Stunning Irruption

[Psyren]

Sure they have options to boost it the rogue doesn't,

Shifting goal posts, like I said.

[Boci]

Shifting goal posts, like I said.

But I didn't take them, so its irrelevant. You know, that thing I said next and you clipped off. A swordsage without MOB or DD has just as a good a fort save as a rogue.

[Psyren]

So you intentionally gimp your own boss and then complain when it gets, to use your phrasing, "curbstomped?" That seems rather counterproductive.

[Boci]

So you intentionally gimp your own boss and then complain when it gets, to use your phrasing, "curbstomped?" That seems rather counterproductive.

No, the whole point is they didn't get curb stomped, despite you claiming they would, being honourable melee warriors who led from the front despite their classes generally benefiting a more cautious and tricky aproach. You said such villains would and I quote "die" and they did, but not without putting up a fight in which they weren't curb stomped. This is the second or third time you have manage to miss what I am trying to say. I'd wonder if maybe I was being unclear by Red Fel managed to understand it pretty well.

And can you stop saying that characters built differently to how you would have built them as "gimped"? No one maneuvre in ToB is required, not taking MoB does not gimp your character.

[Psyren]

It sounds like you rolled lucky then, or else had no real fort saves to deal with.

But again, this ability is really not that high. A DC 20 save at level 10 is pretty easy to make, and bosses are usually several levels higher than the fighter kicking in the door.

To each his own, but the feat is what it is unless you ban or houserule it. Doesn't matter to me either way.

[Boci]

It sounds like you rolled lucky then, or else had no real fort saves to deal with.

But again, this ability is really not that high. A DC 20 save at level 10 is pretty easy to make, and bosses are usually several levels higher than the fighter kicking in the door.

Sure, I wasn't objecting to its power.

To each his own, but the feat is what it is unless you ban or houserule it. Doesn't matter to me either way.

That last sentence sounds very funny coming from somebody with a double digit post count in this thread involving precisely this topic.

[Ssalarn]

"the stuff"?

But seriously, if someone blew through the door next to me I'm pretty sure I'd be pretty disoriented. It isn't exactly an overpowering ability, it makes sense thematically and logically, and it makes for some interesting options. I'm guessing it is fort because it makes more sense for a soldier/fighter/whatever to be less likely to be thrown off by sudden battle.

If you have a player that a.ways kool-aid mans himself into every room, maybe sometimes throw different types scenarios in his way? Not every BBEG is sitting at a desk in a tiny office. Some of them are on thrones in giant throne rooms. Or hanging out in a command tent. Or in a great hall. Sometimes they might even be actively moving to engage with the adventurers storming their fortress, and they open the door.

Also, sometimes there are traps that go off when you break through a door. Picture the enemy stunned with hilarity when the guy bursts through the door and immediately sinks into the quicksand trap disguised as a carpet.

This is not a big deal. Actually, I take that back, this is a big deal, because this is exactly what good martial feats should look like. I want more.
Like, at least an entire supplement's worth. /shameless plug

[Psyren]

That last sentence sounds very funny coming from somebody with a double digit post count in this thread involving precisely this topic.

Sorry if I wasn't clear - I meant your discomfort towards the feat doesn't matter to me. The feat itself does, hence my posting in support of it.

[Snowbluff]

I dislike this feat. Too situational, especially since you need a closed door and you need enemies behind it. The good news is that PF is now even closer to Call of Duty. Just make sure not to shoot the hostages.

[Boci]

Sorry if I wasn't clear - I meant your discomfort towards the feat doesn't matter to me. The feat itself does, hence my posting in support of it.

Right, but you have still spent 15+ posts discussing my discomfort of the feat with me. So it clearly does matter to you, otherwise you would have made the "your discomfort of the feat doesn't matter matter to me" around the 6th post or earlier.

This is not a big deal. Actually, I take that back, this is a big deal, because this is exactly what good martial feats should look like. I want more.

Powerful, situational and a bit silly but awesome if you can over look that?

I dislike this feat. Too situational, especially since you need a closed door and you need enemies behind it. The good news is that PF is now even closer to Call of Duty. Just make sure not to shoot the hostages.

Isn't 3.5 Call of Duty (i.e. the original) and PF Battlefield (another companies attempt to copy the success of the origional with some minor improvements which are greatly overstated by the fans)?

[stack]

Right, now its time to optimize this thing. Breaker barbarian base? Should be enough feats to improve checks to break objects...probably a few rage powers too. Mythic wold help as well.

