Talk:Penetrating Strike (3.5e Feat)

From Dungeons and Dragons Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search


RatedLike.png DanielDraco likes this article and rated it 3 of 4.
It's a feat that needed to exist. It's only getting a 3/4 though, not because of any failure of the author, but because it should never have been needed in the first place; I don't want to give a band-aid a 4/4.
RatedFavor.png Leziad favors this article and rated it 4 of 4!
Allow rogue to do stuff to construct without UMD

Rogue Balance

A single feat that removes the rogue's biggest flaw. I guess I'm not quite grasping how this isn't Wizard level. Can someone enlighten me? Can we at least consider putting a higher pre-requisite on this? Maybe the feat should allow you to deal half damage on those creatures? I'm not sure, I'm just pretty sure this is beyond Rogue as it is written. --The Badger 01:45, February 13, 2010 (UTC)

I will agree. I don't mind this if it was enemy-specific... take this feat to cover the things you simply can't wand and strike. But to everything? This would be a rogue PrC capstone if anything. -- Eiji Hyrule 03:05, February 13, 2010 (UTC)
Feats are compared against a separate spectrum from classes (divine metamagic is wizard, quicken spell is rogue, for example), and all this does is make the rogue universally rogue level, rather than just against fleshy people. A rogue's damage isn't that great in the first place (halfling hurler aside), so giving him the ability to do it against golems and undead doesn't really seem like that big of a deal to me. -- Jota 04:28, February 13, 2010 (UTC)
Just what Jota said. Furthermore, there's already an ACF for rogues at level 3 that gets rid of the worthless Trap Sense to deal 1/2 damage vs. enemies who are normally immune to SA. --Ghostwheel 07:14, February 13, 2010 (UTC)
How does this feat work with SRD:Fortification? --Ganteka Future 19:14, February 13, 2010 (UTC)
In that case why not have a pre-req (besides the obvious precision damage). Since you can get 1/2 damage with an ACF at level 3, then get full damage at level... 6? Well, something to make it not too much better than the ACF. -- Eiji Hyrule 22:39, February 13, 2010 (UTC)
The ACF gives it for nothing--yes, I'm equating Trap Sense with nothing. For this, you have to give up a *whole feat* for it, which is worth it I think for this feat--and even then, I'm not sure it's a "must take" the way Weapon Finesse is for the rogue or Adaptive Style is for the swordsage. Even if I had a prereq, it might be something like, "have a Ref save of +4 or higher" so that people could take it easily without too much hassle.
@Ganteka: It'd bypass it, since it pierces immunity against SA, which Fortification gives. Wealth is a river, but feats are very limited. --Ghostwheel 22:55, February 13, 2010 (UTC)
I guess I was always under the impression a Rogue was "Rogue-level" because he was limited to massive damage on the fleshy-types. As for this not being a "Must" take", I'm having a hard time thinking of 10 feats I'd pick over this one (assuming the ACF wasn't in use). Given the option I could play without this, but I'm thinking it's going to be a staple in many of my homebrew-content rogue builds from here out.--The Badger 23:44, February 13, 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Badger, i think this is more powerful than rogue. this remoes the need to UMD the spells to get SA on things. I do agree trap sense is crap, but its a privilege to be able to trade crap for something good. Now if you made this a spell touched feat and let you get SA on undead and constructs (is there a spell for SA on plants?) i could see that totally. SLap a few more prereqs on it just so its not the must have feat and that would work too IMHO- Name Violation
There is, Vine Strike. Elementals, Oozes, Swarms, and Incorporeal don't have any magical option to crit them, however. On the ACF, it's not entirely free. Yes, Trap Sense is worth diddly, but you have spent things, in this case 3 levels in rogue. Since not all people who are sneak attackers are nessicarly rogues (though it helps) it's an investment from whatever other levels you've planning. More to the point why I suggested 6th level is that 3rd level gives a half benefit, so a full benefit should be somewhere above 3rd level. It is also takeable even if you only dipped rogue for the sneak attack (or aren't even a rogue). My suggestion, to simply things, is a sneak attack/skirmish requirement. Actually, "Ambush Feats" do this a lot already, and I could see this counting as one of those. -- Eiji Hyrule 00:39, February 14, 2010 (UTC)
What are your opinions on making this one of those feats that scale with BAB? Or make it sort of a Ranger's Favored enemy, so every +3 BAB (or levels or whatever) you can select a new type of creature to SA? I've been checking out those Frank and K scaling feats (like Mage Slayer), and I think that might be a way to make this Rogue Level, while still being relevant.--The Badger 00:46, February 14, 2010 (UTC)
The rogue pre-cheese (see: no halfling hurler) does around rogue-level damage against the majority of opponents when flanking--that is, when facing fleshy foes. A few foes who are immune to SA can be sneak-attacked by means of UMDing different wands, but there are other foes who the rogue cannot harm. Oozes, for example. Against these, he is usually fighter-level, or even monk-level, having no source of extra damage, and even DR of 5 neutering him completely. Personally, I think that sucks, and is the reason I made this feat. If it were up to me, there would be (virtually?) no enemies who were immune to SA and the like. But such a rule isn't in place. So I prefer to let people step outside the bounds, breaking limitations through the use of feats. If this becomes a must-have feat--great. I did my job well. All this feat does is raise rogues to rogue-level in situations that they would be fighter- or even monk-level in. I don't see how raising a class to rogue level makes a feat wizard-level.
I have other feats that do similar things. Like this one for ninjas, these two for paladins, and this one for the Factotum. The first one allows the ninja to be rogue-level all day long, and not to be monk-level once their ki pool runs dry. The second makes smites for paladins (and other classes) not only useful, but also last all day (and opens up the possibility of TWFing paladins). The third allows Factotums to sacrifice actions in battle to regain the ability that allows them to be rogue-level. All of these offer a substantial boost to their respective classes, but none of them raise the class above rogue-level. This feat does the same. It lets rogues function at rogue level in all cases, rather than reverting them to monk against certain enemies. Same for ninjas and scouts who take this feat. It doesn't actually make the classes any stronger--just lets them function at their full potential against all threats. Something that should have been built into the game itself, rather than something that needs a feat to fix, as is also the case with the other feats above that I mentioned. Unfortunately, most DMs wouldn't allow that kind of boost for nothing lost, so instead I hide the fixes as feats. --Ghostwheel 02:25, February 14, 2010 (UTC)
>Against these, he is usually fighter-level, or even monk-level
"Fighter-level" or "Monk-level" are statistical properties of a class (rather, build, and then generalized to class) when compared to the full spectrum of challenges. They are meaningless when applying to specific enemies or subsets of enemies that don't cover the full spectrum (i.e., "oozes and elementals"). Don't do that. The phrase you're looking for is "drastically weaker". --Quantumboost 23:34, May 2, 2010 (UTC)
Aaaaand I just realized that the comment was 1 1/2 months old. >_< --Quantumboost 23:37, May 2, 2010 (UTC)
Good try though, old boy, wot wot? --Ghostwheel 04:23, May 3, 2010 (UTC)