User talk:Luigifan18/Balanced Offense (3.5e Skill Trick)

Ratings

	Fluffykittens opposes this article and rated it 0 of 4.
	A +bullshit bonus to attack rolls in exchange for skill points does not good balance make. The other ability creates a ton of questionable clauses.

	Surgo opposes this article and rated it 0 of 4.
	There's pretty much no rule-making distinction between the things you can Balance check and the things you can't. Given any affect that isn't listed here, I have zero idea whether or not it can be Balance checked or not. This skill trick needs to actually separate them into hard and fast categories that you can rule about or get rid of the rule at all.

Foxwarrior opposes this article and rated it 0 of 4.

A scaling bonus to attack rolls for a flat cost in skill points is wrong on many levels: Attacks often stay on the RNG, so a +2 is about equally good at any level. Sacrificing out-of-combat versatility for in-combat melee beatstick power is about the most unsightly utility for combat trade one can make, and all utility for combat trades are somewhat unsightly. Skill tricks cost 2 skill points, right? Unless this was for ToP, there's no way that 2 skill points could be worth this much.

	Franken Kesey opposes this article and rated it 0 of 4.
	Way too powerful; and a lot of grey on when the ability can be applied.

• In response to Foxwarrior's rating: Synergy bonuses scale very slowly. You get your first +2 at level 2, then the first +2 increase is at level 22, and you get the next one at level 42, and it keeps going along that progression, assuming no use of the Trainee feats (and that the skill in question is a class skill). But even with the Trainee feats, that just allows an immediate shortcut, and then it's still 20 levels between synergy bonuses. Also, in the Tome of Prowess system, there are no synergy bonuses, which means that this skill trick doesn't scale at all. You just get +2 to attack. (And the Trainee feats would probably need to be scaled way down or even outright disallowed for the ToP system, as ToP DCs tend to be lower and each skill point is worth much more.) --Luigifan18 (talk) 04:57, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

'You gain a +2 bonus to melee attack rolls.' Just like that? Under no particular conditions, just with the expenditure of two skill points? You do know that, not only is it a static, boring, bonus, but also an overpowered one for the little investment put into it? (Especially at the level in which you're bound to get it) It should add least be applicable only in certain circumstances for flavour and balance, in my opinion. -HarrowedMind (talk) 06:14, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

It's actually a synergy bonus. It improves by +2 for every 20 ranks in Balance you have over 5, so it scales a little bit. And the melee classes are kinda underpowered, so they need all the extra power they can get. But I can think of a few minor limitations... Let's see, must be standing, must make a Balance check, must not move more than half your speed... Huh. I'm not sure which one to use. --Luigifan18 (talk) 18:58, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Cannot move would be a start. And while it's true that meleers are usually lower on the balance ranges than casters, that isn't the case in H, M, or L-range games, so giving them a powerup like this really isn't needed. Plus, vertical bonuses that help take you off the RNG are dumb, since they contribute to removing randomness from the game which makes it boring. --Ghostwheel (talk) 22:44, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

???

What is the difference between what the Stand Still feat does and an effect that leaves you "stunned...etc."? When does it fall under one and not the other? Surgo (talk) 19:33, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Stand Still merely ends your current move action (or action involving movement, like a charge) and keeps you from taking any more for the round. Being stunned keeps you from taking any movement, and also causes you to drop your held items, take a -2 penalty to AC, and lose your Dexterity bonus to AC. So being stunned is actually much, much worse. Stand Still merely interrupts your current action. It doesn't actually do anything that'll stop you from taking actions in the immediate future.

By the way, do the special combat actions (charge, trip, grapple, disarm, sunder, coup de grace, overrun, bull rush) allow you to make Concentration checks to avoid having them ruined if they get interrupted (like, say, an attack of opportunity or readied action)? The purpose of the second part of this skill trick is essentially to allow Balance to do for physical combat attacks (including ranged attacks with a bow or the like) what Concentration does for spells and skill usage. So, if Concentration can do it already, I can't see much need to include such a complicated mechanic (or, at least, not to simplify it to something like "you can use a Balance check in place of a Concentration check to avoid losing your focus on special combat options"). --Luigifan18 (talk) 20:28, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

That's great and all but the skill trick does not say "stunned", it says "stunned...etc.". So what falls under the "Stand Still" line and what falls under the "etc"? I have absolutely no idea after reading the feat, and neither does anyone else. Surgo (talk) 22:51, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

"Etc." includes dazing, paralysis, entanglement, grappling, and any other long-term action-denying condition, especially if it lasts for more than 1 round. Stand Still, et al means stuff that can disrupt your current action, but not prevent future actions, at least not beyond the current round. --Luigifan18 (talk) 00:42, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

So why doesn't it say that? Also, there exist daze/paralysis/etc. effects that last for exactly one round. Surgo (talk) 14:54, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but a daze/paralyze/etc effect that lasts for one round still affects you for roughly six seconds. Stand Still just halts you and wrecks your momentum. And I really prefer to have my stuff worded as clearly as possible, which means that I have to spell out exactly what I'm trying to say, even if there's probably a way to do it with fewer words. Ambiguity is, at least in my mind, a very bad thing, and unambiguity is more important than brevity. --Luigifan18 (talk) 22:27, 16 November 2012 (UTC)