PDA

View Full Version : Charge of the Minotaur (3.5 Feat, PEACH)



NeoSeraphi
2011-12-08, 03:24 AM
"Bad news, Cale. I'm afraid that your position as my closest and dearest companion is being replaced by the fellow who just tackled a dragon."- Richard, Looking for Group (http://lfgcomic.com/page/11), by Ryan Sohmer

Charge of the Minotaur (Fighter)
Prerequisites: Str 20, Improved Unarmed Strike, Power Attack, Base Attack Bonus +6
Benefit: You can choose to put your full body weight behind a single attack and smash your opponent into the ground. When you charge a foe and attack with your unarmed strike, while making a Power Attack with at least a -5 penalty, and you hit, you deal quadruple your normal damage.

This feat only applies on a charge where you attack a single time. If you have the ability to deliver multiple attacks at the end of a charge (such as from the Pounce ability) you may not use this feat unless you ignore those other attacks and only use a single unarmed strike.

By putting your full weight behind your attack, you are not only able to inflict incredible damage, but also press your target into the ground. If your attack hits and deals damage, your opponent must make a Reflex saving throw (DC 10+your Strength modifier+the penalty you took from your Power Attack feat) or be knocked prone.

Special: A fighter may select Charge of the Minotaur as one of his fighter bonus feats.

Wavelab
2011-12-08, 08:15 AM
Like it. Especially since it's based of Looking for Group. Please oh please make a Richard-ish class/template/race/something next.

NeoSeraphi
2011-12-08, 01:16 PM
Like it. Especially since it's based of Looking for Group. Please oh please make a Richard-ish class/template/race/something next.

I would, but I don't think the entire title of the thread would fit. (Chief Warlock of the Brothers of Darkness, Lord of the Thirteen Hells, Master of the Bones, Emperor of the Black, Lord of the Undead, Mayor of a Little Village Up the Coast, and Lord of the Dance! (3.5 Base Class, PEACH)) :smallcool:

LordErebus12
2011-12-08, 01:43 PM
I like that its with a power attack -5 penalty as well, makes it seem like its the next step, feat-wise as well as in dmg output (it is, too).

Cieyrin
2011-12-08, 02:17 PM
You don't need to make a special exception for Power Attack with unarmed strikes, Power Attack already made it.

You canít add the bonus from Power Attack to the damage dealt with a light weapon (except with unarmed strikes or natural weapon attacks), even though the penalty on attack rolls still applies.

Otherwise, I'd hate to see this combined with Flying Kick and Dungeoncrasher, cuz...yeah, that just sounds painful. I wonder how it interacts with Hammer Fist, though...

NeoSeraphi
2011-12-08, 02:31 PM
You don't need to make a special exception for Power Attack with unarmed strikes, Power Attack already made it.


Oh good. Nice to see WotC didn't completely screw the average thug. Thanks, I'll remove that part of the feat.


Otherwise, I'd hate to see this combined with Flying Kick and Dungeoncrasher, cuz...yeah, that just sounds painful. I wonder how it interacts with Hammer Fist, though...

Flying Kick only adds 1d12 to the damage. You don't multiply extra damage dice. Otherwise Spirited Charge would triple the damage you dealt with a martial maneuver.

Seerow
2011-12-08, 02:35 PM
So this is the second feat I've noticed from you that makes charging even more powerful, and easier to access. Is there any particular reason for this?

NeoSeraphi
2011-12-08, 02:38 PM
So this is the second feat I've noticed from you that makes charging even more powerful, and easier to access. Is there any particular reason for this?

Charging needs the boost, so people don't feel the need to dip barbarian and get pounce all the time. Having a single attack deal as much damage as four successful attacks means you don't have to have Pounce to be a charger.

Mostly it's to discourage dipping, as well as an homage to Looking for Group, which I happened to be rereading last night.

Seerow
2011-12-08, 02:53 PM
Except you don't have 4 attacks on a charge at +6 BAB, you have 2. And even then, with a full attack even with haste you're not likely to land more than 3.

This feat gives you better damage increase than pounce does at pretty much all levels, and gives you a free trip as icing on the cake. The only downside is that it requires you to take improved unarmed strike which is generally a terrible feat.

NeoSeraphi
2011-12-08, 03:03 PM
Except you don't have 4 attacks on a charge at +6 BAB, you have 2. And even then, with a full attack even with haste you're not likely to land more than 3.

