![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Trading Damage for Accuracy?
Oct. 15th, 2006 08:00 am
More swashbucklery thoughts for D&D 3E: the system currently has rules for trading accuracy for more damage (Power Attack) and trading accuracy for a better defense (Expertise), but not for the idea of hitting more accurately with less force. I can understand why the original designers might have avoided it since so much of the system is built around controlling the ability to connect, but for a swashbuckler game I think it's needed.
I'm considering adding a feat that lets you take a reduction on your damage to get a bonus to hit. My current scheme is that you can boost your attack roll by up to your BAB or +3, whichever is lower (similar to the cap on Expertise). Each +1 you take hit hit gives you a -3 to your damage roll. There's the usual rule that a hit has to do at least 1 point of damage.
If I do add this, it's also likely to be the prerequisite for Improved Feint (and maybe Improved Staredown, to keep the CHA based techniques together the same way they keep the STR and INT styles together...). Do people think this makes sense? Is a +1/-3 trade off balanced? Having a +1 BAB/-1 dam is obviously broken, but is +1/-3 enough to balance it or too much? Should I instead have Weapon Finesse be the prerequisite for this? Any thoughts are appreciated.
Oh, Dave and Bec? You can post - you don't need to have an LJ account to add anonymous comments.
I'm considering adding a feat that lets you take a reduction on your damage to get a bonus to hit. My current scheme is that you can boost your attack roll by up to your BAB or +3, whichever is lower (similar to the cap on Expertise). Each +1 you take hit hit gives you a -3 to your damage roll. There's the usual rule that a hit has to do at least 1 point of damage.
If I do add this, it's also likely to be the prerequisite for Improved Feint (and maybe Improved Staredown, to keep the CHA based techniques together the same way they keep the STR and INT styles together...). Do people think this makes sense? Is a +1/-3 trade off balanced? Having a +1 BAB/-1 dam is obviously broken, but is +1/-3 enough to balance it or too much? Should I instead have Weapon Finesse be the prerequisite for this? Any thoughts are appreciated.
Oh, Dave and Bec? You can post - you don't need to have an LJ account to add anonymous comments.
