[CONAN] Combine Damage Feat

[Supplement Four]

Wow! Have you guys looks at this Feat? It's on pg. 85 of the Shem supplement. You've got to be fairly high level to use it (a Soldier has to be 10th level), but it seems like it's an insta-kill Feat because of the Massive Damage rule.

Thoughts?



EDIT: Combine Damage is a combat maneuver, not a Feat! Sorry!

 

[Supplement Four]

Fatigue and Exhaust the Foe looks a bit suspect, too. It's on the same page of the Shem book. It's putting a fatigue system into combat where there was none before.

I mean, can't the attacker get tired, too?

 

[Mach5RR]

How do you figure a soldier has to be 10th level to perform the combine damage maneuver? From what I can see, a barbarian, borderer, nomad, or soldier could perform this maneuver at 1st level with the right build. The reqs for this are the feats Combat Expertise (prereq INT 13) and Quick Draw (prereq BAB +1), and the ability to make more than one attack per round. If you select a race/class combo that gives you favored class at 1st level, you can easily pick up those two feats at generation. Then your full round action is fighting with two weapons to give yourself more than one attack. Voila, all of the conditions are met to use this maneuver at 1st level.

Fatigue and exhaust the foe is just laughable. Again, a 1st level character with two weapons can render someone exhausted before the victim even has a chance to move!

I appreciate the sentiment, but I'm going to have to add these to pile of "not in my game".

 

[Supplement Four]

How do you figure a soldier has to be 10th level to perform the combine damage maneuver? From what I can see, a barbarian, borderer, nomad, or soldier could perform this maneuver at 1st level with the right build. The reqs for this are the feats Combat Expertise (prereq INT 13) and Quick Draw (prereq BAB +1), and the ability to make more than one attack per round.

I don't think it's referring to Two Weapon Combat for the two attacks. I think it means when the character gets two attacks per round per the class chart--which means a Soldier must be 10th level to use the feat.

I appreciate the sentiment, but I'm going to have to add these to pile of "not in my game".

I think so.

I wanted to see how other GM's felt about them.

 

[Mach5RR]

That may be true, but the wording could be read either way. It's just the effect describes combining ALL of your full round attacks (which should include off-hand weapons).

Still, I'm not sure where your getting 10th level for a soldier. ALL fighting classes get their 2nd attack at 6th level (BAB +6/+1) and another every 5 levels after.

I see this as actually a less useful maneuver the higher level you get. Oh sure, you're going to pretty much guarantee a death check - but you have to succeed with EVERY attack to do it, and with the -5/-10/-15 to follow on attacks, I don't see that happening at higher levels.

Could be useful for a finesse fighter.

Ouch ... I just realized this maneuver does not specify melee only. This could be fairly wicked with a bow.

 

[Supplement Four]

That may be true, but the wording could be read either way.

Since every character in the game can make two attacks per round at 1st level using two weapons, I don't think that they would point this out as a requirement. It would be like saying you need STR 1+.

Therefore, I don't think it can be read both ways.

Still, I'm not sure where your getting 10th level for a soldier. ALL fighting classes get their 2nd attack at 6th level (BAB +6/+1) and another every 5 levels after.

I'm sorry. You are correct.

I see this as actually a less useful maneuver the higher level you get. Oh sure, you're going to pretty much guarantee a death check - but you have to succeed with EVERY attack to do it, and with the -5/-10/-15 to follow on attacks, I don't see that happening at higher levels.

Could be useful for a finesse fighter.

Good points. It's the Massive Damage check that throws up a red flag for me. I like what you say above, but still....I'll have to think about this one a bit.

At least you've got me from throwing it out of my game to considering it further.

Ouch ... I just realized this maneuver does not specify melee only. This could be fairly wicked with a bow.

Yep, that and it's almost guarranteed to do 20+ points of damage, calling for a Massive Damage check each and every time you use the Feat.

This means the Feat is akin to Explosive Power Feat listed in The Road of King and the 2E Player's Guide (where Vincent, the Feat's creator, has even said the thing should be crossed out with a big black marker and never seen again).

 

[Supplement Four]

I think if they meant 2 Attacks at high level, they would have just said:

Prerequisite: BAB +6, etc.

If that's the case, then it's defintely an poorly thought Feat as a 1st level character can easily do 20+ points of combined damagel, necessitating a Massive Damage check.

What a Feat that would be.