This feat gives you better damage increase than pounce does at pretty much all levels, and gives you a free trip as icing on the cake. The only downside is that it requires you to take improved unarmed strike which is generally a terrible feat.

Yes, and it only quadruples damage with an unarmed strike, which means you aren't using a two-handed weapon, which means you don't get extra damage from your Strength score or the Power Attack feat.

I could run the numbers, but I'm pretty sure Leap Attack or Battle Jump will do more damage with a character who has the same Strength score and is wielding a greataxe instead of a 1d3 unarmed strike.

Edit: Not to mention, for most characters, unarmed strikes won't even penetrate DR/MAGIC.

Seerow
2011-12-08, 03:14 PM
Yes, and it only quadruples damage with an unarmed strike, which means you aren't using a two-handed weapon, which means you don't get extra damage from your Strength score or the Power Attack feat.

I could run the numbers, but I'm pretty sure Leap Attack or Battle Jump will do more damage with a character who has the same Strength score and is wielding a greataxe instead of a 1d3 unarmed strike.

Edit: Not to mention, for most characters, unarmed strikes won't even penetrate DR/MAGIC.

Okay, I missed the must use an unarmed strike in it, which case that takes the feat from incredibly powerful in all cases to incredibly powerful in a niche case. Though the biggest nerf there isn't the 1d3 vs 1d12, it's the 1x str and 1:1 power attack compared to 1.5x str and 2:1 power attack.

But that does go counter to your assertion that this is supposed to make people not go for a dip into barbarian for pounce. Unless I'm a monk or unarmed swordsage or something along those lines already fighting bare-handed, I'm never going to look twice as this feat. This means only a very small percentage of characters are actually going to get use out of it, the majority will still dip into barbarian or whatever else. Incidentally, most good unarmed characters are swordsagers or psionic characters, who have access to pounce by default, so you didn't reduce dipping hardly at all, despite your proclaimed goal.

NeoSeraphi
2011-12-08, 03:18 PM
Okay, I missed the must use an unarmed strike in it, which case that takes the feat from incredibly powerful in all cases to incredibly powerful in a niche case. Though the biggest nerf there isn't the 1d3 vs 1d12, it's the 1x str and 1:1 power attack compared to 1.5x str and 2:1 power attack.

But that does go counter to your assertion that this is supposed to make people not go for a dip into barbarian for pounce. Unless I'm a monk or unarmed swordsage or something along those lines already fighting bare-handed, I'm never going to look twice as this feat. This means only a very small percentage of characters are actually going to get use out of it, the majority will still dip into barbarian or whatever else. Incidentally, most good unarmed characters are swordsagers or psionic characters, who have access to pounce by default, so you didn't reduce dipping hardly at all, despite your proclaimed goal.

The point isn't for a swordsage or a psionic character to use it. It's to help a character who is a fighter or a warblade or a paladin or a barbarian but still wants to fight bare-handed deal decent damage.

That's the reason why it states you get your full Strength to unarmed attacks. (Originally, I had the feat only allowing the knock prone ability if you were wearing medium or heavy armor, but I realized too many people would argue about whether that means you're actually using your body's weight or not)

I know the general consensus is "Fighting unarmed is subpar period, decent for monks and terrible for fighters", but that's what this feat is trying to help mitigate.

Seerow
2011-12-08, 03:27 PM
That's the reason why it states you get your full Strength to unarmed attacks. (Originally, I had the feat only allowing the knock prone ability if you were wearing medium or heavy armor, but I realized too many people would argue about whether that means you're actually using your body's weight or not)


For the record, you ALWAYS got your full strength to unarmed attacks. That whole part of the feat is worthless. The ONLY time you get less than 100% strength to an attack is when you make an offhand attack. Incidentally, I think there's a rule stating you can't make an offhand attack with an unarmed attack. Light weapons wielded in the main hand get full strength to damage. An unarmed fighter with 18 strength will deal 1d3+4 damage, not 1d3+2. As pointed out above, unarmed attacks are also the exception to the rule of power attack not working with a light weapon.

Honestly it would have been easier if they just called unarmed strikes a finessible one handed weapon, but that's the way they chose to go. Either way, your feat doesn't make unarmed combat any more viable for a Fighter or a Warblade. It does make a straight monk charger a little more viable, but you're still giving up any benefit from your flurry ability to use it. The main people getting benefit from this will be Tashalatoras and Unarmed Swordsages, because that's who the feat benefits most.