[torrasque666]

This is not a big deal. Actually, I take that back, this is a big deal, because this is exactly what good martial feats should look like. I want more.

Powerful, situational and a bit silly but awesome if you can over look that?

Considering that the definition of what casters can do is basically exactly that? Yes, Just because Magic can be handwaved as well, magic, doesn't give it the excuse that it gets to ignore what is and isn't "silly". Double standards are never good.

Don't let your mind be clouded by the Guy at the Gym fallacy. There is no reason that a martial class can't be just as powerful and awesome, albeit silly, as a caster. Except prejudice. In a world of 9th level spells, how is a martial being awesome any different? Because they have to be grounded in reality?

[Ssalarn]

I dislike this feat. Too situational, especially since you need a closed door and you need enemies behind it. ***

Or a window or walls. It's just situational enough to justify the relative power. Plus it promotes scouting and smart team play, which I consider to be a plus.

[Psyren]

It's not even that silly really. You kick in a door and you startle or confuse them. Pretty easy stuff to grok.

If there were no save then I'd be much less charitable, but saves make it fair (and again, can be fudged for dramatic villain-ness if needed.)

Right, but you have still spent 15+ posts discussing my discomfort of the feat with me. So it clearly does matter to you, otherwise you would have made the "your discomfort of the feat doesn't matter matter to me" around the 6th post or earlier.

Whatever you say. *shrug*

Or a window or walls. It's just situational enough to justify the relative power. Plus it promotes scouting and smart team play, which I consider to be a plus.

Absolutely. Imagine a room with multiple doors. Now you have to pick the best one to smash through. Everybody gets involved. Win/win!

[Boci]

(and again, can be fudged for dramatic villain-ness if needed.)

Which is bad DMing by most standard.

Whatever you say. *shrug*

Yes, people don't make 15+ posts on something that doesn't matter to them. Its just simply logic.

Considering that the definition of what casters can do is basically exactly that? Yes, Just because Magic can be handwaved as well, magic, doesn't give it the excuse that it gets to ignore what is and isn't "silly". Double standards are never good.

And all generalizations are wrong.

Don't let your mind be clouded by the Guy at the Gym fallacy. There is no reason that a martial class can't be just as powerful and awesome, albeit silly, as a caster.

Except there is, its something called game preference. I want martial characters to be just as powerful, or rather just as useful as casters, but I don't want them to be just as silly.

To me, the whole point is that someone who wields a weapon and someone who wields magic should operate differently, whilst being of equal value to the party.

[Ssalarn]

Considering that the definition of what casters can do is basically exactly that? Yes

This.

It's not even that silly really. You kick in a door and you startle or confuse them. Pretty easy stuff to grok.

And this.

It's a thematically appropriate, reasonably situational, cinematic, and suitably powerful ability based on real life tactics with a fantasy twist that you could easily see as the opening to a fight scene in a book, movie, or comic. It lets martial characters do something very meaningful other than charge or full attack to contribute to combat (particularly true of Fighters), and since it's important to know that you're breaking through the right window/door/wall it's probably going to encourage teamwork and scouting which means it promotes inter-party cooperation. It auto-scales, but isn't tied to the unfortunately imbalanced CMB/CMD system, which starts falling apart after about level 8 or so due to size bonuses and investment requirements. It also has reasonable prereqs and automatically scales with level. The guy who wrote this deserves a freaking medal for setting the bar in martial feat design over at Paizo.

[Snowbluff]

Isn't 3.5 Call of Duty (i.e. the original) and PF Battlefield (another companies attempt to copy the success of the origional with some minor improvements which are greatly overstated by the fans)?

PF is BF4.

Or a window or walls. It's just situational enough to justify the relative power. Plus it promotes scouting and smart team play, which I consider to be a plus.

Well, there is conditions within conditions. Don't spend your feat on something you can't assume. Not to mention it's not crazy strong, either. If you have the surprise round, wouldn't you be able to neutralize the targets otherwise?

[Boci]

Well, there is conditions within conditions. Don't spend your feat on something you can't assume. Not to mention it's not crazy strong, either. If you have the surprise round, wouldn't you be able to neutralize the targets otherwise?

How many non-situational feats are there for melee? There's less situational feats, but feats that are useful in every situation tend to be weak to compensate, and PF, like 3.5, requires some specialization. And so, a surprise round is not an auto win.