Not sure Vincent created Explosive Power.

He said he did, on this very forum. Do a search. He also said that it was a Feat that he did not want in the game and that it was supposed to be scrapped but somehow made it through the Mongoose editors twice, first in Road of Kings and second in the Player's Guide.

 

[Supplement Four]

Not sure Vincent created Explosive Power.

Click HERE TO READ one of the places where Vincent says he's the author of the feat, and he suggest that the feat not be used in our games.

 

[Supplement Four]

Yip, read that S4, but still not think he created it, he only editing it, but I not know, you could be right, hey Vincent you there?

"Anyway, if you want an official errata statement from the author - that feat is broken and should not be allowed in games."

That's not clear that he's saying he's the author of the Feat?

 

[Supplement Four]

Naw I not want an official statement for author, I want an official statement from Mongoose, do not tell me they are selling me broken stuff???

LOL! :lol:

 

[Ichabod]

I always thought the intent of the maneuver was to make 2w fighting viable. Of course I would allow it with 2w fighting as the only thing that matters in combat 80% of the time is forcing MDSs. Two-weapon fighting is just so awful in the game, unless, of course, you have a bunch of Sneak Attack damage, in which case ... you have a bunch of Sneak Attack damage and will kill everything anyway.

1st level dude with STR 18, war sword in one hand, shortsword in another

+5/5 to hit, ave. damage of 8.5 (6.5+4-2)/4.5 (4.5+2-2)

1st level dude with STR 18, greatsword or bardiche

+5 to hit, ave. damage of 16 (5.5+4.5+6)

w/Power Attack, +4 to hit, damage 18

Reduce STR to 14:
+3/+3 to hit, 9 damage
vs.
+3 to hit, 13 damage

6th level (all "fighter"), STR 18 (fairly normal at this point)

+10/+10/+5; 8.5/4.5/8.5 - barely a MDS
vs.
2h weapon, nothing special +10/+5; 16/16 - not a great chance for a MDS, but that's why people take Power Attack or have Sneak Attack
vs.
Combine Damage with one 2h weapon +10/+5; 14/14 - this is far, far better than 2w fighting
vs.
2h w/ PA and Cleave +6/+1; 24/24 - or however you want to scale it

Note that the first case requires all three attacks to hit. The fourth case, the typical Power Attacking fighter, needs only one hit to force a MDS and will likely Cleave for a free attack. The third case is interesting but not terribly exciting. Note that the fourth case is more likely to hit with its first attack, the only attack it needs to hit with, then the third case's combined attacks; again, the Cleaver will likely get a free +6 attack for another ~24 damage.

Reducing the STR below 18 makes the Combine Damage 2w fighting dude not even average a MDS.

Anyway, there are lots of other combinations of numbers, but the math in the game has always, in my experience, been in favor of Power Attack, Cleave, Reckless Attack (for overkill), Great Cleave (for annihilating anything within range).

As for Explosive Power, sure, it guarantees an explosion of an enemy. That happens virtually every time, anyway, in the game when you have someone with a high to very high STR, a 2h weapon, and Power Attack. You have to have a really specific scenario to where Explosive Power makes a difference.

 

[Supplement Four]

Two-weapon fighting is just so awful in the game...

I don't follow you with this, at all.

1st level dude with STR 18, war sword in one hand, shortsword in another[/quot

+5/5 to hit, ave. damage of 8.5 (6.5+4-2)/4.5 (4.5+2-2)

OK, let's assume he's Barbarian--a class that is adept at two-weapon fighting. He gets the Two-Weapon Fighting Feat for free at 1st level.

With the 18 STR, he's normally +5 to hit, but with a broadsword in one hand (a war sword is a two-handed weapon) and a short sword in the other, he doesn't get a two-weapon penalty because of the Feat.

+5/+5 on both attacks.

Average damage on broadsword is: 5 +5 STR = 10 points of damage.
Average damage on shortsword is: 4 + 2 STR = 6 points of damage.

This 1st level character gets two attacks, both at +5 to hit, and does an average of 16 points of damage when he does hit both times.

Why is that bad again?

 

[Supplement Four]

Also, I notice in your example you placed a -2 Damage negative, is it an error, or have you a reason?

Don't forget that you only use half STR bonus damage with your off-hand while doing full STR bonus damage with your main weapon.

