|
|
Post by Cyian on Oct 2, 2013 11:27:42 GMT -5
The feat Craven has been disallowed by Gary. Ty seems too agree. Im not sure where Joe stands.
In the spirit of this portion of the board, I offer a possible solution.
Craven (current)
Add one point of damage to sneak attack per character level.
Page 117 Champions of Ruin
Craven (possible fix)
Add one point of damage for every point of class achieved sneak attack die.
Setzer has been struck by the Ban Hammer! Next time it could be you! =p
|
|
|
|
Post by Katdoral on Oct 2, 2013 13:52:26 GMT -5
You know, I do feel terrible that you seem to be the target of the nerf bat more so then the rest of us. You just have a strong talent for optimization. On that point I'd like to say thank you, by the way, because more so then the rest of us, you've made us really consider the internal mechanics of the game we love in ways we never did. (ha! fear my Genitive Case Possesion!)
On to the proposal then; The problem is indeed part of what you listed, 1 point per character level was in my opinion far too much. However it's not the only problem with the feat. This is one of those feats that has a negative return, that being a -2 on will saves Vs fear effects. I can see the point where a terrified person might dig deep and strike harder, but that's not what this feat's design suggests. It suggests that the possibility (I say possibility here because the negative return is applied to the will save, which in turn is the response of being the target of a fear effect.) of being afraid forces a person to dig deeper on a regular basis. That's where, in my opinion, the design breaks down. It makes the statement that the character that takes this feat is afraid of fear. To further compound the issue, they tied the bonus to the character level instead of the rogue levels.
Again this is all just my opinion, but it seems as if the feat was designed just to give more damage to sneak attack, and the negative return was an after thought meant to justify that means. I'm not saying I'm not open to a feat that will give an extra edge to rogue sneak attack damage. However in this specific instance the feat as a whole was poorly designed. It's not the fact that it gives damage that I have a problem with, though that's a consideration it's not the only consideration, the problem as I think I've articulated is that the feat was inherently flawed.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cyian on Oct 2, 2013 20:08:35 GMT -5
Heh, Thanks that's actually quite a compliment! Don't misinterpret me posting as pouting or complaining I just enjoy the exercise of going through the motions as a learning tool, and being part of whats going on. You guys have an incredible amount of experience playing D&D, so im playing catch up most of the time. I cant count the amount of conversations Ive had with Ty going through scenario after scenario, (him being very patient mind you) on just abut every aspect of 3.5, and the world of several. Anything from rules to roleplay I drink it in cause I really am just a fan of what we do, and the legacy's and rich history we create.
Some of my favorite things about playing in Severall is brushing into this history of past exploits and past legacy's of characters and deeds. So for me there is a motivation there to excel at my role, sometimes over and beyond into ridiculousness to make my mark with each character I play. But even more appealing to create and nurture story, coming up with off the wall stuff to see goals realized and interactions play out.
Plus my brain is wired for go big or go home =p Also, im not going lie there is a certain appeal in namesake of being responsible for a nerf hehe.
But back to the point, I like to understand the reasoning behind your guys thoughts and to debate the fine points. Interaction and debate is the express route too knowledge and application! So I very much appreciate you giving me your thoughts .
One of the main reasons I like Craven so much is, it kinda gave credibility to how I see Setzer in combat. Whereas everyone thought it `was kind of absurd notion that someone so cowardly couldn't respond to fear with the overwhelming fight response vs a more typical flight response.
Setzer is a fraidy cat. Be it blessing or curse his greed is more powerful then his fear, and realizes the team he is apart of offers riches and security, a team he cannot be a part of if he were to run. But, that time being apart of that team afforded by greed has been a catalyst for something far more powerful. Friendship.
Cyian
Mechanically speaking with all the concerns about static damage, I already knew before I asked, But I still have to try! =p
|
|
|
|
Post by Thelin on Oct 20, 2013 18:37:46 GMT -5
Icky. Yuck. Step on it and kill it with fire.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sardinal on Jul 3, 2014 9:19:05 GMT -5
Craven Revisited.
I don't mind the feat thematically, as long as the fear is played well in character. As Gary has pointed out, however, the damage is a bit overwhelming, especially considering that it is a flat damage increase that would then multiply on a crit, and the negative return is far to small to compensate. Here is a possible solution. The damage will average a bit less than the original Craven, with the possibility of spiking up to the full amount, but it wont multiply on a crit and the negative return for this permanent adjustment to sneak attack damage is a bit more costly. Let me know what you guys think.
Craven (General Feat)
No two ways about it, you have a broad yellow streak in your soul, but your particular brand of cowardice has a dangerous edge.
Prerequisites: Sneak Attack class feature, cannot be immune to fear.
Benefit: When making a sneak attack, you use d8's instead of d6's. You take a - 2 penalty on all saves against fear based effects and when determining the effects of fear, your Hit Die is considered to be equal to the number of Sneak Attack Dice you possess. All aspects of this feat are suppressed if the character is under any effect that would make them immune to fear.
|
|