If your goal was unarmed strike that doesn't suck for Fighters/Warblades, then you'd have been better off buffing the Superior Unarmed Strike feat from Tome of Battle, that gives you a near-monk unarmed damage progression.

NeoSeraphi
2011-12-08, 03:36 PM
For the record, you ALWAYS got your full strength to unarmed attacks. That whole part of the feat is worthless. The ONLY time you get less than 100% strength to an attack is when you make an offhand attack. Incidentally, I think there's a rule stating you can't make an offhand attack with an unarmed attack. Light weapons wielded in the main hand get full strength to damage. An unarmed fighter with 18 strength will deal 1d3+4 damage, not 1d3+2. As pointed out above, unarmed attacks are also the exception to the rule of power attack not working with a light weapon.

Ah, for some reason, I have been under the impression that light weapons only got half your Strength, regardless of which hand you wielded them in. I'll take that part of the feat out. Thanks.



Honestly it would have been easier if they just called unarmed strikes a finessible one handed weapon, but that's the way they chose to go. Either way, your feat doesn't make unarmed combat any more viable for a Fighter or a Warblade. It does make a straight monk charger a little more viable, but you're still giving up any benefit from your flurry ability to use it. The main people getting benefit from this will be Tashalatoras and Unarmed Swordsages, because that's who the feat benefits most.


If your goal was unarmed strike that doesn't suck for Fighters/Warblades, then you'd have been better off buffing the Superior Unarmed Strike feat from Tome of Battle, that gives you a near-monk unarmed damage progression.

Why? Extra damage dice isn't that relevant. Going from 1d3 to 1d4, to 1d6, up to 2d6 at 16th, gives you an extra average of 5 damage per strike. (1d3 average is 2, 2d6 average is 7).

Meanwhile, this feat changes a 22 Strength character's attack from 1d3+11 (with at least 5 Power Attack) to 4d3+44. That's much more effective.

Extra damage dice for an unarmed strike isn't relevant unless you stack it with a whole bunch of other size increases. Meanwhile, quadruple damage is relevant with a single feat.

Cieyrin
2011-12-08, 03:56 PM
Incidentally, I think there's a rule stating you can't make an offhand attack with an unarmed attack.

There is not, the only mention in the rules anywhere is in the Monk's Unarmed Strike feature, which says Monks never make an offhand attack. For everybody else, it's totally permissible to wield a sword in one hand and punch a guy with the other. The area where there are no answers is if you can make both primary hand and off hand attacks with unarmed strikes.

NeoSeraphi
2011-12-08, 04:06 PM
There is not, the only mention in the rules anywhere is in the Monk's Unarmed Strike feature, which says Monks never make an offhand attack. For everybody else, it's totally permissible to wield a sword in one hand and punch a guy with the other. The area where there are no answers is if you can make both primary hand and off hand attacks with unarmed strikes.

Actually I think there's a Brawler variant, either a barbarian or a fighter, somewhere, that gets the Two-Weapon Fighting feat as a bonus feat, but only with unarmed strikes. Hold on, let me check Crystal Keep...

Nope, it doesn't have it. Weird. Could have sworn...oh well.

Yes, that is unclear.

Wyntonian
2011-12-08, 05:40 PM
If my PbP as a brawler hadn't died, I'd take this in a heartbeat. Looks like a really solid feat, something special for the melee folks who have to pay attention to, y'know, distance, obstacles, HP, equipment, time, space, the action economy and all those other annoyances.

NeoSeraphi
2011-12-08, 05:57 PM
If my PbP as a brawler hadn't died, I'd take this in a heartbeat. Looks like a really solid feat, something special for the melee folks who have to pay attention to, y'know, distance, obstacles, HP, equipment, time, space, the action economy and all those other annoyances.

I first read that as "If my PbP brawler hadn't died" and I was about to raise a protest. After all, brawlers don't "die". They are heavily encouraged by monsters to take naps so that the monsters can run away and avoid being punched in the face more, until such time that the party cleric casts a spell to wake them up. (Which for some reason, causes them to lose a level. We don't really know why)

I am happily mistaken. It's too bad, the brawler would have enjoyed this feat immensely.