It's a thematically appropriate, reasonably situational, cinematic, and suitably powerful ability based on real life tactics with a fantasy twist that you could easily see as the opening to a fight scene in a book, movie, or comic. It lets martial characters do something very meaningful other than charge or full attack to contribute to combat (particularly true of Fighters), and since it's important to know that you're breaking through the right window/door/wall it's probably going to encourage teamwork and scouting which means it promotes inter-party cooperation. It auto-scales, but isn't tied to the unfortunately imbalanced CMB/CMD system, which starts falling apart after about level 8 or so due to size bonuses and investment requirements. It also has reasonable prereqs and automatically scales with level. The guy who wrote this deserves a freaking medal for setting the bar in martial feat design over at Paizo.

Good for you, enjoy your game played in this way. In my games, I will stick to my rewritten version of the feat.

[stack]

Plus its great for entering taverns.
Smash through window, stunning entire room.
Stand up, calmly walk over to bar, take drink.
Smash out through window.

Too bad all the feats in the supplement are not of the same quality. The damnation feats are actually solid if you don't mind not getting raised and being evil, but chainbreaker is terrible. Even with some kind of improvised weapon build (niche to begin with), it is 1d4 damage and wrecks your improvised weapon. Yeah, I'm grabbing that one. (Haven't checked out the betrayal feats yet)

Craft shadow piercing is another way to stack items, so that's something useful I suppose.

[Kudaku]

Isn't 3.5 Call of Duty (i.e. the original) and PF Battlefield (another companies attempt to copy the success of the origional with some minor improvements which are greatly overstated by the fans)?

Fun Fact: Battlefield was released before Call of Duty. As far as the FPS genre goes, they're also rather different games - claiming that BF tries to copy CoD is roughly similar to claiming that Gran Turismo is trying to muscle in on Mariokart's success.

[Boci]

Fun Fact: Battlefield was released before Call of Duty. As far as the FPS genre goes, they're also rather different games - claiming that BF tries to copy CoD is roughly similar to claiming that Gran Turismo are trying to muscle in on Mariokart's success.

Meh. I don't play modern shooters. I knew one tried to emulate the success of the other and I thought it was CoD that came first. Switch the two. Or don't, it wasn't a serious remark. Rather different games? Not what I heard.

[Red Fel]

Except there is, its something called game preference. I want martial characters to be just as powerful, or rather just as useful as casters, but I don't want them to be just as silly.

To me, the whole point is that someone who wields a weapon and someone who wields magic should operate differently, whilst being of equal value to the party.

The problem with that position is twofold.

First, martial characters are not just as useful as casters. It's really unfortunate, because it shouldn't be the case, but in D&D and PF, it's the sad truth. Casters can do anything, and martials can do a handful of things, usually involving combat or skill checks. So they're already starting from a weaker position.

Second, the part I've already mentioned - the double standard. Casters can do anything, and they can be silly. Martials can't do anything, and you're also saying they can't be silly. I've said my piece on this, and won't repeat it.

The bottom line is that martial characters aren't "of equal value to the party" to begin with; by imposing further limitations, you're further limiting their options. (Yes, I know you offered a rework of the feat. I wasn't talking about that option. I was talking about the option of being silly.)

[Kudaku]

Meh. I don't play modern shooters. I knew one tried to emulate the success of the other and I thought it was CoD that came first. Switch the two. Or don't, it wasn't a serious remark. Rather different games? Not what I heard.

Neither one is trying to emulate the success of the other, they're independently developed games focusing on very different gameplay mechanics. The "copycat"-argument is usually made by fanboys to bring down whichever game they're not emotionally invested in. IE don't believe everything you hear.

[Deadline]

Sure, I wasn't objecting to its power.

You keep saying this, but when you changed the feat, you changed both the fluff (which you found silly), and the power (you made it weaker). You do clearly have a small issue with the power of the feat (it stuns, and you don't want it to be able to stun). If you didn't, then why not simply change the fluff to reflect something the martial character could do that would make sense to you? The only mechanical change at that point would be removing the references to being withing 20ft. of a door the fighter kicks in to being within 20ft. of the fighter.

And I missed it, but do you also veto the Barbarian who intimidates that was brought up earlier in the thread? Because cowering makes a bad guy look like way more of a wuss than stunned does.

[Boci]

Neither one is trying to emulate the success of the other, they're independently developed games focusing on very different gameplay mechanics. The "copycat"-argument is usually made by fanboys to bring down whichever game they're not emotionally invested in. IE don't believe everything you hear.

