foe flat-footed.

Flanked: When a character has foes directly opposite each other while adjacent to the character.

Unawares: (My personal term) when a character is denied DV and PV, which allows for a sneak attack. Situations that create an Unaware opponent are as follows: blinded, feinted, flanked, flat-footed, helpless, pinned, stunned, or being attacked by an invisible opponent. Note that being flanked creates an Unaware opponent although it does not deny DV or PV.

 

[Trodax]

OK, I'll give a shot at clarifying these terms.

The key words to keep in mind are "denied Dodge and Parry". This is the same as in D&D when you are denied your Dex bonus to AC, although in Conan it is much more severe as it leaves you with a measly defense of 10.
"Denied Dodge and Parry" are very often used interchangeably with the term flat-footed (I do it myself all the time), since they are quite similar. They are not the same though, as we shall soon see.

So, a couple of situations and what happens in those situations:

*When you are flat-footed, you are "denied Dodge and Parry". Also, you cannot make attacks of opportunity.

*When you are feinted, you are "denied Dodge and Parry" (against that attack only of course).

*When you are grappled, you are "denied Dodge and Parry" against other opponents than the one you are grappling with.

*When you are blinded, you are "denied Dodge and Parry".

And so on.

Now sneak attack, for example, can be used against opponents who are "denied Dodge and Parry" or who you are flanking, so sneak can apply in all of the above situations (and also against flanked opponents).

Another example, Uncanny Dodge, lets you "still use Dodge and Parry when caught flat-footed or when struck by an invisible attacker". Ergo, Uncanny Dodge doesn't help you at all if you are feinted or grappled.

So in answer to the Brutal Attack feat, which I haven't seen myself (which sourcebook is it from?); if it says that it can only be used against flat-footed opponents, then no, it cannot be used against a feinted opponent. For that to be allowed it would have had to say "can be used against an opponent who is denied Dodge and Parry".

I hope this made some sense, and didn't sound to snarky (it wasn't meant that way). Cheers!

 

[Hyborian Apeman]

"Denied Dodge and Parry" are very often used interchangeably with the term flat-footed (I do it myself all the time), since they are quite similar.

Who wrote the feat? Was it Vincent? Because all of the gamers I play with use "denied dodge and parry" and "flatfooted" as being synonymous. Did the writer of that feat have the same inclination?

One of the reasons I hold the two as being synonyms comes from D&D. I don't have my PHB and DMG 3.5 with me, but you will find instances where an opponent is "denied their dex" against an invisible attacker, and other instances where an opponent is "considered flat footed". In D&D the distinction isn't as relevant, but there is a precedence for viewing the two as being the same thing.

 

[Tenken]

The feat is from the player's book in the Shadizar box set. The author credit in the book is Vincent Darlage.

 

[Hyborian Apeman]

So in answer to the Brutal Attack feat, which I haven't seen myself (which sourcebook is it from?); if it says that it can only be used against flat-footed opponents, then no, it cannot be used against a feinted opponent. For that to be allowed it would have had to say "can be used against an opponent who is denied Dodge and Parry".

I am hesitant to apply omissions of clarification from an ability that has a D&D base to a Conan specific rule as a proof of rules intention.

The Uncanny Dodge ability comes almost straight from D&D, while the DV rules for Conan and the specific Brutal Attack feat are Conan specific. I do not think that this piece of your argument can be used as proof of feat intent.

 

[Trodax]

Because all of the gamers I play with use "denied dodge and parry" and "flatfooted" as being synonymous.

Yeah, I know, that's what we do also, mostly because its so much easier to say.
Sometimes (such as with this feat) it can really confuse things though.

BTW, what does Brutal Attack actually do? You've piqued my interest.

 

[Trodax]

So in answer to the Brutal Attack feat, which I haven't seen myself (which sourcebook is it from?); if it says that it can only be used against flat-footed opponents, then no, it cannot be used against a feinted opponent. For that to be allowed it would have had to say "can be used against an opponent who is denied Dodge and Parry".

I am hesitant to apply omissions of clarification from an ability that has a D&D base to a Conan specific rule as a proof of rules intention.

The Uncanny Dodge ability comes almost straight from D&D, while the DV rules for Conan and the specific Brutal Attack feat are Conan specific. I do not think that this piece of your argument can be used as proof of feat intent.

Well, as I said, I haven't even read the feat (maybe I'm a fool to be arguing about it then ), and I have no idea what the authors intention with the feat was.

I'm pretty certain on the distinction between flat-footed and denied Dodge or Parry though. They're not the same thing. At least, they shoudn't be. :wink:

 

[Belkregos]

BTW, what does Brutal Attack actually do? You've piqued my interest.

It adds 3 times your strength bonus to damage
If you also add sneak attack damage….

 

[Sutek]

It seems like a better name for it would have been "Sucker Punch".

:?