Talk:Necessary Strike (3.5e Feat)

From Dungeons and Dragons Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search


RatedLike.png Ghostwheel likes this article and rated it 3 of 4.
Overall a good feat, good situationally and gives some horizontal advancement.

The only thing I'd change is the wording. At the moment it's kinda funky.

RatedFavor.png Eiji-kun favors this article and rated it 4 of 4!
Do I like? I like. My reasoning below, but tl;dr, a +4 attack to trade for 1/2 damage is just right for expanding options.

Author's Questions

First, Should there be prerequisites?
Second, for format's sake, should the prereq line say "(none)" instead of being blank?
Third, I chose +4 because it felt good and because I was afraid of abuse if I made it scale. I also think arbitrariness is sort of lame, so I was hoping someone would have input on either a less arbitrary, arbitrary number, or a feature for the feat to scale with.
Fourth, the note specifying what a mundane attack is (not a special attack) is a bit clumsy. Is there a way to make it less so?
Thanks in advance. --Maninorange (talk) 05:57, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

This is a confusing feat.
I get the first part, a +4 to attack for any non-augmented physical attack roll. But deal half damage from all non-smite sources... what does that even mean? I read the examples but I remain confused.
+4 is not so arbitrary. It means a 20% greater chance to hit against something of equal standing to you, and it is quite good. In fact I think I hear Ghostwheel howling at the moon right now in rage as he transforms into Wereghostwheel, enforcer of the RNG. ....I kid I kid, but +4 is pretty good. You don't want it to scale. If you're wondering, every +1 bonus equals about a 5% greater chance of your d20 roll succeeding at whatever it is you're doing.
If you DO scale it may I recommend starting at +1 ending at +4, as anything more than a +4 bonus is fairly excess, or +2 if you keep it non-scaling. As it, that's makes it a double-strength but situational Weapon Focus-type feat. The situation is very common, but given if you have other options (maneuvers, trips, etc) you may want to use those instead of a vanilla attack it seems fine.
Clarify the damage whatever, and I can help there. -- Eiji-kun (talk) 06:11, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
For half damage, roll damage as normal for a hit, but divide by two. Imagine rolling damage for a spell on which they succeeded on a Reflex save for half damage. For damage from smite sources, if it's a smite evil attempt, simply roll all other damage, divide by two, and add the additional damage afterward.
I understand Ghostwheel's feelings about the RNG, but in case he joins in here and reads this before commenting, I would like to point out that most people are not always going to want to take a 50% penalty to their damage in order to ensure a hit, assuming that a +4 is even enough to break the RNG. I feel that the damage penalty is severe enough that it's only going to be used by those who need to ensure a hit regardless of how much damage is done (The last goblin is making a run for it) or those who really need an attack roll boost to hit in the first place (You have an attack bonus of +10 and the monster has an AC of 28), thereby helping to fix the RNG in many places. --Maninorange (talk)
Ah, why not just say "you deal half damage" and leave it at that? What's all the extra about smite and stuff? I figure, "your attack deals half damage" and list any exceptions to that rule after.
Trading +4 to hit for 1/2 the damage. That seems fair to me, and I totally approve. In which case you want to word it something akin to this...

When making a normal attack roll (not augmented by smite, sneak attack, maneuvers, trips, or other alternative forms of attacking), you gain a +4 bonus to hit but only deal 1/2 your normal damage.

And that's that. Short and sweet and to the point. :) Oh, and I tease Ghostwheel about the RNG all the time. I mean no harm. -- Eiji-kun (talk) 06:23, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Allowing smite effects to take their full effect seems to add to the flavor of the feat, but I think it's just not worth making the exception at this point... I'll change it in a moment.
I struck a sort of compromise between your rendition and what was originally written. I do want sneak attack damage to be counted in along with other forms of extra damage, but at half their original power, so as to not give rogues an incredible advantage. --Maninorange (talk) 07:30, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Minor Observations[edit]

Normal: There is no way to trade damage for accuracy.

Not necessary. The "Normal" section of a feat describes how a character without the feat acts if the feat is changing some way they can act. In this case there is nothing (this feat doesn't change existing rules, it just adds a new one). For example, Armor Proficiency has a "Normal" section describing the Armor check penalties that are removed by gaining the feat. Bonus Domain doesn't have a "Normal" section because there isn't something existing being changed.

When making a normal attack roll (I.e., not a trip, sunder, or grapple attempt, not a usage of stunning fist attempts, and not a spell involving an attack roll)

Contradicts your example. He's using smite evil.

I actually like it better that way. So many exceptions just seem to add unnecessary complication. How about the following:

When you take an attack action, you may gain +4 to your attack roll, but deal half damage. Any damage added from sneak attack, other precision damage, or any other sources, such as smite evil or favored enemy, is also halved.

(added the word "may" because you forgot it)

Also, who cares if it is a spell? Direct damage spells use touch attacks most of the time anyways.

You may also want to consider damage reduction. Does it happen before or after the halving?

Hope this gives you some worthwhile food for thought. --Aarnott (talk) 19:17, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

This helps significantly added. I've removed the normal section, I notice the absence of a "may", and I suppose I was thinking of smite evil as an ordinary attack, simply with modifiers to attack and damage rolls.
I hesitate allowing the +4 bonus to apply to trips; I'm afraid of giving trip builds yet another +4 to attack rolls that don't have to be very high to begin with, with essentially no penalty. I was hoping there would be wording which excluded those other options, and without knowing it, I simply went with a clumsy draft that got the idea across.
I also hesitate allowing the +4 bonus to apply to spells, and I'm not sure where this reservation comes from. If some of the more experienced community members give some input, I might agree and change it, but there's still this block I have. --Maninorange (talk) 07:21, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
FavoredEiji-kun +
LikedGhostwheel +