I dunno, when one company does really well others tend to follow suit. Hence why resident evil started to become more action horror and less survival. Plus the prevalence of the cover based shooter, that wasn't because every company just happened to develop games like that simultaneously and independently. No, cover based shooters started to become a success so other companies emulated that in their own games.

The problem with that position is twofold.

First, martial characters are not just as useful as casters.

But they can be, and they generally are in my games, due to heavy handed but necessary (at least by my judgement) house rules. So any thoughts originating from this in general isn't that useful to me or my games.

You keep saying this, but when you changed the feat, you changed both the fluff (which you found silly), and the power (you made it weaker).

I did? It no longer requires a door and no longer has a 20ft range, rather its now based on seeing/hearing the fighter.

And I missed it, but do you also veto the Barbarian who intimidates that was brought up earlier in the thread? Because cowering makes a bad guy look like way more of a wuss than stunned does.

The more optimized versions yes.

[Psyren]

Well, there is conditions within conditions. Don't spend your feat on something you can't assume.

Martial Master? You can get this in less than 6 seconds whenever you need it

Plus its great for entering taverns.
Smash through window, stunning entire room.

A 20ft. bar probably isn't a very fun place to drink anyway.

[Kudaku]

I dunno, when one company does really well others tend to follow suit. Hence why resident evil started to become more action horror and less survival. Plus the prevalence of the cover based shooter, that wasn't because every company just happened to develop games like that simultaneously and independently. No, cover based shooters started to become a success so other companies emulated that in their own games.

...And I have to ask, are you aware that neither Battlefield or Call of Duty are cover-based shooters? It's hard to discuss the similarities and differences with someone who makes a point of saying he hasn't played the games but bases his opinion on what someone else has told him.

[stack]

Pick a centrally located window then. Or figure out a way to break through multiple in one turn.

[Boci]

...And I have to ask, are you aware that neither Battlefield or Call of Duty are cover-based shooters?

I never said they were. I brought up cover based shooters as an example of games developed independently never the less trying to emulate the success of previous games.

It's hard to discuss the similarities and differences with someone who makes a point of saying he hasn't played the games but bases his opinion on what someone else has told him.

Yes I do, as humans tend to. The vast majority of what we know is because someone else has told us, be it the news, our teachers, friends. I respect the sources that told me that the games are similar that includes a friend who plays the games and professionals within the industry. Should I listen to you instead?

[Deadline]

I did? It no longer requires a door and no longer has a 20ft range, rather its now based on seeing/hearing the fighter.

Yes. And Dazed on a failed save + Shaken on a successful save is still worse than Stunned on a failed save. The feat you made is still something that I could see a martial character taking, so you didn't make it pointless, but you did reduce the power of the feat.

For what it's worth, an exploding door or the like could easily have enough force to tear the weapon out of someone's grasp (or a minion bumps into him in disarray, knocking the weapon away). That way they can still be bad*ss and drop their weapon. Also, if this is happening in the surprise round, perhaps the BBEG doesn't have his weapon drawn yet, in which case there is nothing to drop, and he'll simply draw it on the move for free when it's his turn to go. And let's not even get into BBEGs who don't even need a weapon.

That said, if I understand your objection correctly, it isn't that you object to a bad guy being stunned and dropping his sword because of the fighter kicking in the door, because if that were the case, you'd simply remove the door nonsense. You quite clearly also don't want your big bad stunned when the PC's bust in. Maybe it's just the area effect nature of it? Because you did state you thought it would be ok for the same result to happen due to something like Stunning Fist. Is there any fluff you'd be happy with where the end result is the Big Bad being stunned? Or is it more not liking the martial PCs being intimidating bad mamajamas in their own right? The wispy bookworm can do it because magic, but the guy who has the skill and attitude to stare down a mama dragon while eating baby dragon steaks isn't allowed to do so because reasons?

And lest you misunderstand, I'm not mocking your playstyle here or anything (I can at least agree that kool-aid manning in is rather silly). If the answer to that last question above is simply "yes", then so be it. I may not really understand it, but as long as you and your players have fun, you are doing it right.

Goodness knows that I've got plenty of hangups myself (*gives the stinkeye to BoED Conversion rules using Diplomacy*).

The more optimized versions yes.

I'm unclear here. What is a "more optimized version"? Is it the Imperious Command feat (which makes the bad guy cower)?