 

[Ichabod]

The -2 was because of the Combined Damage maneuver, which also gives -2 on AP, but I ignore that since it only matters some of the time. That was assumed because the whole thread is about whether the maneuver is any good or not.

2w fighting is pretty much useless for the obvious reason that you aren't doing 20+ damage on every attack, like someone who uses a 2h weapon. While GMs can metagame against the benefits of forcing MDSs with every attack, assuming they don't, MDSs are what combat is all about. Very quickly, doing 10 points of damage in a hit is a wasted attack.

It may have taken us longer than it should have, but I assume people who are analyzing the game have played it long enough to see what Power Attack/Cleave does in combat even if they don't bother doing the math.

At very low levels, Cleave means free attacks, not extra attacks that rely on being able to full attack, like 2w fighting does, not weak sauce extra attacks, like a shortsword with .5xSTR bonus.

At 4th level for heroic characters, should be doing 20+ damage with each successful hit through Power Attack, something you aren't going to do with 2w fighting, while a 5th level thief will be doing weapon damage +4d8 Sneak Attack, which is why SA is a viable combat option. Mid levels is full of carnage and it only gets sillier to where our campaigns are full of monsters that can't be Sneak Attacked and/or don't suffer MDSs. Of course, since they have plenty of hit points, it's still better to be doing 20-40 damage with every attack (that doesn't rely on Sneak Attack), then any of the alternatives.

 

[LucaCherstich]

REGARDING COMBINE DAMAGE:
you could do even best with "two-weapon strike" feat (Hyboria's Fiercest page 74).
And you could get that feat since 3rd level!

REGARDING EXPLOSIVE POWER:
Well, I think Explosive Power should be used.
OK, I know the author, Vincent, disliked it, but who cares?
The feat say that you must use Full Power Attack at your maximum bonus, which is your base attack.
To use it, you must be at least have a base attack of +5. , so you will make a single, full-action, attack at -5!
An to do it, you must let go your other attacks, you cannot even make an attack with an off-hand weapon (2-weapon fighting is a full-round action, like explosive power).
It is even worse for higher level character, imagine, refusing to do 2 or 3 attacks for a single attack at -7 or -10 or -13 or even more!
In other words this is an attack you do as if you are using a Base Atk of +0.
THIS IS VERY RISKY!
To have that higher damage is a good reward to me.
It means that a mighty warrior is focusing all of himself to do a single but devastating slash!
Cleave is something to be used against swarms of enemies (like Conan and the were-hyenas) but you use explosive power to smash that bloody, large single enemy!

 

[LucaCherstich]

REGARDING COMBINE DAMAGE:
you could do even best with "two-weapon strike" feat (Hyboria's Fiercest page 74).
And you could get that feat since 3rd level!

REGARDING EXPLOSIVE POWER:
Well, I think Explosive Power should be used.
OK, I know the author, Vincent, disliked it, but who cares?
The feat description says that you must use Full Power Attack at your maximum bonus, which is your base attack.
To use it, you must be at least have a base attack of +5. , so you will make a single, full-action, attack at -5!
An to do it, you must let go your other attacks, you cannot even make an attack with an off-hand weapon (2-weapon fighting is a full-round action, like explosive power).
It is even worse for higher level character, imagine, refusing to do 2 or 3 attacks for a single attack at -7 or -10 or -13 or even more!
In other words this is a SINGLE attack you do as if you are using a Base Atk of +0. THIS IS VERY RISKY!
To have that higher damage is a good reward to me.
It means that a mighty warrior is focusing all of himself to do a single but devastating slash!
Cleave is something to be used against swarms of enemies (like Conan and the were-hyenas) but you use explosive power to smash that bloody, large single enemy!

 

[LucaCherstich]

Well, the text is not very clear, indeed.
Or at least is not clear to me. I'm a native Italian speaker, not an English one.
An example should be nedeed in the original text.
I think that reference to "using your highest base attack bonus and utilizing Power Attack at your highest bonus" can be discussed.
Maybe when he refers to "highest base atk bonus" he means that when you have more than one attack (e.g. +6/+1) you choose the highest bonus for that single explosive attack (+6) and THEN you apply the power attack feat at your highest bonus (-6 to hit +6 to damage).
I do not know if this the original interpretation, wether I'm right or wrong, but it is certainly my interpretation and the way I use this feat.
In this way, it is certainly a balanced feat.
In any case, an example in the original text should have made things clearer.